Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) in Interbody Fusion Technique for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Double Banana Cages: Clinical Evaluations and Finite Element Model Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical and basic study.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using 2 banana-shaped cages leads to good clinical outcomes.

METHODS

First, we conducted a clinical study to compare outcomes among patients who underwent TLIF using different types or numbers of cages. Propensity matched patients in each group were reviewed. Thirty-four patients who underwent surgery with 2 bullet-shaped cages (group A), 34 with a banana-shaped cage (group B), and 34 with 2 banana-shaped cages (group C) were compared. Twelve months after the surgery, bony fusion and cage subsidence were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean amount of cage subsidence was 14.9% in group A, 19.9% in group B, and 11.8% in group C. Subsidence in group B was significantly greater than that in group C (P < .01). Radiological bony fusion was not achieved in 2 cases in group B. Second, we performed a finite element model (FEM) analysis to determine the biomechanical stress of the vertebral endplate by comparing the single-banana cage construct with a double banana-shaped cage construct. FEM analysis showed that the maximum stress of the endplate in the single-cage model was 1.72-times greater than the maximum stress in the double-cage model. Furthermore, the maximal stress in the single-cage model was significantly higher than in the double-cage model during lumbar extension and side bending.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that TLIF with double banana-shaped cages led to good clinical outcomes with less cage subsidence, probably because of decreased mechanical stress on the vertebral endplate.

Risk Factors of Unsatisfactory Outcomes Requiring Additional Intervention Following Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a minimally invasive procedure for stabilizing the spine and indirectly decompressing the neural elements. There is sparse data on unsatisfactory outcomes that require additional interventions (surgery or intervention) after OLIF. This study aimed to identify the causes, and risk factors of these reintervention.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study of the patients who underwent the OLIF procedure from June 2016 to March 2023. Several clinical and radiographic parameters were studied. We also analyzed associations between several potential risk factors and the reintervention following OLIF.

RESULTS

A total of 231 patients were included. Over an average of 2.5 years of follow-up, 28 patients (12.1%) required a reintervention. Adjacent segment disease (ASD) was the most common cause of reintervention. The risk factors associated with reintervention were previous surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-16.33; p=0.02) and high preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08; p=0.03). Although increasing the duration of follow-up was not statistically significant, the 95% CI was consistent with an increased risk of reintervention with longer follow-up (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.94-1.50).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that patients with prior lumbar surgery and high preoperative ODI scores were more likely to require additional intervention after the OLIF procedure. In addition, an increasing duration of follow-up was associated with an increased risk of reintervention. The most common reason for reintervention was ASD after OLIF.

Effect of Lateral Surgery Compared with Posterior Surgery on Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis of 41 Cohort Studies

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of the lateral approach and posterior approach in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

Through a systematic search of relevant articles published on or before July 20, 2023, in the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane libraries, the 2 authors independently extracted data and used the Newcastle‒Ottawa scale to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Using Stata16 software, the continuous variables were presented as the standard mean deviation, and the bipartite variables were analyzed using the pooled odds ratio with 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

A total of 13,892 articles were screened and 10,908 studies were identified after deleting duplicates, of which 41 met the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that the lateral approach was superior to the posterior approach in reducing blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay. At the same time, compared with the posterior approach, the lateral approach has more advantages in the long-term Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and Oswestry Disability Index score, adjusting mid- and long-term LL and short- and long-term disc height.

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral and posterior surgery have similar clinical effects in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases and can significantly reduce pain and improve postoperative SL. At the same time, the lateral approach has more advantages in improving long-term quality of life, reducing the long-term disability index, adjusting mid- and long-term LL and short- and long-term disc height.

Risk factors for nonunion in oblique lateral interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

Compared with posterior interbody fusion techniques, oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) offers a larger fusion bed with greater intervertebral space access, use of larger cages, more sufficient discectomy, and better end-plate preparation. However, the fusion rate of OLIF is similar to that of other interbody fusions. This study aimed to examine the factors associated with nonunion in OLIF.

METHODS

This study examined 201 disc levels from 124 consecutive patients who underwent OLIF for lumbar degenerative diseases with 1-year regular follow-up. Demographic and surgical factors were reviewed from the medical records. Radiological factors measured were sagittal parameters, intervertebral disc angle (DA) before surgery and at the final follow-up, presence of vertebral end-plate lesions, and cage subsidence. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with nonunion.

