Comparison of surgical outcomes between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)

Spinal Robotics in Single-Position Lateral Surgery: A Narrative Review of Key Concepts and Considerations

Anterior column realignment via anterior, oblique, or lateral lumbar interbody fusion is increasingly recognized as a powerful mechanism for indirect decompression and sagittal realignment in flexible deformity. Single-position lateral surgery is a popular variation that places patients in the lateral decubitus position, allowing concomitant placement of lateral interbodies and posterior segmental instrumentation without the need for repositioning the patient. The addition of robotics to this technique can help to overcome ergonomic limitations of the placement of pedicle screws in the lateral decubitus position; however, its description in the literature is relatively lacking. In this review we aim to discuss the indications, advantages, and pitfalls of this approach.

Defining cage subsidence in anterior, oblique, and lateral lumbar spine fusion approaches: a systematic review of the literature

One of the most common complications of lumbar fusions is cage subsidence, which leads to collapse of disc height and reappearance of the presenting symptomology. However, definitions of cage subsidence are inconsistent, leading to a variety of subsidence calculation methodologies and thresholds. To review previously published literature on cage subsidence in order to present the most common methods for calculating and defining subsidence in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) approaches. A search was completed in PubMed and Embase with inclusion criteria focused on identifying any study that provided descriptions of the method, imaging modality, or subsidence threshold used to calculate the presence of cage subsidence. A total of 69 articles were included in the final analysis, of which 18 (26.1%) reported on the ALIF approach, 22 (31.9%) on the OLIF approach, and 31 (44.9%) on the LLIF approach, 2 of which reported on more than one approach. ALIF articles most commonly calculated the loss of disc height over time with a subsidence threshold of > 2 mm. Most OLIF articles calculated the total amount of cage migration into the vertebral bodies, with a threshold of > 2 mm. LLIF was the only approach in which most articles applied the same method for calculation, namely, a grading scale for classifying the loss of disc height over time. We recommend future articles adhere to the most common methodologies presented here to ensure accuracy and generalizability in reporting cage subsidence.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5-S1: feasibility, surgical approach window, incision line, and influencing factors

PURPOSE

The primary aim of this study was to describe the feasibility, surgical approach window (SAW), and incision line (IL) for oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5-S1 (OLIF51) using computed tomography (CT). A secondary aim was to identify associations among approach characteristics and demographic and anthropometric factors.

METHODS

We performed a radiographic study of 50 male and 50 female subjects who received abdominal CT imaging. SAW was measured as the distance from the midline to the medial border of the iliac vessel. IL was measured at the skin surface corresponding to the distance between the center of the disc space and SAW lateral margin. OLIF51 feasibility was defined as the existence of at least a 1-cm SAW without retraction of soft tissues.

RESULTS

For the left side, the OLIF51 SAW and IL were 12.1 ± 4.6 and 175.1 ± 55.3 mm. For the right side, these measures were 10.0 ± 4.3 and 185.0 ± 52.5 mm. Correlations of r = 0.648 (p < 0.001) and r = 0.656 (p < 0.001) were observed between weight and IL on the left and right sides, respectively. OLIF51 was not feasible 23% of the time.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the largest CT study to determine the feasibility of performing an OLIF51. Without the use of retraction, OLIF51 is not feasible 23% of the time. Left-sided OLIF51 allows for a larger surgical approach window and smaller incision compared to the right side. Larger incisions are required for adequate surgical exposure in patients with higher weight.

A novel surgical approach using the "lateral corridor" for minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1: a clinical series and technical note

PURPOSE

The minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (MI-OLIF) L5-S1 was introduced to overcome the limitations of conventional fusion techniques, however, MI-OLIF is not possible using the standard method due to vascular structures in some cases. We aimed to introduce the "lateral corridor" and report the details of the surgical technique with a clinical case series.

METHODS

We utilized the lateral access route of the left common iliac vein and named it the "lateral corridor", to distinguish the technique from the standard technique (central corridor). The type and frequency of branch vessels that required additional manipulations were reviewed, and the frequency of intraoperative vascular injury was investigated.

