Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) compared with unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a 2-year follow-up study

Hidden Blood Loss and Its Risk Factors for Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

(1) Background: The amount of blood loss during oblique lumber interbody fusion (OLIF) surgery is often underestimated and may contribute to adverse postoperative outcomes. This study aims to evaluate hidden blood loss (HBL) in patients who underwent OLIF for degenerative lumbar spine disease and to analyze its risk factors. (2) Methods: The medical records of 179 patients who underwent OLIF surgery from 2015 to 2022 were reviewed. The HBL and total blood loss (TBL) were estimated using the Gross formula. Pearson correlation, Spearman correlation, and multivariate linear regression analyses were used to investigate risk factors for HBL. (3) Results: The mean HBL was 675.2 mL, and the mean hemoglobin loss was 1.7 g/dL during OLIF surgery. In the multivariate linear regression analysis, TBL (p < 0.001), estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), and pedicle screw fixation type (p = 0.039) were identified as independent risk factors of HBL. (4) Conclusions: The OLIF is associated with substantial perioperative HBL, for which we identified risk factors of TBL, EBL, and pedicle screw fixation type. Notably, OLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation resulted in greater HBL than stand-alone OLIF or OLIF with open pedicle screw fixation.

[Comparison of effectiveness between unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion for degree degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis]

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression and unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degreeⅠdegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

Methods

A clinical data of 58 patients with degreeⅠDLS who met the selection criteria between October 2021 and October 2022 was retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 28 cases were treated with unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression (decompression group) and 30 cases with ULIF (ULIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) in the gender, age, lesion segment, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), disk height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and other baseline data. The operation time, postoperative drainage volume, postoperative ambulation time, VAS score of low back pain, VAS score of leg pain, ODI, laboratory examination indexes (CRP, ESR), and imaging parameters (DH, SL) were compared between the two groups.

Results

Compared with the ULIF group, the decompression group had shorter operation time, less postoperative drainage, and earlier ambulation ( P<0.05). All incisions healed by first intention, and no complication such as nerve root injury, epidural hematoma, or infection occurred. All patients were followed up 12 months. Laboratory tests showed that ESR and CRP at 3 days after operation in decompression group were not significantly different from those before operation ( P>0.05), while the above indexes in ULIF group significantly increased at 3 days after operation compared to preoperative values ( P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of ESR and CRP before and after operation between the two groups ( P<0.05). Except that the VAS score of low back pain at 3 days after operation was not significantly different from that before operation in decompression group ( P>0.05), there were significant differences in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points ( P<0.05). The VAS score of low back pain in ULIF group was significantly higher than that in decompression group at 3 days after operation ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in VAS score of low back pain and VAS score of leg pain between the two groups at other time points ( P>0.05). The ODI of the two groups significantly improved after operation ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between 3 days and 6 months after operation ( P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups at the two time points after operation ( P<0.05). Imaging examination showed that there was no significant difference in DH and SL between pre-operation and 12 months after operation in decompression group ( P>0.05). However, the above two indexes in ULIF group were significantly higher than those before operation ( P<0.05). There were significant differences in the changes of DH and SL before and after operation between the two groups ( P<0.05).

Conclusion

Unilateral biportal endoscopic decompression can achieve good effectiveness in the treatment of degree Ⅰ DLS. Compared with ULIF, it can shorten operation time, reduce postoperative drainage volume, promote early ambulation, reduce inflammatory reaction, and accelerate postoperative recovery. ULIF has more advantages in restoring intervertebral DH and SL.