Cargando…

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two fixation methods combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis in adult patients

BACKGROUND: To observe the clinical efficacy of an anterior single rob-screw fixation (ASRSF) combined with the oblique lumbar intervertebral fusion (OLIF) approach compared with a posterior percutaneous screw fixation (PPSF) combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHOD: T...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Xinliang, Guo, Yunshan, Li, Yibing
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8862256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35189897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02991-z
_version_ 1784655021451771904
author Zhang, Xinliang
Guo, Yunshan
Li, Yibing
author_facet Zhang, Xinliang
Guo, Yunshan
Li, Yibing
author_sort Zhang, Xinliang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To observe the clinical efficacy of an anterior single rob-screw fixation (ASRSF) combined with the oblique lumbar intervertebral fusion (OLIF) approach compared with a posterior percutaneous screw fixation (PPSF) combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHOD: This is a retrospective case–control study. Patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) treated with either ASRSF combined with OLIF or PPSF combined with OLIF from January 2016 to January 2018 were enrolled in this study. None of the patients had posterior decompression. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) were used for clinical efficacy assessment. The pre- and post-operational disc height, height of foramen, subsidence, and migration of cages, fusion rate and surgery-related complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included in this single-center study. According to the fixation methods, patients were divided into the ASRSF group (group A, 25 cases) and the PPSF group (group B, 28 cases). There was no statistical difference in surgery-related complications between groups. There was a significant difference in the VAS score at one-week post-surgery (2.3 ± 0.5 vs. 3.5 ± 0.4, P = 0.01), and three months post-operation (2.2 ± 0.3 vs. 3.0 ± 0.3, P = 0.01). Comparison of post-operative imaging data showed that there was a significant difference in the height of the foramen between groups at three months post-surgery(18.1 ± 2.3 mm vs. 16.9 ± 1.9 mm, P = 0.04). At 24 months post-surgery, the ODI was 12.65 ± 3.6 in group A and 19.1 ± 3.4 in group B (P = 0.01). Twelve months after surgery, the fusion rate in group A at 72.0% and 78.6% in group B was not statistically significant (P = 0.75). Fusion was identified in all patients at 24 months post-surgery. CONCLUSION: When compared to PPSF, ASRSF combined with OLIF for DLS can reduce post-operative low back pain in the initial stages, maintain the height of the foramen and improve the performance of lumbar function.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8862256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88622562022-02-23 Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two fixation methods combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis in adult patients Zhang, Xinliang Guo, Yunshan Li, Yibing J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: To observe the clinical efficacy of an anterior single rob-screw fixation (ASRSF) combined with the oblique lumbar intervertebral fusion (OLIF) approach compared with a posterior percutaneous screw fixation (PPSF) combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHOD: This is a retrospective case–control study. Patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) treated with either ASRSF combined with OLIF or PPSF combined with OLIF from January 2016 to January 2018 were enrolled in this study. None of the patients had posterior decompression. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) were used for clinical efficacy assessment. The pre- and post-operational disc height, height of foramen, subsidence, and migration of cages, fusion rate and surgery-related complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were included in this single-center study. According to the fixation methods, patients were divided into the ASRSF group (group A, 25 cases) and the PPSF group (group B, 28 cases). There was no statistical difference in surgery-related complications between groups. There was a significant difference in the VAS score at one-week post-surgery (2.3 ± 0.5 vs. 3.5 ± 0.4, P = 0.01), and three months post-operation (2.2 ± 0.3 vs. 3.0 ± 0.3, P = 0.01). Comparison of post-operative imaging data showed that there was a significant difference in the height of the foramen between groups at three months post-surgery(18.1 ± 2.3 mm vs. 16.9 ± 1.9 mm, P = 0.04). At 24 months post-surgery, the ODI was 12.65 ± 3.6 in group A and 19.1 ± 3.4 in group B (P = 0.01). Twelve months after surgery, the fusion rate in group A at 72.0% and 78.6% in group B was not statistically significant (P = 0.75). Fusion was identified in all patients at 24 months post-surgery. CONCLUSION: When compared to PPSF, ASRSF combined with OLIF for DLS can reduce post-operative low back pain in the initial stages, maintain the height of the foramen and improve the performance of lumbar function. BioMed Central 2022-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8862256/ /pubmed/35189897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02991-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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
Zhang, Xinliang
Guo, Yunshan
Li, Yibing
Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two fixation methods combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis in adult patients
title Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two fixation methods combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis in adult patients
title_full Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two fixation methods combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis in adult patients
title_fullStr Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two fixation methods combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis in adult patients
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two fixation methods combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis in adult patients
title_short Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two fixation methods combined with OLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis in adult patients
title_sort comparison of the clinical efficacy of two fixation methods combined with olif in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis in adult patients
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8862256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35189897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-02991-z
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangxinliang comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyoftwofixationmethodscombinedwitholifinthetreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesisinadultpatients
AT guoyunshan comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyoftwofixationmethodscombinedwitholifinthetreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesisinadultpatients
AT liyibing comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyoftwofixationmethodscombinedwitholifinthetreatmentoflumbarspondylolisthesisinadultpatients