RESULTS

Among the 107 patients who underwent MI-OLIF L5-S1, 26 patients (24.3%) who received the "lateral corridor" technique were included. Branch vessel ligation was required in 42.3% of the patients. The types of branch vessels that required ligation were seven cases (26.9%) of the iliolumbar vein (ILV) and six cases (23.1%) of ascending lumbar vein (ALV). The ILV and ALV were ligated in two cases. None of the patients developed intraoperative vascular injuries.

CONCLUSION

We introduced the "lateral corridor" as an alternative approach for MI-OLIF L5-S1, implemented it in 24.3% of the patient cohort, and reported favorable outcomes devoid of vascular complications. The "lateral corridor" necessitated ligation of the ILV or ALV in 42.3% of cases. The "lateral corridor" approach appears to be a promising surgical technique, offering feasibility even in instances where the vascular anatomy precludes the employment of the conventional approach.

Can zoledronic acid reduce the risk of cage subsidence after oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in the elderly population? A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential of zoledronic acid for reducing the incidence of cage subsidence and enhancing interbody fusion rates following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) surgery, particularly as the first reported evidence of the role of zoledronic acid combined with OLIF.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 108 elderly patients treated for degenerative lumbar diseases using OLIF combined with bilateral pedicle screw fixation from January 2018 to December 2021. Patients were divided into the zoledronic acid (ZOL) group (43 patients, 67 surgical segments) and the control group (65 patients, 86 surgical segments). A comparative analysis of the radiographic and clinical outcomes between the groups was performed, employing univariate and multivariate regression analyses to explore the relationships between cage subsidence and the independent variables.

RESULTS

Radiographic outcomes, including anterior height, posterior height, disc height, coronal disc angle, foraminal height, and lumbar lordosis, were not significantly different between the two groups. Similarly, no statistically significant differences were noted in the back visual analog scale (VAS) scores and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores between the groups. However, at the 1-year follow-up, the leg VAS score was lower in the ZOL group than in the control group (P = 0.028). The ZOL group demonstrated a notably lower cage subsidence rate (20.9%) than did the control group (43.0%) (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the interbody fusion rate between the ZOL group (93.0%) and the control group (90.8%). Non-use of zoledronic acid emerged as an independent risk factor for cage subsidence (OR = 6.047, P = 0.003), along with lower bone mineral density, lower postoperative anterior height, and concave endplate morphology. The model exhibited robust discriminative performance, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.872.

CONCLUSION

The administration of zoledronic acid mitigates the risk of cage subsidence following OLIF combined with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in elderly patients; however, it does not improve the interbody fusion rate.

Minimally Invasive L4-5 Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Robot-Assisted Single-Position Posterior Fixation: 2-Dimensional Operative Video

We present here a 58-year-old female patient with L4-5 spondylolisthesis, who underwent a minimally invasive L4-5 oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with robot-assisted bilateral posterior instrumented fixation in a single lateral position (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic). There has been interest in detailed video-based descriptions of single-position surgery with lateral approach interbody fusions, either in the prone or lateral decubitus position.1-6 Particularly, the addition of robotics has been shown to help increase overall operating efficiency in the lateral position with reduced case times even with the increased up-front robot setup time.7,8 The OLIF, also known as an anterior-to-psoas approach, allows for single-position posterior fixation and can be very effective at L4-5 where the anatomy of the iliac crest or lumbar plexus does not preclude this surgical corridor the way it could in the transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Clinical outcomes between these 2 lateral approaches have been shown to be very good,9 and OLIF has reduced blood loss while still restoring alignment parameters compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion, with better fusion and reduced subsidence compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.10,11 To our knowledge, this is the first video demonstrating a view of the OLIF approach through a high-definition retractor-based camera (MaxView Camera, Viseon Inc). There is no identifying patient information in this video. The participants and any identifiable individuals consented to publication of his/her image, and the patient consented to the procedure.

Biomechanical differences between two different shapes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion cages on whether to add posterior internal fixation system: a finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

Oblique lateral lumbar fusion (OLIF) is widely used in spinal degeneration, deformity and other diseases. The purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical differences between two different shapes of OLIF cages on whether to add posterior internal fixation system, using finite element analysis.

