Cargando…

Perioperative Clinical Features and Long-term Prognosis After Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF), OLIF With Anterolateral Screw Fixation, or OLIF With Percutaneous Pedicle Fixation: A Comprehensive Treatment Strategy for Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Disease

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), OLIF combined with anterolateral screw fixation (OLIF-AF), and OLIF combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (OLIF-PF) in the treatment of single-level or 2-level degenerative lumbar disease. METHODS: Between Jan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Xiangyu, Wang, Yutian, Zhang, Weikang, Liu, Shaocheng, Liu, Zhenlei, Wang, Kai, Wu, Hao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10323359/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37401071
http://dx.doi.org/10.14245/ns.2244954.477
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), OLIF combined with anterolateral screw fixation (OLIF-AF), and OLIF combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (OLIF-PF) in the treatment of single-level or 2-level degenerative lumbar disease. METHODS: Between January 2017 and 2021, 71 patients were treated with OLIF and combined OLIF. The demographic data, clinical outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and complications were compared among the 3 groups. RESULTS: The operative time and intraoperative blood loss in the OLIF (p<0.05) and OLIF-AF (p<0.05) groups were lower than in the OLIF-PF group. Posterior disk height improvement in the OLIF-PF group was better than in the OLIF (p<0.05) and OLIF-AF (p<0.05) groups. In terms of foraminal height (FH), the OLIF-PF group was significantly better than the OLIF group (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the OLIF-PF and OLIF-AF groups (p>0.05) or between the OLIF and OLIF-AF groups (p>0.05). There were no significant differences in fusion rates, the incidence of complications, lumbar lordosis, anterior disc height, and cross-sectional area among the 3 groups (p>0.05). The OLIF-PF group had significantly lower rates of subsidence than the OLIF group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: OLIF remains a viable option with similar patient-reported outcomes and fusion rates compared with surgeries that include lateral and posterior internal fixation while greatly reducing the financial burden, intraoperative time, and intraoperative blood loss. OLIF has a higher subsidence rate than lateral and posterior internal fixation, but most subsidence is mild and has no adverse effect on clinical and radiographic outcomes.