Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2018.0215

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)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society / v.63, no.6, 2020 , pp. 723-729 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Spinal fusion; Lumbar vertebrae; Instrumentation; Minimally invasive surgical procedures;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
8 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   DOI
9 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   DOI
10 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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
14 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   DOI
15 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   DOI
16 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   DOI
17 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   DOI
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   DOI
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   DOI
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 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   DOI
22 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   DOI