Cargando…
Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the radiological and clinical outcomes with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to evaluate the effect of indirect decompression through oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) as revision surgery. METHODS: We enrolled patients who underwent single-level fusio...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9537844/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36203280 http://dx.doi.org/10.14245/ns.2244242.121 |
_version_ | 1784803287513432064 |
---|---|
author | Park, Sang-Jin Hwang, Jong-Moon Cho, Dae-Chul Lee, Subum Kim, Chi Heon Han, Inbo Park, Dae-Won Kwon, Heum-Dai Kim, Kyoung-Tae |
author_facet | Park, Sang-Jin Hwang, Jong-Moon Cho, Dae-Chul Lee, Subum Kim, Chi Heon Han, Inbo Park, Dae-Won Kwon, Heum-Dai Kim, Kyoung-Tae |
author_sort | Park, Sang-Jin |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: This study compared the radiological and clinical outcomes with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to evaluate the effect of indirect decompression through oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) as revision surgery. METHODS: We enrolled patients who underwent single-level fusion with revision surgery at the same level as the previous decompression level. We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients who underwent OLIF from 2017 to 2018 and 25 who received TLIF from 2014 to 2018. Radiologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, thickness and area of ligamentum flavum (LF), subsidence, disc height, fusion rate, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Compared with OLIF, the thickness and area of the LF after surgery were significantly less in TLIF, and the resulting CSA extension was also significantly higher. However, both groups showed improvement in ODI and VAS after surgery, and there was no difference between the groups. Complications related to the posterior approach in TLIF were 4 cases, and in OLIF, there were 2 cases that underwent additional posterior decompression surgery and 6 cases of transient paresthesia. CONCLUSION: Since complications associated with the posterior approach can be avoided, OLIF is a safer and useful minimally invasive surgery. Therefore, appropriate indications are applied, OLIF is a good alternative to TLIF when revision surgery is considered. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9537844 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95378442022-10-17 Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery Park, Sang-Jin Hwang, Jong-Moon Cho, Dae-Chul Lee, Subum Kim, Chi Heon Han, Inbo Park, Dae-Won Kwon, Heum-Dai Kim, Kyoung-Tae Neurospine Original Article OBJECTIVE: This study compared the radiological and clinical outcomes with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to evaluate the effect of indirect decompression through oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) as revision surgery. METHODS: We enrolled patients who underwent single-level fusion with revision surgery at the same level as the previous decompression level. We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients who underwent OLIF from 2017 to 2018 and 25 who received TLIF from 2014 to 2018. Radiologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, thickness and area of ligamentum flavum (LF), subsidence, disc height, fusion rate, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Compared with OLIF, the thickness and area of the LF after surgery were significantly less in TLIF, and the resulting CSA extension was also significantly higher. However, both groups showed improvement in ODI and VAS after surgery, and there was no difference between the groups. Complications related to the posterior approach in TLIF were 4 cases, and in OLIF, there were 2 cases that underwent additional posterior decompression surgery and 6 cases of transient paresthesia. CONCLUSION: Since complications associated with the posterior approach can be avoided, OLIF is a safer and useful minimally invasive surgery. Therefore, appropriate indications are applied, OLIF is a good alternative to TLIF when revision surgery is considered. Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society 2022-09 2022-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9537844/ /pubmed/36203280 http://dx.doi.org/10.14245/ns.2244242.121 Text en Copyright © 2022 by the Korean Spinal Neurosurgery Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Park, Sang-Jin Hwang, Jong-Moon Cho, Dae-Chul Lee, Subum Kim, Chi Heon Han, Inbo Park, Dae-Won Kwon, Heum-Dai Kim, Kyoung-Tae Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery |
title | Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery |
title_full | Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery |
title_fullStr | Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery |
title_full_unstemmed | Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery |
title_short | Indirect Decompression Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Revision Surgery Following Previous Posterior Decompression: Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Direct and Indirect Decompression Revision Surgery |
title_sort | indirect decompression using oblique lumbar interbody fusion revision surgery following previous posterior decompression: comparison of clinical and radiologic outcomes between direct and indirect decompression revision surgery |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9537844/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36203280 http://dx.doi.org/10.14245/ns.2244242.121 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT parksangjin indirectdecompressionusingobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionrevisionsurgeryfollowingpreviousposteriordecompressioncomparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweendirectandindirectdecompressionrevisionsurgery AT hwangjongmoon indirectdecompressionusingobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionrevisionsurgeryfollowingpreviousposteriordecompressioncomparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweendirectandindirectdecompressionrevisionsurgery AT chodaechul indirectdecompressionusingobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionrevisionsurgeryfollowingpreviousposteriordecompressioncomparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweendirectandindirectdecompressionrevisionsurgery AT leesubum indirectdecompressionusingobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionrevisionsurgeryfollowingpreviousposteriordecompressioncomparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweendirectandindirectdecompressionrevisionsurgery AT kimchiheon indirectdecompressionusingobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionrevisionsurgeryfollowingpreviousposteriordecompressioncomparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweendirectandindirectdecompressionrevisionsurgery AT haninbo indirectdecompressionusingobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionrevisionsurgeryfollowingpreviousposteriordecompressioncomparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweendirectandindirectdecompressionrevisionsurgery AT parkdaewon indirectdecompressionusingobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionrevisionsurgeryfollowingpreviousposteriordecompressioncomparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweendirectandindirectdecompressionrevisionsurgery AT kwonheumdai indirectdecompressionusingobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionrevisionsurgeryfollowingpreviousposteriordecompressioncomparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweendirectandindirectdecompressionrevisionsurgery AT kimkyoungtae indirectdecompressionusingobliquelumbarinterbodyfusionrevisionsurgeryfollowingpreviousposteriordecompressioncomparisonofclinicalandradiologicoutcomesbetweendirectandindirectdecompressionrevisionsurgery |