Clinical Evaluation of Microendoscopy-Assisted Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion

Comparison of the Medium-term Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Discectomy and Fusion with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs) with huge herniation in the left lateral recess or central canal present challenges for oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) or endoscope-assisted OLIF procedures. Currently, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is the primary approach for this issue. This study aims to provide a standardized technical description of the anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion (ALDF) and evaluate the medium-term clinical effectiveness of both ALDF and MIS-TLIF techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on LDDs who underwent ALDF and MIS-TLIF surgery from January 2018 to January 2020. The evaluation encompassed various clinical outcomes, such as the visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain (VAS-back, VAS-leg), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), the 36-item short-form health survey mental component summary (SF-36 MCS), and the physical component summary (SF-36 PCS). Additionally, radiological parameters, including disc height (DH), segmental disk angle (SDA), lumbar lordosis (LL), and cross-sectional area (CSA), were assessed. Data including radiculopathy, estimated blood loss, operation time, time of getting out of bed, fusion rate, and complications were recorded. Student's independent samples t test and Pearson's chi-square test were used to compare the differences between groups.

RESULTS

In total, 47 patients were treated by ALDF and 48 patients were treated by MIS-TLIF. The ALDF group exhibited statistically significant lower estimated blood loss and earlier time of getting out of bed compared to the MIS-TLIF group (p < 0.05). The ALDF group demonstrated lower VAS-back scores and a higher remission rate of low back pain 3 years after the surgery (p < 0.05). During the entire follow-up period, the ALDF group exhibited higher increases in DH and SDA compared to the MIS-TLIF group (p < 0.05). At 6 months, the fusion rate in the ALDF group was significantly higher than in the MIS-TLIF group (p < 0.05). The comparison revealed no statistically significant differences in complication rates between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The ALDF could be considered as a viable surgical alternative for the treatment of LDDs that necessitate ventral neural direct decompression. ALDF exhibited favorable medium-term outcomes in patients with LDDs, displaying advantages in facilitating expedited recovery, enhancing radiographic outcomes, and elevating the remission rate of low back pain. Although ALDF presents slightly higher complication rates compared to MIS-TLIF, it does not adversely affect clinical outcomes.

Comprehensive Assessment of Indirect Decompression Through Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire-Based Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the clinical outcomes of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) as an indirect decompression technique for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and concomitant degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) patients. We utilized the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) to assess treatment success and its impact on patient's quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

We included 124 patients who underwent LLIF. Pre- and postoperative JOABPEQ evaluations indicated treatment success. Subgroup analysis categorized patients' perceptions of surgery as beneficial or non-beneficial.

RESULTS

89% of patients (110/124) reported satisfaction with LLIF. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion achieved successful indirect decompression, increasing canal diameter and central canal area. Significant improvements occurred across all JOABPEQ domains, notably for low back pain, lumbar function, walking ability, social life function, and mental health. Patients who perceived the surgery as beneficial experienced fewer postoperative complications, lower numeric rating scale scores for pain relief, and greater functional outcome improvements compared to non-beneficial patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the utility of JOABPEQ as a valuable and sensitive tool for assessing treatment effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes in DS and concomitant DLSS patients. Patients undergoing LLIF. The results affirm the favorable outcomes of LLIF as a surgical option for DLSS patients and emphasize the importance of considering patient perspectives when evaluating overall treatment success. The study provides valuable insights into the impact of indirect decompression on patients' QOL, supporting the effectiveness of LLIF as a minimally invasive technique for DLSS and DS management.

OLIF versus MI-TLIF for patients with degenerative lumbar disease: Is one procedure superior to the other? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar disease.

METHODS

We searched relevant studies in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases comprehensively from inception to March 2022. The data were extracted from included studies, including operation indications, radiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes. Random or fixed-effects models were used in all meta-analyses according to the between-study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 30 studies, including 2,125 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Our study found similar disk height, length of hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index(ODI) between the two groups. However, the OLIF showed an advantage in restoring lumbar lordotic angle compared with MI-TLIF, with the pooled mean change of 17.73° and 2.61°, respectively. Additionally, the operative time and blood loss in the OLIF group appeared to be less compared with the MI-TLIF group. Regarding complications, the rates of the two groups were similar (OLIF 14.0% vs. MI-TLIF 10.0%), but the major complications that occurred in these two procedures differed significantly.

CONCLUSION

The results of disk height, length of hospital stay, VAS, and ODI between the OLIF and MI-TLIF groups were similar. And the OLIF was superior in restoring lumbar lordotic angle, operative time, and blood loss. However, the OLIF group's complication rate was higher, although not significantly, than that in the MI-TLIF group.

Comparison of Outcomes of Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Full-endoscopic Laminectomy for L5 Radiculopathy Caused by Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis

This study compared the outcomes of microendoscopy-assisted lumbar interbody fusion (ME-LIF) and uniportal full-endoscopic laminectomy (FEL) for L5 radiculopathy caused by lumbar foraminal stenosis (LFS). ME-LIF was performed using an 18- to 20-mm tubular retractor and endoscope, and FEL via the translaminar approach (TLA) was performed at the dorsal part of the foramen using a 4.1-mm working channel endoscope. Patients with LFS treated using ME-LIF (n = 39) or FEL-TLA (n = 30) were retrospectively evaluated. Patients' background and operative data were collected. The 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and European Quality of Life-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) scores were recorded preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. The background data of the two groups (ME-LIF and FEL-TLA) were similar. The mean operation times for ME-LIF and FEL-TLA were 110.7 and 65.2 min, respectively, and the mean length of hospital stay were 10.3 and 1.5 days, respectively. Reoperation was required for surgical site infection, and percutaneous pedicle screw malposition in three patients was treated using ME-LIF. During follow-up, second FEL-TLA and LIF were performed for recurrent L5 radiculopathy in one and three patients in the FEL-TLA group, respectively. Although the SF-36, ODI, and EQ-5D scores 2 years postoperatively improved in both groups, improvement in ODI scores was lower following FEL-TLA than following ME-LIF. FEL-TLA can be performed to treat patients with L5 radiculopathy caused by LFS. Although the ODI score improvement following FEL-TLA was unremarkable, FEL-TLA might be considered because of its better safety profile and minimal invasiveness than ME-LIF.