METHODS

A complete three-dimensional finite element model is established and verified for L3-L5. Surgical simulation was performed on the verified model, and the L4-L5 was the surgical segment. A total of the stand-alone group (Model A1, Model B1) and the BPSF group (Model A2, Model B2) were constructed. The four OLIF surgical models were: A1. Stand-alone OLIF with a kidney-shaped Cage; B1. Stand-alone OLIF with a straight cage; A2. OLIF with a kidney-shaped cage + BPSF; B2. Stand-alone OLIF with a straight cage + BPSF, respectively. The differences in the range of motion of the surgical segment (ROM), equivalent stress peak of the cage (ESPC), the maximum equivalent stress of the endplate (MESE) and the maximum stress of the internal fixation (MSIF) were compared between different models.

RESULTS

All OLIF surgical models showed that ROM declines between 74.87 and 96.77% at L4-L5 operative levels. The decreasing order of ROM was Model A2 > Model B2 > Model A1 > Model A2. In addition, the ESPC and MESE of Model A2 are smaller than those of other OLIF models. Except for the left-bending position, the MSIF of Model B2 increased by 1.51-16.69% compared with Model A2 in each position. The maximum value of MESE was 124.4 Mpa for Model B1 in the backward extension position, and the minimum value was 7.91 Mpa for Model A2 in the right rotation. Stand-alone group showed significantly higher ROMs and ESPCs than the BPSF group, with maximum values of 66.66% and 70.59%. For MESE, the BPSF group model can be reduced by 89.88% compared to the stand-alone group model.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the traditional straight OLIF cage, the kidney-shaped OLIF cage can further improve the stability of the surgical segment, reduce ESPC, MESE and MSIF, and help to reduce the risk of cage subsidence.

Effect of spinal orthosis on clinical outcomes of patients after oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a randomized controlled trial study protocol

BACKGROUND

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is an internationally popular minimally invasive technology for the treatment of various lumbar diseases. Since its introduction to China in 2014, OLIF technology has clearly shown its superiority in reconstructing intervertebral stability, restoring intervertebral space height, achieving indirect decompression, and restoring normal lumbar sequence. However, some patients still suffer from persistent symptoms after OLIF, including low back pain and soreness, which indirectly affect the overall surgical efficacy and patient satisfaction. Therefore, some clinicians recommend that patients routinely use spinal orthoses after OLIF to reduce the stress on the lower back muscles and ligaments, thereby relieving or avoiding postoperative residual symptoms or new symptoms. Accordingly, spinal orthosis use after OLIF has emerged as an essential option. However, the role of spinal orthoses in OLIF and their specific impact on postoperative patient clinical outcomes have remained unclear, and there is a lack of strong clinical evidence to indirectly or directly support the role of spinal orthoses in OLIF and demonstrate their impact on patient clinical outcomes. This study aims to investigate the role of spinal orthoses in OLIF by grouping patients based on the use or nonuse of spinal orthosis after OLIF, thus providing a better basis for the majority of patients and physicians.

METHODS/DESIGN

We plan to conduct a 1-year randomized controlled trial involving 60 subjects. The subjects will be randomized into two groups: group A (those wearing spinal orthoses after surgery) and group B (those not wearing spinal orthoses after surgery). The clinical outcomes of these patients will be evaluated using the Oswestry disability index, visual analog scale, and Brantigan, Steffee, Fraser 1 day before surgery and 2 weeks and 1, 6, and 12 months after surgery.

DISCUSSION

This randomized controlled trial aims to provide a reference for further comprehensive trial design. The findings of this study will provide a better and more scientific basis for the choice of postoperative rehabilitation and treatment for patients undergoing such a procedure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration No.: ChiCTR2200059000). Registration date: April 22, 2022. Registration website: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=166310.

Should a Narrow Corridor Be a Contraindication for Performing Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Procedure or Not?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the effect of corridor width on the postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent the OLIF procedure.

METHODS

Patients who underwent OLIF surgery, which included L4-5, between 2015 and 2021 were retrospectively studied. The patients were divided into three groups by the width of the corridor: not more than 10 mm, between 10 and 20 mm, and 20 mm or more. We compared clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications between these groups.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients were included. There were no significant differences in VAS leg and back pain scores, ODI scores, or complications between each group. The radiographic findings, including cage position, anterior and posterior disc height, segmental Cobb angle, and foraminal height, also showed no significant differences between each group. The only radiographic finding that showed a significant difference between each group was the angle of the cage. We found significantly less degree of angle in the wider than 20 mm group when compared to the other two groups. (P-value = .01). There was no recorded incidence of major vascular complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The width of oblique corridor does not affect clinical outcomes, complications, or radiographic findings, including position of the cage, anterior and posterior disc height, segmental angle, and foraminal height after OLIF procedure, including L4-5 level. Thus, the OLIF procedure can be performed safely even in patients with limited oblique corridors, especially at L4-5.