RESULTS

Among the 201 discs, 185 (92.0%) achieved union at 1-year followed up. Smoking, surgery at the L5-S1 level, not performing laminectomy, and a large intervertebral DA were factors associated with nonunion in OLIF (all P < 0.05). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed two independent variables (surgery at L5-S1 level and not performing laminectomy) as risk factors for nonunion in OLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

Not performing laminectomy and surgery at the L5-S1 level were risk factors for nonunion in OLIF. To reduce the nonunion rate, surgeons should consider additional stabilization strategies for the L5-S1 OLIF and perform laminectomy.

Does indirect decompression by oblique lateral interbody fusion produce similar clinical and radiological outcomes to direct decompression by open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Objectives

Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (O-TLIF) remains the most popular and widely practiced lumbar fusion method even today, providing direct decompression. Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a novel retroperitoneal approach that allows placement of a large interbody cage which provides an indirect neural decompression, and screws can be placed minimal invasively or through the Wiltse OLIF (W-OLIF) approach. We aim to find out the short-term efficacy of W-OLIF to O-TLIF in terms of radiological and clinical outcomes in patients of lumbar degenerative diseases.

Materials and Methods

Fifty-two patients were divided equally into two groups (group O-TLIF and group W-OLIF). Several parameters were measured, such as the spinal cord cross-sectional area (SC-CSA), foraminal cross-sectional area (F-CSA), disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), Schizas grade for stenosis, and Meyerding's grading for olisthesis. Functional scores were measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) for low back pain (LBP) and lower limbs, Oswestry Disability Index. All parameters were repeat measured at 3 months follow-up. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software.

Results

Both groups were similar in composition preoperatively. There was significant improvement in all clinical and radiological parameters post-surgery in either group. However, at 3 months, The DH, FH, FSA, and VAS (LBP) were better in the W-OLIF group than in O-TLIF. Procedure-related complications were seen in both groups (15% in the O-TLIF group and 19% in the W-TLIF group), but only one patient in O-TLIF required revision due to cage migration.

Conclusion

Similar improvement occurs in most of the clinical and radiological parameters in the W-OLIF group compared to the O-TLIF group. Few radiological parameters such as the DH, FH, and F-CSA and the VAS (LBP) correction are superior in the W-OLIF group in the short-term follow-up. We conclude that indirect decompression by W-OLIF provides equivalent, if not better, results than the traditional O-TLIF lumbar fusion.

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.

Lateral access minimally invasive spine surgery in adult spinal deformity

Background

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and percutaneous posterior approach for screw fixation (PPS) is the latest minimal invasive treatment for spinal deformity in adult patients (ASD). This study aims to design and highlight key points for ASD correction.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analyzed 54 patients who had undergone OLIF with PPS for ASD from October 2019 to January 2022 (average 71.5 ± 6.2 years-old, male 4, female 50) with a mean follow-up period of 29.2 months. Clinical outcomes are expressed by values including the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain. The imagistic assessment was also performed preoperatively and at 12, and 24 months postoperatively. For OLIF51, CT- MRI fusion images were obtained before surgery.

Results

Postoperative ODI and VAS were 30.5 ± 18.9% and 31.2 ± 6.9 mm, respectively. The average operating time and blood loss during the surgical exposure was 490.9 ± 85.4 min and 1195.2 ± 653.8 ml. Preoperative SVA, PI-LL, and PT were 96.5 ± 55.9 mm, 39.3 ± 22.1°, 34.5 ± 11.0°, respectively. Postoperatively, SVA and PT became normal (24.1 ± 39.0 mm, 17.1 ± 10.3°) and PI-LL was ideal (2.4 ± 12.6°). Postoperative ODI and VAS were 30.5 ± 18.9% and 31.2 ± 6.9 mm. For OLIF51, the results revealed gain in L5-S1 lordosis and intervertebral disc height 9.4° and 4.2 mm respectively. The complications consisted of PJK in 21 cases (38.9%), rod breakage in 5 cases (9.3%), deep or superficial wound infection in 2 cases (3.7%).

Conclusion

Clinical and imagistic results of OLIF and PPS for ASD were excellent. The radiographic measurements revealed that OLIF51 created good L5-S1 lordosis and significant L5-S1 disc height. CT-MRI fusion images were very useful for evaluating vascular anatomy for OLIF51.

Efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the differences in postoperative efficacy between oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Strictly based on the search strategy, we searched the published papers on OLIF and TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. A total of 607 related papers were retrieved, and 15 articles were finally included. The quality of the papers was evaluated according to the Cochrane systematic review methodology, and the data were extracted and meta-analyzed using Review manager 5.4 software.

RESULTS

Through comparison, it was found that in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, the OLIF group had certain advantages over the TLIF group in terms of intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), fused segmental lordosis (FSL), and cage height, and the differences were statistically significant. The results were similar in terms of surgery time, complications, fusion rate, VAS for back pain (VAS-BP) and various sagittal imaging indicators, and there was no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF and TLIF can relieve low back pain symptoms in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, but OLIF has certain advantages in terms of ODI and VAS-LP. In addition, OLIF has the advantages of minor intraoperative trauma and quick postoperative recovery.

Biomechanical study of two-level oblique lumbar interbody fusion with different types of lateral instrumentation: a finite element analysis

Objective

The aim of this study was to verify the biomechanical properties of a newly designed angulated lateral plate (mini-LP) suited for two-level oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). The mini-LP is placed through the lateral ante-psoas surgical corridor, which reduces the operative time and complications associated with prolonged anesthesia and placement in the prone position.

Methods

A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element (FE) model of an intact L1-L5 lumbar spine was constructed and validated. The intact model was modified to generate a two-level OLIF surgery model augmented with three types of lateral fixation (stand-alone, SA; lateral rod screw, LRS; miniature lateral plate, mini-LP); the operative segments were L2-L3 and L3-L4. By applying a 500 N follower load and 7.5 Nm directional moment (flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation), all models were used to simulate human spine movement. Then, we extracted the range of motion (ROM), peak contact force of the bony endplate (PCFBE), peak equivalent stress of the cage (PESC), peak equivalent stress of fixation (PESF), and stress contour plots.

Results

When compared with the intact model, the SA model achieved the least reduction in ROM to surgical segments in all motions. The ROM of the mini-LP model was slightly smaller than that of the LRS model. There were no significant differences in surgical segments (L1-L2, L4-L5) between all surgical models and the intact model. The PCFBE and PESC of the LRS and the mini-LP fixation models were lower than those of the SA model. However, the differences in PCFBE or PESC between the LRS- and mini-LP-based models were not significant. The fixation stress of the LRS- and mini-LP-based models was significantly lower than the yield strength under all loading conditions. In addition, the variances in the PESF in the LRS- and mini-LP-based models were not obvious.

Conclusion

Our biomechanical FE analysis indicated that LRS or mini-LP fixation can both provide adequate biomechanical stability for two-level OLIF through a single incision. The newly designed mini-LP model seemed to be superior in installation convenience, and equally good outcomes were achieved with both LRS and mini-LP for two-level OLIF.

Comparison of C-Arm-Free Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion L5-S1 (OLIF51) with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion L5-S1 (TLIF51) for Adult Spinal Deformity

Background and Objectives: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, L5-S1 lordosis is very important factor. The main objective of the research is to retrospectively compare symptomatic presentation and radiological presentation in the sequelae of oblique lumbar inter-body spinal fusion at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for ASD. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 54 patients who underwent corrective spinal fusion for ASD between October 2019 and January 2021. Thirteen patients underwent OLIF51 (average 74.6 years old, group O) and 41 patients underwent TLIF51 (average 70.5 years old, group T). Mean follow-up period was 23.9 months for group O and 28.9 months for group T, ranging from 12 to 43 months. Clinical and radiographic outcomes are assessed using values including visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Radiographic evaluation was also collected preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Results: Surgical time in group O was less than that in group T (356 min vs. 492 min, p = 0.003). However, intraoperative blood loss of both groups were not significantly different (1016 mL vs. 1252 mL, p = 0.274). Changes in VAS and ODI were similar in both groups. L5-S1 angle gain and L5-S1 height gain in group O were significantly better than those of group T (9.4° vs. 1.6°, p = 0.0001, 4.2 mm vs. 0.8 mm, p = 0.0002). Conclusions: Clinical outcomes were not significantly different in both groups, but surgical time in OLIF51 was significantly less than that in TLIF51. The radiographic outcomes showed that OLIF51 created more L5-S1 lordosis and L5-S1 disc height compared with TLIF 51.

