Cargando…

Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND: To compare standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) vs. OLIF combined with posterior bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (OLIF combined) for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent standalone OLIF or...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: He, Wei, He, Da, Sun, Yuqing, Xing, Yonggang, Wen, Jiankun, Wang, Weiheng, Xi, Yanhai, Liu, Mingming, Tian, Wei, Ye, Xiaojian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7092594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32293389
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03192-7
_version_ 1783510133627682816
author He, Wei
He, Da
Sun, Yuqing
Xing, Yonggang
Wen, Jiankun
Wang, Weiheng
Xi, Yanhai
Liu, Mingming
Tian, Wei
Ye, Xiaojian
author_facet He, Wei
He, Da
Sun, Yuqing
Xing, Yonggang
Wen, Jiankun
Wang, Weiheng
Xi, Yanhai
Liu, Mingming
Tian, Wei
Ye, Xiaojian
author_sort He, Wei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) vs. OLIF combined with posterior bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (OLIF combined) for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent standalone OLIF or combined OLIF between 07/2014 and 08/2017 at two hospitals in China. Direct decompressions were not performed. Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), satisfaction rate, anterior/posterior disc heights (DH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal width (FW), cage subsidence, cage retropulsion, fusion rate, and complications were analyzed. All imaging examinations were read independently by two physicians and the mean measurements were used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients were included: 32 with standalone OLIF and 41 with combined OLIF. The total complication rate was 25.0% with standalone OLIF and 26.8% with combined OLIF. There were no differences in VAS and ODI scores by 2 years of follow-up, but the scores were better with standalone OLIF at 1 week and 3 months (P < 0.05). PDH and FW was smaller in the combined OLIF group compared with the standalone OLIF group before and after surgery (all P < 0.05). There were significant differences in FH before surgery and at 1 week and 3 months between the two groups (all P < 0.05), but the difference disappeared by 2 years (P = 0.111). Cage subsidence occurred in 7.3% (3/41) and 7.3% (3/41) of the patients at 3 and 24 months, respectively, in the combined OLIF group, compared with 6.3% (2/32) and 15.6% (5/32), respectively, in the standalone OLIF group at the same time points (P = 0.287). There was no cage retropulsion in both groups at 2 years. The fusion rate was 85.4%(35/41) in the combined OLIF group and 84.4% (27/32) in the standalone OLIF group at 3 months(P = 0.669). At 24 months, the fusion rate was 100.0% in the combined OLIF group and 93.8% (30/32) in the standalone OLIF group (P = 0.066). CONCLUSION: Standalone OLIF may achieve equivalent clinical and radiological outcomes than OLIF combined with fixation for spondylolisthesis. The rate of complications was similar between the two groups. Patients who are osteoporotic might be better undergoing combined rather than standalone OLIF. The possibilty of proof lies within a future prospective study, preferably an RCT.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7092594
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70925942020-03-27 Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis He, Wei He, Da Sun, Yuqing Xing, Yonggang Wen, Jiankun Wang, Weiheng Xi, Yanhai Liu, Mingming Tian, Wei Ye, Xiaojian BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: To compare standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) vs. OLIF combined with posterior bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (OLIF combined) for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent standalone OLIF or combined OLIF between 07/2014 and 08/2017 at two hospitals in China. Direct decompressions were not performed. Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), satisfaction rate, anterior/posterior disc heights (DH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal width (FW), cage subsidence, cage retropulsion, fusion rate, and complications were analyzed. All imaging examinations were read independently by two physicians and the mean measurements were used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients were included: 32 with standalone OLIF and 41 with combined OLIF. The total complication rate was 25.0% with standalone OLIF and 26.8% with combined OLIF. There were no differences in VAS and ODI scores by 2 years of follow-up, but the scores were better with standalone OLIF at 1 week and 3 months (P < 0.05). PDH and FW was smaller in the combined OLIF group compared with the standalone OLIF group before and after surgery (all P < 0.05). There were significant differences in FH before surgery and at 1 week and 3 months between the two groups (all P < 0.05), but the difference disappeared by 2 years (P = 0.111). Cage subsidence occurred in 7.3% (3/41) and 7.3% (3/41) of the patients at 3 and 24 months, respectively, in the combined OLIF group, compared with 6.3% (2/32) and 15.6% (5/32), respectively, in the standalone OLIF group at the same time points (P = 0.287). There was no cage retropulsion in both groups at 2 years. The fusion rate was 85.4%(35/41) in the combined OLIF group and 84.4% (27/32) in the standalone OLIF group at 3 months(P = 0.669). At 24 months, the fusion rate was 100.0% in the combined OLIF group and 93.8% (30/32) in the standalone OLIF group (P = 0.066). CONCLUSION: Standalone OLIF may achieve equivalent clinical and radiological outcomes than OLIF combined with fixation for spondylolisthesis. The rate of complications was similar between the two groups. Patients who are osteoporotic might be better undergoing combined rather than standalone OLIF. The possibilty of proof lies within a future prospective study, preferably an RCT. BioMed Central 2020-03-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7092594/ /pubmed/32293389 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03192-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
He, Wei
He, Da
Sun, Yuqing
Xing, Yonggang
Wen, Jiankun
Wang, Weiheng
Xi, Yanhai
Liu, Mingming
Tian, Wei
Ye, Xiaojian
Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis
title Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis
title_full Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis
title_fullStr Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis
title_full_unstemmed Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis
title_short Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis
title_sort standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7092594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32293389
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03192-7
work_keys_str_mv AT hewei standaloneobliquelateralinterbodyfusionvscombinedwithpercutaneouspediclescrewinspondylolisthesis
AT heda standaloneobliquelateralinterbodyfusionvscombinedwithpercutaneouspediclescrewinspondylolisthesis
AT sunyuqing standaloneobliquelateralinterbodyfusionvscombinedwithpercutaneouspediclescrewinspondylolisthesis
AT xingyonggang standaloneobliquelateralinterbodyfusionvscombinedwithpercutaneouspediclescrewinspondylolisthesis
AT wenjiankun standaloneobliquelateralinterbodyfusionvscombinedwithpercutaneouspediclescrewinspondylolisthesis
AT wangweiheng standaloneobliquelateralinterbodyfusionvscombinedwithpercutaneouspediclescrewinspondylolisthesis
AT xiyanhai standaloneobliquelateralinterbodyfusionvscombinedwithpercutaneouspediclescrewinspondylolisthesis
AT liumingming standaloneobliquelateralinterbodyfusionvscombinedwithpercutaneouspediclescrewinspondylolisthesis
AT tianwei standaloneobliquelateralinterbodyfusionvscombinedwithpercutaneouspediclescrewinspondylolisthesis
AT yexiaojian standaloneobliquelateralinterbodyfusionvscombinedwithpercutaneouspediclescrewinspondylolisthesis