• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.56 no.6
• /
• pp.469-474
• /
• 2014

Objective : The use of direct lumbar interbody fusion (DLIF) has gradually increased; however, no studies have directly compared DLIF and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We compared DLIF and TLIF on the basis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods : A retrospective review was performed on the medical records and radiographs of 98 and 81 patients who underwent TLIF and DLIF between January 2011 and December 2012. Clinical outcomes were compared with a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The preoperative and postoperative disc heights, segmental sagittal/coronal angles, and lumbar lordosis were measured on radiographs. Fusion rates, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay, and complications were assessed. Results : DLIF was superior to TLIF regarding its ability to restore disc height, foraminal height, and coronal balance (p<0.001). As the extent of surgical level increased, DLIF displayed significant advantages over TLIF considering the operative time and EBL. However, fusion rates at 12 months post-operation were lower for DLIF (87.8%) than for TLIF (98.1%) (p=0.007). The changes of VAS and ODI between the TLIF and DLIF were not significantly different (p>0.05). Conclusion : Both DLIF and TLIF are less invasive and thus good surgical options for treating degenerative lumber diseases. DLIF has higher potential in increasing neural foramina and correcting coronal balance, and involves a shorter operative time and reduced EBL, in comparison with TLIF. However, DLIF displayed a lower fusion rate than TLIF, and caused complications related to the transpsoas approach.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.55 no.5
• /
• pp.248-254
• /
• 2014

Objective : According to the recent development of minimally invasive spinal surgery, direct lumbar interbody fusion (DLIF) was introduced as an effective option to treat lumbar degenerative diseases. However, comprehensive results of DLIF have not been reported in Korea yet. The object of this study is to summarize radiological and clinical outcomes of our DLIF experience. Methods : We performed DLIF for 130 patients from May 2011 to June 2013. Among them, 90 patients, who could be followed up for more than 6 months, were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical outcomes were compared using visual analog scale (VAS) score and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Bilateral foramen areas, disc height, segmental coronal and sagittal angle, and regional sagittal angle were measured. Additionally, fusion rate was assessed. Results : A total of 90 patients, 116 levels, were underwent DLIF. The VAS and ODI improved statistically significant after surgery. All the approaches for DLIF were done on the left side. The left and right side foramen area changed from $99.5mm^2$ and $102.9mm^2$ to $159.2mm^2$ and $151.2mm^2$ postoperatively (p<0.001). Pre- and postoperative segmental coronal and sagittal angles changed statistically significant from $4.1^{\circ}$ and $9.9^{\circ}$ to $1.1^{\circ}$ and $11.1^{\circ}$. Fusion rates of 6 and 12 months were 60.9% and 87.8%. Complications occurred in 17 patients (18.9%). However, most of the complications were resolved within 2 months. Conclusion : DLIF is not only effective for indirect decompression and deformity correction but also shows satisfactory mechanical stability and fusion rate.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.38 no.5
• /
• pp.399-402
• /
• 2005

Direct anterior approach for lesions located anterior to the thecal sac is definitely superior to lateral or posterior approach in many respects. However, various anatomical obstacles and technical difficulties often hinder direct anterior approach. Thanks to ripe experience of retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine for anterior lumbar interbody fusion and total disc replacement, the authors could perform lumbar corpectomy and reconstruction by using midline retroperitoneal approach recently. During this approach, we repaired anterior longitudinal ligament also to reduce the risk of graft extrusion and to prevent erosion of vascular wall due to direct contact between metallic hardware, which was used for reconstruction of vertebral body, and major vessels.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.62 no.4
• /
• pp.432-441
• /
• 2019

Objective : Few studies have reported direct comparative data of lumbar spine angles between direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF). The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes of DLIF and OLIF, and determine influential factors. Methods : The same surgeon performed DLIF from May 2011 to August 2014 (n=201) and OLIF from September 2014 to September 2016 (n=142). Radiological parameters, cage height, cage angle (CA), cage width (CW), and cage location were assessed. We checked the cage location as the distance (mm) from the anterior margin of the disc space to the anterior metallic indicator of the cage in lateral images. Results : There were significant differences in intervertebral foramen height (FH; $22.0{\pm}2.4$ vs. $21.0{\pm}2.1mm$, p<0.001) and sagittal disc angle (SDA; $8.7{\pm}3.3$ vs. $11.3{\pm}3.2^{\circ}$, p<0.001) between the DLIF and OLIF groups at 7 days postoperatively. CA ($9.6{\pm}3.0$ vs. $8.1{\pm}2.9^{\circ}$, p<0.001) and CW ($21.2{\pm}1.6$ vs. $19.2{\pm}1.9mm$, p<0.001) were significantly larger in the OLIF group compared to the DLIF group. The cage location of the OLIF group was significantly more anterior than the DLIF group ($6.7{\pm}3.0$ vs. $9.1{\pm}3.6mm$, p<0.001). Cage subsidence at 1 year postoperatively was significantly worse in the DLIF group compared to the OLIF group ($1.0{\pm}1.5$ vs. $0.4{\pm}1.1mm$, p=0.001). Cage location was significantly correlated with postoperative FH (${\beta}=0.273$, p<0.001) and postoperative SDA (${\beta}=-0.358$, p<0.001). CA was significantly correlated with postoperative FH (${\beta}=-0.139$, p=0.044) and postoperative SDA (${\beta}=0.236$, p=0.001). Cage location (${\beta}=0.293$, p<0.001) and CW (${\beta}=-0.225$, p<0.001) were significantly correlated with cage subsidence. Conclusion : The cage location, CA, and CW seem to be important factors which result in the different-radiological outcomes between DLIF and OLIF.