Clinical, Radiographic and Fusion Comparison of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) stand-alone and OLIF with posterior pedicle screw fixation in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes and characteristics of oblique lumbar interbody fusion stand-alone (OLIF-SA) and OLIF with posterior pedicle screw fixation (OLIF-PPS) in the treatment of Grade I or Grade II degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2019 and May 2022, 139 patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis were treated with OLIF-SA (n = 85) or OLIF-PPS (n = 54). The clinical and radiographic records were reviewed.

RESULTS

The clinical and radiographic outcomes were similar in both groups. The operative time and intraoperative blood loss in the OLIF-SA group were lower than those in the OLIF-PPS group (P < 0.05). However, the OLIF-PPS group had significantly better disc height (DH) and postoperative forward spondylolisthesis distance (FSD) improvement at 6 months (P < 0.05). The OLIF-PPS group had a significantly lower cage subsidence value than the OLIF-SA group (P < 0.05). Improvement of the lumbar lordotic angle (LA) and fusion segmental lordotic angle (FSA) in the OLIF-PPS group was significantly better than that in the OLIF-SA group (P < 0.05). In terms of fusion types, the OLIF-SA group tended to undergo fusion from the edge of the vertebral body. Fusion in the OLIF-PPS group began more often in the bone graft area of the central cage of the vertebral body. The fusion speed of the OLIF-SA group was faster than that of the OLIF-PPS group.

CONCLUSION

OLIF-SA has the advantages of a short operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and reduced financial burden, while PPS has incomparable advantages in the reduction of spondylolisthesis, restoration of lumbar physiological curvature, and long-term maintenance of intervertebral DH. In addition, the SA group had a unique vertebral edge fusion method and faster fusion speed.

Antepsoas Approaches to the Lumbar Spine

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a well-established approach in treating spinal deformity and degenerative conditions of the spine. Since its inception in the 20th century, LIF has continued to evolve, allowing for minimally invasive approaches, high fusion rates, and improving disability scores with favorable complication rates. The anterior to the psoas (ATP) approach utilizes a retroperitoneal pathway medial to the psoas muscle to access the L1-S1intervertebral disc spaces. In contrast to the transpsoas arppoach, its primary advantage is avoiding transgressing the psoas muscle and the contained lumbar plexus, which potentially decreases the risk of injury to the lumbar plexus. Avoiding transgression of the psoas may minimize the risk of transient or permanent neurological deficits secondary to lumbar plexus injury. Indications for ATP approaches may expand as it is shown to be a safe and effective method of achieving spinal arthrodesis.

Single position L5-S1 lateral ALIF with simultaneous robotic posterior fixation is safe and improves regional alignment and lordosis distribution index

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with simultaneous robot-assisted posterior fixation has technical and anatomic considerations that need further description.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with robotic assisted fixation. End points included radiographic parameters, lordosis distribution index (LDI), complications, pedicle screw accuracy, and inpatient metrics.

RESULTS

There were 17 patients with mean age of 60.5 years. Eight patients underwent interbody fusion at L5-S1, five patients at L4-S1, two patients at L3-S1, and one patient at L2-S1 in single lateral position. Operative times for 1-level and 2-level cases were 193 min and 278 min, respectively. Mean EBL was 71 cc. Mean improvements in L5-S1 segmental lordosis were 11.7 ± 4.0°, L1-S1 lordosis of 4.8 ± 6.4°, sagittal vertical axis of - 0.1 ± 1.7 cm°, pelvic tilt of - 3.1 ± 5.9°, and pelvic incidence lumbar-lordosis mismatch of - 4.6 ± 6.4°. Six patients corrected into a normal LDI (50-80%) and no patients became imbalanced over a mean follow-up period of 14.4 months. Of 100 screws placed in lateral position with robotic assistance, there were three total breaches (two lateral grade 3, one medial grade 2) for a screw accuracy of 97.0%. There were no neurologic, vascular, bowel, or ureteral injuries, and no implant failure or reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with simultaneous robotic placement of pedicle screws by a second surgeon is a safe and effective technique that improves global alignment and lordosis distribution index.

