Comparative Study of the Difference of Perioperative Complication and Radiologic Results

Jin, Jie; Ryu, Kyeong‐Sik; Hur, Jung‐Woo; Seong, Ji-Hoon; Kim, Jin-Sung; Cho, Hyun Jin

doi:10.1097/bsd.0000000000000474

Cited by 70 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clinical outcomes (VAS, ODI) in DLIF and OLIF were improved significantly after surgery. However, there was no significant difference in clinical outcome between the two groups, which was similar to a recent study [13].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…DLIF passes through the psoas muscle to access the disc, while OLIF accesses the disc between the psoas muscle and prevertebral structures such as vessels and the ureter [9,25,28,34,35,38]. Previous studies have been mainly related to the complications and indirect decompression of DLIF or OLIF [1,6,11-13,16,18,20-22,30,33,34,36,38]. However, there have been increased interests recently in postoperative lumbar spine angle which is important for the sagittal balance of the spine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although lumbar spine angles after LLIF have been studied, only a few studies have provided direct comparative data of lumbar spine angles between DLIF and OLIF, and the influential factors [13,36]. In this study, we compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of DLIF and OLIF, and analyzed factors affecting the differences in the radiological outcomes between the two approaches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of Cage in Radiological Differences between Direct and Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Techniques

Park

Kim

2019

J Korean Neurosurg Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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±2.4 vs. 21.0±2.1 mm, p <0.001) and sagittal disc angle (SDA; 8.7±3.3 vs. 11.3±3.2˚, p <0.001) between the DLIF and OLIF groups at 7 days postoperatively. CA (9.6±3.0 vs. 8.1±2.9˚, p <0.001) and CW (21.2±1.6 vs. 19.2±1.9 mm, 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±3.0 vs. 9.1±3.6 mm, p <0.001). Cage subsidence at 1 year postoperatively was significantly worse in the DLIF group compared to the OLIF group (1.0±1.5 vs. 0.4±1.1 mm, p=0.001). Cage location was significantly correlated with postoperative FH (β=0.273, p <0.001) and postoperative SDA (β=-0.358, p <0.001). CA was significantly correlated with postoperative FH (β=-0.139, p=0.044) and postoperative SDA (β=0.236, p=0.001). Cage location (β=0.293, p <0.001) and CW (β=-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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Cage in Radiological Differences between Direct and Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Techniques

Park

Kim

2019

J Korean Neurosurg Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Silvestre et al showed that only 7 patients (3.9%) had complications related to lumbar plexus injury or psoas muscle weakness, and all those patients recovered completely after a period of time [39]. There was no patient with complications related to the major vessel injury in our study, which was consistent with previous study [38]. In current study, 2 patients (3.8%) were with intraoperative complications (1 with thigh numbness and 1with hematoncus).The patient with hematoncus received surgery.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…This was consistent with previous studies [21,37]. OLIF was conducted through the window between abdominal major vessels and anterior border of the psoas muscle [38], which was reported in 2012 [39].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Percutaneous Delta Endoscopic Decompression versus Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Wei

Zhou

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) expands the inner volume of the spinal canal by indirect decompression. However, there were few studies to assess OLIF for LSS. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes and safety after percutaneous delta endoscopic decompression (PED) and OLIF. Methods: Ninety-four patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) underwent PED or OLIF with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPS) between January 2016 and December 2018 were retrospectively studied. Patients were assessed by estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, hospital stay, cost, reoperation, complications, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (JOA) and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Results: Compared with OLIF group, the OLIF group was with longer operation time and hospital stay, more blood loss and more cost (p=0.001, 0.005, 0.001 and 0.001, respectively). Compared with preoperative data, VAS and ODI were significantly reduced and JOA and SF-36 increased significantly with the statistically significant difference (all p <0.05). There was no significant difference in postoperative main outcomes except VAS (lumbar) and ODI between the two groups (all p >0.05). But patients in the PED group were with lower VAS (lumbar) and ODI (p=0.012 and 0.042, respectively). In addition, the PED group was with SF-36 physical-component summary score (p=0. 0.036). The PED group was with lower all complication rate (2.4% PED vs 9.8% OLIF), intra-operative complication rate (2.4% PED vs 3.9% OLIF) and post-operative complication rate (0.0% PED vs 5.9% OLIF), but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.336, 0.517 and 0.402, respectively). And there was no statistical difference in and reoperation rate (2.4% PED vs 3.8% OLIF) (p= 0.715).Conclusions: PED and OLIF had satisfactory results for LSS. In general, PED was superior to OLIF in relieving patients with low back pain and improving function without any obvious shortcomings. Therefore, we recommend PED for LSS.Level of Evidence: 3

show abstract

Neural and Dural Injury in Minimally Invasive Surgery

Hancock

Ohnmeiss

Blumenthal

2019

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparative Study of the Difference of Perioperative Complication and Radiologic Results

Cited by 70 publications

References 16 publications

Effect of Cage in Radiological Differences between Direct and Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Techniques

Effect of Cage in Radiological Differences between Direct and Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Techniques

Percutaneous Delta Endoscopic Decompression versus Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Neural and Dural Injury in Minimally Invasive Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About