Recent Efficacy of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined With Wiltse Approach Pedicle Screw Fixation for Degenerative Single-Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to explore the recent efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with Wiltse approach pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study. The study enrolled 54 patients with single-level DLS who were treated at the Affiliated Jiangnan Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University from May 2018 to June 2020. (OLIF group) 24 cases operated using OLIF combined with Wiltse approach pedicle screw fixation, and (PLIF group) 30 cases operated by PLIF. The primary outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI), and the lower lumbar spine anterior convexity angle.

RESULTS

There were significant differences in VAS (2.63 ± 0.58 vs. 3.57 ± 0.63, P < 0.001) and ODI (9.67 ± 0.92 vs. 10.63 ± 1.40, P < 0.05) between the OLIF group and PLIF group on postoperative 3 days. And there was a significant decrease in VAS (2.63 ± 0.58 vs. 1.08 ± 0.28, P < 0.05) and ODI (3.57 ± 0.63 vs. 1.10 ± 0.31, P < 0.05) in both groups on postoperative 3 days and at 6 months postoperative comparisons. OLIF group showed better intervertebral space height and the lower lumbar spine anterior convexity angle scores on postoperative 3 days and 6 months, the difference was statistically significant(all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF combined with the Wiltse approach pedicle screw fixation can achieve good short-term clinical results in the treatment of single-level DLS. This surgical approach is less invasive, promotes early functional recovery, shortens hospitalization time, and improves the quality of life.

Comparison of oblique and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: An updated meta-analysis

Objective

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. A meta-analysis was performed to examine the clinical and radiological effects of these two techniques.

Methods

A search of relevant literature from several databases was conducted until November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, clinical and radiological results, and complications were analyzed.

Results

Fifteen qualified studies were included. OLIF showed a shorter operative time and length of hospital stay and less blood loss than TLIF. Early postoperative Visual Analogue Scale for back pain were significantly lower in OLIF than in TLIF (P = 0.004). Noteworthy, although the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of the OLIF group was higher than that of the TLIF group (P = 0.04), the postoperative ODI was significantly lower (P < 0.05). Radiologically, the results showed that the disc and foraminal heights of OLIF were significantly higher than those of TLIF postoperatively. Moreover, OLIF can restore more segmental lordosis than TLIF in the early postoperative period. Furthermore, OLIF showed better fusion rates than TLIF (P = 0.02), with no difference in cage subsidence (13.4% vs. 16.6%). No significant differences in overall and approach-related complications between the two groups.

Conclusion

The OLIF group showed an advantage in terms of operative time, hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, early back pain relief, postoperative function recovery, disc and foraminal heights, early segmental lordosis, and fusion rate compared to TLIF. For both procedures, the incidence rates of overall and approach-related complications were comparable.

Beneficial influence of single-stage posterior surgery for the treatment of lumbar brucella spondylitis combined with spondylolisthesis

We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the single-stage posterior surgical treatment for patients of lumbar brucella spondylitis combined with spondylolisthesis. In this study, we performed a retrospective analysis of 16 patients with lumbar brucellosis spondylitis combined with spondylolisthesis from January 2015 to January 2019. All patients underwent single-stage posterior lumbar debridement, reduction, interbody fusion, and instrumentation. Preoperative and postoperative of the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were compared. In addition, the spondylolisthesis reduction rate, reduction loss rate, interbody fusion rate, and complication rate were recorded. VAS, ODI, ESR, and CRP were conducted with repeated analysis of variance data at different follow-ups. The postoperative follow-up was 12-36 months, with an average of (25.0 ± 8.1) months. VAS, ODI, ESR, and CRP were significantly better at 2-week and 1-year follow-up than preoperative results (P = 0.000, respectively). In addition, 1 year after the operation, VAS, ODI, ESR, and CRP showed a significant improvement (P = 0.000, respectively). The average spondylolisthesis reduction in 2 weeks after operation was (91.2 ± 6.7)%, and the median reduction loss rate in 1 year after operation was 8.0 (5.0, 9.8)%. At the last follow-up, all patients achieved interbody fusion, no loosening and fracture of instrumentation were found, and no recurrence happened. Single-stage posterior operation for lumbar debridement, reduction, interbody fusion, and instrumentation is beneficial for treating lumbar brucellosis spondylitis combined with spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, the reconstruction of spinal stability may relieve pain, heal lesions, and improve patients' living.

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.

Meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety of oblique lateral interbody fusion and transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Objective

The aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis by meta-analysis.

Methods

A computer-based search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection databases, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine, and Wanfang Digital Periodicals was conducted from the time of inception of each database to December 2021. The review process was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in the PROSPERO database. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software provided by the Cochrane Library.