OLIF versus ALIF: Which is the better surgical approach for degenerative lumbar disease? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes between OLIF and ALIF in treating lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for relevant studies. Changes in disc height (DH), segmental lordosis angle (SLA), lumbar lordosis (LL), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between baseline and final follow-up, along with other important surgical outcomes, were assessed and analysed. Data on the global fusion rate and main complications were collected and compared.

RESULTS

Approximately, 2041 patients from 36 studies were included, consisting of 1057 patients who underwent OLIF and 984 patients who underwent ALIF. The results reveal no significant difference in DH, SLA, VAS score, and ODI between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The operation time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay were also comparable between the two groups. Over 90% of the fusion rate was achieved in both groups. The OLIF group showed a higher complication rate than the ALIF group (OLIF 18.83% vs ALIF 7.32%).

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF leads to a higher complication rate, with the most notable complication being cage subsidence. Both OLIF and ALIF are effective treatments for degenerative lumbar diseases and have similar therapeutic effects. ALIF was expected to be more expensive for patients because of the necessity of involving vascular surgeons.

Comparison of Outcomes of Multi-Level Anterior, Oblique, Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery : Impact on Global Sagittal Alignment

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in terms of global sagittal alignment.

METHODS

From January 2007 to December 2019, 141 adult patients who underwent multilevel interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders were enrolled. Regarding the approach, patients were divided into the ALIF (n=23), OLIF (n=60), and TLIF (n=58) groups. Outcomes, including local radiographic parameters and global sagittal alignment, were then compared between the treatment groups.

RESULTS

Regarding local radiographic parameters, ALIF and OLIF were superior to TLIF in terms of the change in the anterior disc height (7.6±4.5 mm vs. 6.9±3.2 mm vs. 4.7±2.9 mm, p<0.001), disc angle (-10.0°±6.3° vs. -9.2°±5.2° vs. -5.1°±5.1°, p<0.001), and fused segment lordosis (-14.5°±11.3° vs. -13.8°±7.5° vs. -7.4°±9.1°, p<0.001). However, regarding global sagittal alignment, postoperative lumbar lordosis (-42.5°±9.6° vs. -44.4°±11.6° vs. -40.6°±12.3°, p=0.210), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (7.9°±11.3° vs. 6.7°±11.6° vs. 11.5°±13.0°, p=0.089), and the sagittal vertical axis (24.3±28.5 mm vs. 24.5±34.0 mm vs. 25.2±36.6 mm, p=0.990) did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Although the anterior approaches were superior in terms of local radiographic parameters, TLIF achieved adequate global sagittal alignment, comparable to the anterior approaches.

Application of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined with Bridge-Locking Cage in Adjacent Segment Disease After Lumbar Fusion

OBJECTIVE

Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is considered any abnormal process that develops in the mobile segment next to spinal fusion, accompanied by related symptoms. To evaluate the efficacy and complications of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with bridge-locking fusion on ASD after lumbar fusion.

METHODS

A total of 35 ASD patients who required re-operation after lumbar fusion in our hospital from March 2014 to March 2020 were retrospectively analyzed, among which 13 cases (seven males and six females; 62.3 ± 11.3 years old) received the treatment of OLIF + bridge-locking cage internal fixation (OLIF group), and 22 cases (14 males and eight females; 52.3 ± 17.8 years old) received the treatment of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) + pedicle screw fixation (TLIF group). The comparison of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and length of hospital stay between the two groups of patients was performed using the t-test. The comparison of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at different time points before and after the operation was performed using analysis of variance for repeated measurement data. The fusion rate and postoperative complications of the two groups of patients were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The operation time of patients in the OLIF group (55.4 ± 12.4 min) was significantly shorter than that of patients in the TLIF group (94.3 ± 22.9 min) (P < 0.05), the length of stay of patients in the OLIF group (7.4 ± 2.3 day) was significantly shorter than that of patients in the TLIF group (12.4 ± 3.2 day) (P < 0.05); the intraoperative blood loss (62.2 ± 30.1 mL) and postoperative drainage (47.3 ± 22.4 mL) of patients in the OLIF group were significantly less than those of patients in the TLIF group with intraoperative blood loss (363.4 ± 120.2 mL) and postoperative drainage (285.5 ± 57.8 mL) (all Ps < 0.05). Besides, the VAS and ODI scores of the two groups of patients were improved 3 months after the operation and at the last follow-up (all Ps < 0.05). Three patients in the OLIF group developed complications such as hip flexion weakness and fusion cage sink, with an incidence of 23.1%. Three patients in the TLIF group developed complications including wound infection and intraoperative nerve injury, with an incidence of 22.7%.

