Usefulness of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion as Revision Surgery: Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes Between Primary and Revision Surgery

Application of the oblique lateral interbody fusion technique in salvage surgery: technical note and case series

Objective

The oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) technique is a promising interbody fusion technique. This study summarizes the technical aspects of OLIF as a salvage surgery and the preliminary outcomes of a series of cases.

Patients and methods

A retrospective review of patients with leg or back pain induced by pseudoarthrosis or adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion was done. These patients underwent salvage OLIF surgeries in our institution from January 2021 to March 2022. Variables such as the demographic, clinical, surgical, and radiological characteristics of the enrolled patients were recorded and analyzed.

Results

Eight patients (five females and three males; mean age 69.1 ± 5.7 years, range 63-80 years) were enrolled in this study. The mean operative time was 286.25 min (range: 230-440 min), and the estimated blood loss was 90 ml (range: 50-150 ml). Only one of the eight patients experienced a complication of lower limb motor weakness, which disappeared within 5 days after surgery. The latest data showed that the mean intervertebral space height increased from 8.36 mm preoperatively to 12.70 mm and the mean segmentary lordosis increased from 8.92° preoperatively to 15.05°. Bone fusion was achieved in all but one patient, who was followed up for only 3 months. The JOA scores Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) Scores for low back pain of all patients significantly improved at the final follow-up.

Conclusion

OLIF provides a safe and effective salvage strategy for patients with failed posterior intervertebral fusion surgery. Patients effectively recovered intervertebral and foraminal height with no additional posterior direct decompression.

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.

Revision lumbar fusions have higher rates of reoperation and result in worse clinical outcomes compared to primary lumbar fusions

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Indications for revision lumbar fusion are variable, but include recurrent stenosis (RS), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and pseudarthrosis. The efficacy of revision lumbar fusion has been well established, but their outcomes compared to primary procedures is not well documented.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compares surgical and clinical outcomes between (1) revision and primary lumbar fusion, (2) revision lumbar fusion based on indication (ASD, pseudarthrosis, or RS), and (3) revision lumbar fusion based on whether the index procedure included an isolated decompression or decompression with fusion.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective single-institution cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Four thousand six hundred seventy-one consecutive lumbar fusions from 2011 to 2021, of which 892 (23.6%) were revision procedures. The indication for revision procedures included 502 (56.3%) for ASD, 153 (17.2%) for pseudarthrosis, and 237 (26.6%) for RS. Of the 892 revision procedures, 694 (77.8%) underwent an index fusion while 198 (22.2%) underwent an index decompression without fusion.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Hospital readmissions, all-cause reoperation, need for subsequent revision and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline, 3-months postoperatively, and 1-year postoperatively, including the Mental Health Component score (MCS-12) and Physical Health Component score (PCS-12) of the Short Form 12 survey, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Back and Leg pain.

METHODS

Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records. Twenty-eight percent of patients had preoperative and postoperative PROMs. A delta PROM score was calculated for the 3-month and 1-year postoperative timepoints, which was the change from the preoperative to postoperative value. Univariate comparisons were performed to compare revision fusions to primary fusions. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for all-cause reoperation and subsequent revision surgery, while multivariate linear regression was performed for ∆PROMs at 3-months and 1-year. Revision procedures were then separately regrouped based on indication for revision fusion and whether they underwent a fusion for their index procedure. Univariate comparisons and multivariate linear regressions for ∆PROMs were then repeated based on the new groupings.

RESULTS

There was no difference in hospital readmission rate (5.38% vs. 4.60%, p=.372) or length of stay (4.10 days vs. 3.94 days, p=.129) between revision and primary lumbar fusion, but revision fusions had a higher rate of all-cause reoperation (16.1% vs. 11.2%, p<.001) and subsequent revision (13.7% vs. 9.71%, p=.001), which was confirmed on multivariate logistic regression (Odds Ratio (OR): 1.42, p=.001 and OR: 1.37, p=.007, respectively). On multivariate analysis, a revision procedure was an independent risk factor for worse improvement ∆ODI, ∆VAS Back, ∆VAS Leg, and ∆PCS-12 and 1-year postoperatively. Regardless of the indication for revision lumbar fusion, patients significantly improved in the 3-month and 1-year postoperative PCS-12, ODI, VAS Back, and VAS Leg, with the exception of the 3-month PCS-12 for pseudarthrosis (p=.620). Patients undergoing revision for ASD had significantly worse 1-year postoperative PCS-12 (32.3 vs. Pseudarthrosis: 35.6 and RS: 37.0, p=.026), but there were no differences in ∆PROMs. There was no difference in hospital readmission, all-cause reoperation, or subsequent revision based on whether a patient had an index lumbar fusion or isolated decompression. Multivariate linear regression analysis found that a surgical indication of pseudarthrosis was a significant predictor of decreased improvement in 3-month ∆VAS Leg (ref: ASD, β=2.26, p=.036), but having an index fusion did not significantly predict worse improvement in ∆PROMs when compared to isolated decompressions.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision lumbar fusions had a higher rate of reoperation and subsequent revision surgery when compared to primary lumbar fusions, but there were no difference in hospital readmission rates. Patients undergoing revision lumbar fusion experience improvements in all patient reported outcome measures, but their baseline, postoperative, and magnitude of improvement are worse than primary procedures. Regardless of whether the lumbar fusion is a primary or revision procedure, all patients have significant improvements in pain, disability and physical function. Further, the indication for the revision procedure is not correlated with the expected magnitude of improvement in patient reported outcomes. Finally, no differences in baseline, postoperative, and ∆PROMs for revision fusions were identified when stratifying by whether the patient had an index decompression or fusion.

Transforaminal 360° lumbar endoscopic foraminotomy in postfusion patients: technical note and case series

OBJECTIVE

This report describes a minimally invasive lumbar foraminotomy technique that can be applied in patients who underwent complex spine decompression procedures or in patients with severe foraminal stenosis.

METHODS

Awake, endoscopic decompression surgery was performed in 538 patients over a 5-year period between 2014 and 2019. Transforaminal endoscopic foraminal decompression surgery using a high-speed endoscopic drill was performed in 34 patients who had previously undergone fusions at the treated level.

RESULTS

At 2-year follow-up, the mean (± SD) preoperative visual analog scale score for leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index improved from 7.1 (± 1.5) and 40.1% (± 12.1%) to 2.1 (± 1.9) and 13.6% (± 11.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

A minimally invasive, awake procedure is presented for the treatment of severe lumbar foraminal stenosis in patients with lumbar radiculopathy after lumbar fusion.