Cargando…

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an effective surgical option for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with spondylolisthesis. However, few studies have discussed oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) with MIS-TLIF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate postoperative im...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gao, Quan-You, Wei, Fei-Long, Li, Tian, Zhu, Kai-Long, Du, Ming-Rui, Heng, Wei, Yang, Fan, Gao, Hao-Ran, Qian, Ji-Xian, Zhou, Cheng-Pei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35665352
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.829426
_version_ 1784719384558698496
author Gao, Quan-You
Wei, Fei-Long
Li, Tian
Zhu, Kai-Long
Du, Ming-Rui
Heng, Wei
Yang, Fan
Gao, Hao-Ran
Qian, Ji-Xian
Zhou, Cheng-Pei
author_facet Gao, Quan-You
Wei, Fei-Long
Li, Tian
Zhu, Kai-Long
Du, Ming-Rui
Heng, Wei
Yang, Fan
Gao, Hao-Ran
Qian, Ji-Xian
Zhou, Cheng-Pei
author_sort Gao, Quan-You
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an effective surgical option for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with spondylolisthesis. However, few studies have discussed oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) with MIS-TLIF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate postoperative improvements, complications, and reoperation rates between patients with LSS undergoing OLIF or MIS-TLIF. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 113 LLS patients who underwent OLIF (53) or MIS-TLIF (60) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between January 2016 and December 2018. We measured estimated blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, reoperation, and complication incidence, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores, discal and foraminal height and lumbar lordotic angle. RESULTS: The mean age was 58.81 ± 0.9 years. The TLIF group had increased operation time, blood loss, and hospital stays (p = 0.007, 0.001, and 0.016, respectively). Postoperatively, VAS and ODI scores significantly decreased while JOA and SF-36 scores significantly increased. The postoperative differences in main outcomes between the groups were insignificant (all p > 0.05). The OLIF group had the lowest rates of overall (9.8% OLIF vs. 12.9% MIS-TLIF), intraoperative (3.9% OLIF vs. 4.8% MIS-TLIF), and postoperative complications (5.9% OLIF vs. 8.1% MIS-TLIF), but the differences were insignificant (p = 0.607, 0.813, and 0.653, respectively). The reoperation rate did not differ significantly (3.8% OLIF vs. 3.3% MIS-TLIF) (p = 0.842). OLIF restored disc height (74.4 vs. 32.0%), foraminal height (27.4 vs. 18.2%), and lumbar lordotic angle (3.5 vs. 1.1%) with greater success than did MIS-TLIF. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing OLIF with LSS improved similarly to MIS-TLIF patients. OLIF restored disc height, foraminal height and lumbar lordotic angle more successfully than did MIS-TLIF.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9160969
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91609692022-06-03 Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study Gao, Quan-You Wei, Fei-Long Li, Tian Zhu, Kai-Long Du, Ming-Rui Heng, Wei Yang, Fan Gao, Hao-Ran Qian, Ji-Xian Zhou, Cheng-Pei Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is an effective surgical option for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) with spondylolisthesis. However, few studies have discussed oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) with MIS-TLIF. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate postoperative improvements, complications, and reoperation rates between patients with LSS undergoing OLIF or MIS-TLIF. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 113 LLS patients who underwent OLIF (53) or MIS-TLIF (60) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between January 2016 and December 2018. We measured estimated blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, reoperation, and complication incidence, visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores, discal and foraminal height and lumbar lordotic angle. RESULTS: The mean age was 58.81 ± 0.9 years. The TLIF group had increased operation time, blood loss, and hospital stays (p = 0.007, 0.001, and 0.016, respectively). Postoperatively, VAS and ODI scores significantly decreased while JOA and SF-36 scores significantly increased. The postoperative differences in main outcomes between the groups were insignificant (all p > 0.05). The OLIF group had the lowest rates of overall (9.8% OLIF vs. 12.9% MIS-TLIF), intraoperative (3.9% OLIF vs. 4.8% MIS-TLIF), and postoperative complications (5.9% OLIF vs. 8.1% MIS-TLIF), but the differences were insignificant (p = 0.607, 0.813, and 0.653, respectively). The reoperation rate did not differ significantly (3.8% OLIF vs. 3.3% MIS-TLIF) (p = 0.842). OLIF restored disc height (74.4 vs. 32.0%), foraminal height (27.4 vs. 18.2%), and lumbar lordotic angle (3.5 vs. 1.1%) with greater success than did MIS-TLIF. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing OLIF with LSS improved similarly to MIS-TLIF patients. OLIF restored disc height, foraminal height and lumbar lordotic angle more successfully than did MIS-TLIF. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-05-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9160969/ /pubmed/35665352 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.829426 Text en Copyright © 2022 Gao, Wei, Li, Zhu, Du, Heng, Yang, Gao, Qian and Zhou. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Medicine
Gao, Quan-You
Wei, Fei-Long
Li, Tian
Zhu, Kai-Long
Du, Ming-Rui
Heng, Wei
Yang, Fan
Gao, Hao-Ran
Qian, Ji-Xian
Zhou, Cheng-Pei
Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title_full Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title_fullStr Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title_full_unstemmed Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title_short Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title_sort oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective cohort study
topic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9160969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35665352
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.829426
work_keys_str_mv AT gaoquanyou obliquelateralinterbodyfusionvsminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT weifeilong obliquelateralinterbodyfusionvsminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT litian obliquelateralinterbodyfusionvsminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT zhukailong obliquelateralinterbodyfusionvsminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT dumingrui obliquelateralinterbodyfusionvsminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT hengwei obliquelateralinterbodyfusionvsminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT yangfan obliquelateralinterbodyfusionvsminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT gaohaoran obliquelateralinterbodyfusionvsminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT qianjixian obliquelateralinterbodyfusionvsminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT zhouchengpei obliquelateralinterbodyfusionvsminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionforlumbarspinalstenosisaretrospectivecohortstudy