Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

  • 제63권6호
  • /
  • Pages.723-729
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2005-3711(pISSN)
  • /
  • 1598-7876(eISSN)
대한신경외과학회 (The Korean Neurosurgical Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Usefulness of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion at L5-S1 Level Compared to Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

  • Mun, Hah Yong (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Ko, Myeong Jin (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Young Baeg (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Seung Won (Department of Neurosurgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2018.11.26
  • 심사 : 2019.04.29
  • 발행 : 2020.11.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective : The use of oblique lateral interbody fusion at the L5-S1 level (OLIF51) is increasing, but no study has directly compared OLIF51 and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at the L5-S1 level. We evaluated the usefulness of OLIF51 by comparing clinical and radiologic outcomes with those of TLIF at the same L5-S1 level. Methods : We retrospectively reviewed and compared 74 patients who underwent OLIF51 (OLIF51 group) and 74 who underwent TLIF at the L5-S1 level (TLIF51 group). Clinical outcomes were assessed with the visual analogue scale for back pain and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index. Mean disc height (MDH), foraminal height (FH), disc angle (DA), fusion rate, and subsidence rate were measured for radiologic outcomes. Results : The OLIF51 group used significantly higher, wider, and larger-angled cages than the TLIF51 group (p<0.001). The postoperative MDH and FH were significantly greater in the OLIF51 group than in the TLIF51 group (p<0.001). The postoperative DA was significantly larger in the OLIF51 group than in the TLIF51 group by more than 10º (p<0.001). The fusion rate was 81.1% and 87.8% at postoperative 6 months in the OLIF51 and TLIF51 groups, respectively, and the TLIF51 group showed a higher fusion rate (p<0.05). The subsidence rate was 16.2% and 25.3% in the OLIF51 and TLIF51 groups, respectively, and the OLIF51 group showed a lower subsidence rate (p<0.05). Conclusion : OLIF51 was more effective for the indirect decompression of foraminal stenosis, providing strong mechanical support with a larger cage, and making a greater lordotic angle with a high-angle cage than with TLIF.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K : Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20 : 1410-1418, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199506020-00014
  2. Busche-McGregor M, Naiman J, Grice A : Analysis of lumbar lordosis in an asymptomatic population of young adults. J Can Chiropr Assoc 25 : 58-64, 1981
  3. Chung NS, Jeon CH, Lee HD : Use of an alternative surgical corridor in oblique lateral interbody fusion at the L5-S1 segment: a technical report. Clin Spine Surg 31 : 293-296, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000584
  4. Cutler AR, Siddiqui S, Mohan AL, Hillard VH, Cerabona F, Das K : Comparison of polyetheretherketone cages with femoral cortical bone allograft as a single-piece interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 5 : 534-539, 2006 https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2006.5.6.534
  5. Davis TT, Hynes RA, Fung DA, Spann SW, MacMillan M, Kwon B, et al. : Retroperitoneal oblique corridor to the L2-S1 intervertebral discs in the lateral position: an anatomic study. J Neurosurg Spine 21 : 785-793, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.7.SPINE13564
  6. Glassman SD, Carreon L, Djurasovic M, Campbell MJ, Puno RM, Johnson JR, et al. : Posterolateral lumbar spine fusion with INFUSE bone graft. Spine J 7 : 44-49, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2006.06.381
  7. Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U : Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 14 : 551-558, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1
  8. Harms J, Rolinger H : A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120 : 343-347, 1982 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1051624
  9. Jiang SD, Chen JW, Jiang LS : Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132 : 1259-1266, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1546-z
  10. Kawaguchi Y, Yabuki S, Styf J, Olmarker K, Rydevik B, Matsui H, et al. : Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Topographic evaluation of intramuscular pressure and blood flow in the porcine back muscle during surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 : 2683-2688, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199611150-00019
  11. Le TV, Baaj AA, Dakwar E, Burkett CJ, Murray G, Smith DA, et al. : Subsidence of polyetheretherketone intervertebral cages in minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37 : 1268-1273, 2012 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182458b2f
  12. Lee CS, Hwang CJ, Lee DH, Kim YT, Lee HS : Fusion rates of instrumented lumbar spinal arthrodesis according to surgical approach: a systematic review of randomized trials. Clin Orthop Surg 3 : 39-47, 2011 https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2011.3.1.39
  13. Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Ha SS : Which approach is advantageous to preventing development of adjacent segment disease? comparative analysis of 3 different lumbar interbody fusion techniques (ALIF, LLIF, and PLIF) in L4-5 spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg 105 : 612-622, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.005
  14. Malham GM, Parker RM, Blecher CM, Seex KA : Assessment and classification of subsidence after lateral interbody fusion using serial computed tomography. J Neurosurg Spine 23 : 589-597, 2015 https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.1.SPINE14566
  15. Champagne PO, Walsh C, Diabira J, Plante ME, Wang Z, Boubez G, et al. : Sagittal balance correction following lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of the three approaches. Asian Spine J 13 : 450-458, 2019 https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.0128
  16. Potter BK, Freedman BA, Verwiebe EG, Hall JM, Polly DW Jr, Kuklo TR : Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic results and complications in 100 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech 18 : 337-346, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000166642.69189.45
  17. Sasso RC, Kenneth Burkus J, LeHuec JC : Retrograde ejaculation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion: transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal exposure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28 : 1023-1026, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000062965.47779.EB
  18. Sembrano JN, Yson SC, Horazdovsky RD, Santos ER, Polly DW Jr : Radiographic comparison of lateral lumbar interbody fusion versus traditional fusion approaches: analysis of sagittal contour change. Int J Spine Surg 9 : 16, 2015 https://doi.org/10.14444/2016
  19. Silvestre C, Mac-Thiong JM, Hilmi R, Roussouly P : Complications and morbidities of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 179 patients. Asian Spine J 6 : 89-97, 2012 https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2012.6.2.89
  20. Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS : Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus 28 : E7, 2010
  21. Woods KR, Billys JB, Hynes RA : Technical description of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and evaluation of complication and fusion rates. Spine J 17 : 545-553, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.10.026
  22. Zairi F, Sunna TP, Westwick HJ, Weil AG, Wang Z, Boubez G, et al. : Mini-open oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) approach for multilevel discectomy and fusion involving L5-S1: preliminary experience. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103 : 295-299, 2017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2016.11.016

피인용 문헌

  1. Introducing V-Line as a New Strategy to Choose Surgical Corridor in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the L5-S1 Segment vol.2021, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5584372
  2. Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) in Interbody Fusion Technique for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis vol.11, pp.7, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/life11070696
  3. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis vol.22, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04687-7