Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease

Li, Huimin; Zhang, Ren‐Jie; Shen, Cailiang

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2018.10.115

Cited by 50 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three studies were prospective consecutive clinical series, 16 studies were retrospective comparative studies, and 37 studies were retrospective case series. Two reviewers, using standardized data collection tool, independently extracted data on age, publication year, follow-up, fusion level, disc height (DH), visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), operative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stay, fusion, and complications [58]. Fusion was defined as bridging trabecular bone and lack of lucencies on plain radiographs and radiographic evidence of fusion was based on CT scans or flexion-extension radiographs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis

Zhang

Shen

2019

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn the current surgical therapeutic regimen for the degenerative lumbar disease, both oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are gradually accepted. Thus, the objective of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease.MethodsWe conducted an exhaustive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to find the relevant studies about OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease. Random-effects model was performed to pool the outcomes about disc height (DH), fusion, operative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stays, complications, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI).Results56 studies were included in this study. The two groups of patients had similar changes in terms of DH, operative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay and the fusion rate (over 90%). The OLIF group showed slightly better VAS and ODI scores improvement. The incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF was 26.7 and 27.8% respectively. Higher rates of nerve injury and psoas weakness (21.2%) were reported for LLIF, while higher rates of cage subsidence (5.1%), endplate damage (5.2%) and vascular injury (1.7%) were reported for OLIF.ConclusionsThe two groups are similar in terms of radiographic outcomes, operative blood loss, operative time and the length of hospital stay. The OLIF group shows advantages in VAS and ODI scores improvement. Though the incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF is similar, the incidence of main complications is significantly different.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When pooling the data from the included studies, the Stata software (version 14.0; TX 77845, USA) was used. The z-test was applied to the mantel-haenszel analysis, and standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated by the random-effects model [58]. The heterogeneity was assessed using the chi-square test.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis

Zhang

Shen

2019

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although these methods have had high success rates, iatrogenic complications, such as nerve injury and stripping of the paravertebral muscles resulting in long-lasting sequelae, cannot always be avoided [6,7]. The major complications of MI-TLIF include dural tears, neurological injury, wound infection, urinary tract infection, and hardware failure [8]. Limited visualization is the main disadvantage of all tubular techniques, especially when di cult to control hemorrhages arise.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PEPLIF): technical note

He¹,

Feng²,

Ma³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion is based on endoscopic lumbar discectomy, a well-established and widely used clinical procedure. Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion has several key advantages over other types of procedures, including that it is minimally invasive, more precise, safer, and provides better visualization. Most surgeons use the transforaminal approach for this surgery. Here, we report the first percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PEPLIF). Methods: The authors introduce the PEPLIF technique with step by step instructions and describe key procedures in detail. Tips for controlling hemorrhages and avoiding complications during the procedure are presented. The authors also discuss the indications and advantages of applying the PEPLIF technique.Results: PEPLIF is a repeatable lumbar fusion technique.Conclusions: PEPLIF is a feasible and effective technique for the fusion of L4-5 and L5-S1 (especially L5-S1). All procedures are completed in full using endoscopy without replacing the cannula. The endoscopic view is similar to that of an open posterior lumbar interbody fusion, thus reducing the learning curve.

show abstract

“…As of the present literature search, a previous meta-analysis conducted by Lin compared OLIF and MI-TLIF in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease in October 2018 [18]. The analysis included 47 studies that involved 3,587 patients, and a systematic review of related studies was performed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Chen¹,

He²,

Liang³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Versus Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease

Cited by 50 publications

References 41 publications

Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis

Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis

Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PEPLIF): technical note

Comparison of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About