CONCLUSION

The combination of OLIF and bridge-locking cage may be a safe and effective therapy for ASD patients after lumbar fusion operation.

Characteristics and hotspots of the 50 most cited articles in the field of pre-psoas oblique lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

In the past decade, the field of pre-psoas oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has developed rapidly, and with it, the literature on OLIF has grown considerably. This study was designed to analyze the top 50 articles in terms of the number of citations through bibliometric research to demonstrate the research characteristics and hotspots of OLIF.

METHOD

Searching the Web of Science database yielded the 50 most cited publications in the OLIF field as of July 10, 2022. The publications were ranked according to the number of citations. The following sources were evaluated: the year of publications, the number of citations, authors, countries, institutions, journals, research topics, and keyword hotspots.

RESULTS

The most productive period was from 2017 to 2020, with 41 articles. The number of citations varied from 10 to 140, with an average of 35.52, and 1,776 citations were found. World Neurosurgery published the most articles (12), China produced the most articles (16), and the Catholic University of Korea produced the most studies (6). The corresponding author who produced the most articles was J.S. Kim (5), and the first author who produced the most publications was S. Orita (3). The main research topics were anatomical morphology, surgical techniques, indications, outcomes, and complications. The top 10 most cited keywords were "complications," "decompression," "spine," "surgery," "outcomes," "transpsoas approach," "spondylolisthesis," "anterior," "disease," and "injury."

CONCLUSIONS

Certain articles can be distinguished from others using citation analysis as an accurate representation of their impact due to their long-term effectiveness and peer recognition. With these publications, researchers are provided with research priorities and hotspots through influential literature in the field of OLIF.

Anatomical characteristics affecting the surgical approach of oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion: an MR-based observational study

Background

Oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is one of the most widely used lumbar interbody fusion procedures in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to minimize the incidence rate of surgical complications by measuring the anatomical parameters of structures surrounding the working channels of OLIF with 3D COSMIC sequence.

Methods

The MRI examination included conventional MRI sequence and 3D COSMIC sequence. Surgical window, psoas thickness, the transverse diameter of the endplate, and nerve distance were measured to evaluate the anatomical characteristics surrounding the OLIF working channels.

Results

The widths of the natural surgical window at the level of the L2–3, L3–4, and L4–5 intervertebral measured in this study were 16.25 ± 4.22, 15.46 ± 4.64 mm, and 11.71 ± 6.29 mm, respectively. The average thickness of the left psoas major muscle at the level of L2–3, L3–4, and L4–5 intervertebral space was 28.42 ± 5.08 mm, 30.76 ± 5.84 mm, and 31.16 ± 7.72 mm, respectively. The mean value of insertion angle (β) was 45.57° ± 6.19° in L2–3 intervertebral space, 49.90° ± 6.53° in L3–4 intervertebral space, and 43.34° ± 8.88° in L4–5 intervertebral space.

Conclusions

The 3D COSMIC sequences can be used for imaging anatomical assessment before OLIF surgery. In preoperative planning, the 3D COSMIC sequence can be used to measure the relevant parameters mentioned above to optimize the planned surgical approach.

Pearls and Pitfalls of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Lumbar degenerative disease is a common problem in an aging society. Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique that utilizes a retroperitoneal antepsoas corridor to treat lumbar degenerative disease. OLIF has theoretical advantages over other lumbar fusion techniques, such as a lower risk of lumbar plexus injury than direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF). Previous studies have reported favorable clinical and radiological outcomes of OLIF in various lumbar degenerative diseases. The use of OLIF is increasing, and evidence on OLIF is growing in the literature. The indications for OLIF are also expanding with the help of recent technical developments, including stereotactic navigation systems and robotics. In this review, we present current evidence on OLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease, focusing on the expansion of surgical indications and recent advancements in the OLIF procedure.