Aim: Both oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are frequently used to treat degenerative lumbar disease. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the radiologic and clinical outcomes between these two methods.Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science and MEDLINE, were searched to identify relevant studies that compared OLIF and TLIF up to May 2020. The radiographic outcomes comprised of the disc height (DH), lumbar lordotic angle (LLA), disc angle (DA), fusion rate (FR), and foraminal height (FH). The secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, operation time, estimated blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Data pooling and a meta-analysis with the random effects model were performed to evaluate the major results and conclusions. Results: A total of nine studies that involved 593 patients (271 patients in the OLIF group and 322 in the TLIF group) were included in the meta-analysis. Similar changes, in terms of disc height and fusion rate of >80%, were observed between the two groups. In comparing OLIF to TLIF, the OLIF group had less estimated blood loss, and a shorter operative time and hospital stay, with statistical difference. However, there was no significant difference in VAS and ODI between OLIF and TLIF.The meta-analysis suggested that TLIF is associated with better postoperative LLA, FH and DA, when compared to OLIF. However, these were not statistically significant (P>005).Conclusion: These results demonstrate that both OLIF and TLIF are similar in terms of the restoration of disc height and intervertebral fusion rate in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. OLIF was superior to TLIF in terms of operation time, hospital stay and estimated blood loss. However, there was no advantage in restoring the sagittal balance and correcting the lordosis.
Objective: To investigate the feasibility of using the cortical bone trajectory (CBT) screw in revision surgery for lumbar adjacent segment degeneration (LASD) and to provide a reference for clinical practice.Methods:The computed tomography (CT) scans of the lumbar spine of 40 patients in our hospital were used. Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction was performed using Mimics 19.0 software, screws with appropriate sizes were selected for the L1 to L5 vertebral segments, and the traditional pedicle (TP) screws were placed using the standard method. After the completion of screw placement, the simulated placement of CBT screws with appropriate sizes was performed separately. During screw placement, the site and the direction were adjusted accordingly to complete the screw placement as much as possible. Under the premise of safe and feasible placement, penetration of the screw through the CBT and overlap between the TP and CBT screws should be avoided. If these requirements are met, screw placement is considered successful. Otherwise, the screw placement is considered failed. After all simulated screw placements were complete, the success rate of the screw placement in each segment of the lumbar vertebra was calculated from the statistical results. Finally, the pedicle trajectory reference width (TRW) was used for grouping to investigate the correlation between the TRW and sucess rate of screw placement. Results: Four hundred simulated screw placements (80 in each pedicle) were performed in the L1-L5 pedicles. The overall success rate of CBT screw placement in the lumbar spine was 57.00%. The success rates in the L1 to L5 segments were 47.50%, 62.50%, 57.50%, 70.00%, and 47.50%, respectively. The success rate in L4 was greater than in L2 and L3, while the lowest success rates were observed in L1 and L5. The groups were established based on the TRW. The success rate of CBT screw placement increased as the TRW increased.Conclusions: CBT screws are not suitable treatments for all cases of LASD. The success rate of screw placement varies in different lumbar segments. A preoperative measurement of TRW has important reference value for evaluating the feasibility of CBT screw placement in revision surgery for LASD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.