Results

Thirteen studies were included in the statistical analysis. One randomized controlled study and 12 cohort studies with 954 patients were included. In terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, Oswestry disability index score, intervertebral height, and complications, the OLIF group was better than the TLIF group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of visual analogue scale score, lumbar lordosis or fused segment lordosis (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Both OLIF and TLIF are effective surgical modalities in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. They achieve similar therapeutic effects, but OLIF is superior to TLIF in restoring intervertebral height. At the same time, OLIF has the advantages of short operation time and less intraoperative blood loss.

Comparative analysis of the effects of OLIF and TLIF on adjacent segments after treatment of L4 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Background

The fusion of the lumbar spine may lead to the degeneration of the adjacent segments. In this study, the effects of OLIF and TLIF on adjacent segments after treatment of L4 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) were compared and analysed.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of the medical records of consecutive patients treated with OLIF or TLIF for L4DLS. They were divided into the OLIF group and TLIF group based on different treatment methods. Cage height, segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), and sacral slope (SS) were compared between the two groups, and the postoperative biomechanical changes were analysed by establishing the disc angle (DA). The clinical outcomes were analysed by comparing the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and incidence of adjacent segment disease (ASDis) between the two groups. The intervertebral disc height (IDH), intervertebral foramen height (IDH), intervertebral foramen area (IFA), sliding distance (SD), and angular displacement (AD) in L3-4 and L5-S1 were compared between the two groups. The incidence of aggravated disc degeneration (ADD), the incidence of aggravated zygapophyseal joint degeneration (AJD) and the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) were compared between the two groups for radiological degeneration.

Results

At the last follow-up, there was one case of ASDis in the OLIF group (2.78%) and two cases in the TLIF group (5.56%). At the last follow-up, compared with the preoperative values, IDH, IFH, and IFA of the adjacent segments above and below L4-5 decreased in both groups (P < 0.05); the SD and AD increased in both groups (P < 0.05). The cage height and L4-5 IDH in the OLIF group were significantly higher than those in the TLIF group (P < 0.05). SL, LL, PT, SS, and L5- S1DA were significantly improved in the OLIF group compared with the TLIF group (P < 0.05). The incidence of L3-4ASDeg in the two groups was higher than that of L5-S1. The incidence of ASDeg and the incidence of L5-S1ADD in the OLIF group were lower than those in the TLIF group, but the incidence of L5-S1AJD was higher than that in the TLIF group.

Conclusion

L4DLS after OLIF and TLIF treatment will cause adjacent segment degeneration, and L3-4 degeneration is more obvious than L5-S1 degeneration. OLIF has more advantages in restoring lumbar sagittal balance. Compared with TLIF, OLIF can weaken the degeneration of the L5-S1 disc and increase the degeneration of the L5-S1 zygapophyseal joints.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-022-03084-7.

Usefulness of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Indirect Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review

Background and Objective: The aim of this review was to analyze the existing literature and investigate the outcomes or complications of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) combined with indirect decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS). Materials and Methods: A database search algorithm was used to query MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and EMBASE to identify the literature reporting LLIF with indirect decompression for DS between January 2010 and December 2021. Improvements in outcome measures and complication rates were pooled and tested for significance. Results: A total of 412 publications were assessed, and 12 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria after full review. The pooled data available in the included studies showed that 438 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis (mean age 65.2 years; mean body mass index (BMI) 38.1 kg/m²) underwent LLIF. A total of 546 disc spaces were operated on. The most frequently treated levels were L4–L5 and L3–L4. Clinically, the average improvement was 32.5% in ODI, 46.3 mm in low back pain, and 48.3 mm in leg pain estimated from the studies included. SF-36 PCS improved by 51.5% and MCS improved by 19.5%. For radiological outcomes, a reduction in slippage was seen in 6.3%. Disc height increased by 55%, foraminal height increased by 21.1%, the foraminal area on the approach side increased by 21.9%, and on the opposite side it increased by 26.1%. The cross-sectional spinal canal area increased by 20.6% after surgery. Post-operative complications occurred in 5–40% of patients with thigh symptoms, such as anterior thigh numbness, dysesthesia, discomfort, pain, and sensory deficits. Conclusions: Indirect decompression by LLIF for DS is an effective method for improving pain and dysfunction with less surgical invasion. In addition, it has the effect of significantly improving disc height, foraminal height and area, and segmental lordosis on radiological outcomes compared to the posterior approach.