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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |