Efficacy and Safety of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Liu, Aifeng; Guo, Tiantian; Chen, Ji-Xin; Yu, Weijie; Feng, Huichuan; Niu, Puyu; Zhai, Jing

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2021.11.127

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Min Cheol Chang et al [ 18 ] conducted a systematic review and found no significant difference in clinical and radiological results between OLIF and TLIF in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. Ai-Feng Liu et al [ 19 ] believed that OLIF and TLIF had no significant difference in relieving pain and improving function, but OLIF could improve LL and IDH compared with TLIF. Minimally invasive surgery (such as MIS-TLIF) has been shown to reduce intraoperative blood loss, the incidence of perioperative infection, and the overall hospital stay and early return to daily life compared with open TLIF [ 20 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of the effects of OLIF and TLIF on adjacent segments after treatment of L4 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Tong

Wang

2022

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The fusion of the lumbar spine may lead to the degeneration of the adjacent segments. In this study, the effects of OLIF and TLIF on adjacent segments after treatment of L4 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) were compared and analysed. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of the medical records of consecutive patients treated with OLIF or TLIF for L4DLS. They were divided into the OLIF group and TLIF group based on different treatment methods. Cage height, segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), and sacral slope (SS) were compared between the two groups, and the postoperative biomechanical changes were analysed by establishing the disc angle (DA). The clinical outcomes were analysed by comparing the visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and incidence of adjacent segment disease (ASDis) between the two groups. The intervertebral disc height (IDH), intervertebral foramen height (IDH), intervertebral foramen area (IFA), sliding distance (SD), and angular displacement (AD) in L3-4 and L5-S1 were compared between the two groups. The incidence of aggravated disc degeneration (ADD), the incidence of aggravated zygapophyseal joint degeneration (AJD) and the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) were compared between the two groups for radiological degeneration. Results At the last follow-up, there was one case of ASDis in the OLIF group (2.78%) and two cases in the TLIF group (5.56%). At the last follow-up, compared with the preoperative values, IDH, IFH, and IFA of the adjacent segments above and below L4-5 decreased in both groups (P < 0.05); the SD and AD increased in both groups (P < 0.05). The cage height and L4-5 IDH in the OLIF group were significantly higher than those in the TLIF group (P < 0.05). SL, LL, PT, SS, and L5- S1DA were significantly improved in the OLIF group compared with the TLIF group (P < 0.05). The incidence of L3-4ASDeg in the two groups was higher than that of L5-S1. The incidence of ASDeg and the incidence of L5-S1ADD in the OLIF group were lower than those in the TLIF group, but the incidence of L5-S1AJD was higher than that in the TLIF group. Conclusion L4DLS after OLIF and TLIF treatment will cause adjacent segment degeneration, and L3-4 degeneration is more obvious than L5-S1 degeneration. OLIF has more advantages in restoring lumbar sagittal balance. Compared with TLIF, OLIF can weaken the degeneration of the L5-S1 disc and increase the degeneration of the L5-S1 zygapophyseal joints.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis of the effects of OLIF and TLIF on adjacent segments after treatment of L4 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Tong

Wang

2022

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lower complication rates, less blood loss, and better corrective effect can be achieved by lateral approaches of interbody fusion for deformity-correction surgery, compared with conventional TLIF ( 13 ). For degenerative spondylolisthesis, however, the benefit of OLIF was debated ( 14 ). Similar clinical outcomes and complication rates were shown in this prospective comparative study, although less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, higher disc height, and lower subsidence rates were shown in OLIF group than in TLIF group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a prospective cohort study with a 2-year follow-up

et al. 2023

Front. Surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between oblique (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis during a 2-year follow-up.MethodsPatients with symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent OLIF (OLIF group) or TLIF (TLIF group) were prospectively enrolled in the authors’ hospital and followed up for 2 years. The primary outcomes were treatment effects [changes in visual analog score (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) from baseline] at 2 years after surgery; these were compared between two groups. Patient characteristics, radiographic parameters, fusion status, and complication rates were also compared.ResultsIn total, 45 patients were eligible for the OLIF group and 47 patients for the TLIF group. The rates of follow-up were 89% and 87% at 2 years, respectively. The comparisons of primary outcomes demonstrated no different changes in VAS-leg (OLIF, 3.4 vs. TLIF, 2.7), VAS-back (OLIF, 2.5 vs. TLIF, 2.1), and ODI (OLIF, 26.8 vs. TLIF, 30). The fusion rates were 86.1% in the TLIF group and 92.5% in the OLIF group at 2 years (P = 0.365). The OLIF group had less estimated blood loss (median, 200 ml) than the TLIF group (median, 300 ml) (P < 0.001). Greater restoration of disc height was obtained by OLIF (mean, 4.6 mm) than the TLIF group (mean, 1.3 mm) in the early postoperative period (P < 0.001). The subsidence rate was lower in the OLIF group than that in the TLIF group (17.5% vs. 38.9%, P = 0.037). The rates of total problematic complications were not different between the two groups (OLIF, 14.6% vs. TLIF, 26.2%, P = 0.192).ConclusionOLIF did not show better clinical outcomes than TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis, except for lesser blood loss, greater disc height restoration, and lower subsidence rate.

show abstract

“…Transforaminal and extreme lateral approaches gradually developed, including the oblique lateral approach, which has sprung up in recent years, are posterior. The surgical core is reduction, decompression, fixation, and fusion 23 , 24 . So, we adopted a posterior approach in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beneficial influence of single-stage posterior surgery for the treatment of lumbar brucella spondylitis combined with spondylolisthesis

Zhang

Zhao

Chen

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of the single-stage posterior surgical treatment for patients of lumbar brucella spondylitis combined with spondylolisthesis. In this study, we performed a retrospective analysis of 16 patients with lumbar brucellosis spondylitis combined with spondylolisthesis from January 2015 to January 2019. All patients underwent single-stage posterior lumbar debridement, reduction, interbody fusion, and instrumentation. Preoperative and postoperative of the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability index (ODI), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were compared. In addition, the spondylolisthesis reduction rate, reduction loss rate, interbody fusion rate, and complication rate were recorded. VAS, ODI, ESR, and CRP were conducted with repeated analysis of variance data at different follow-ups. The postoperative follow-up was 12–36 months, with an average of (25.0 ± 8.1) months. VAS, ODI, ESR, and CRP were significantly better at 2-week and 1-year follow-up than preoperative results (P = 0.000, respectively). In addition, 1 year after the operation, VAS, ODI, ESR, and CRP showed a significant improvement (P = 0.000, respectively). The average spondylolisthesis reduction in 2 weeks after operation was (91.2 ± 6.7)%, and the median reduction loss rate in 1 year after operation was 8.0 (5.0, 9.8)%. At the last follow-up, all patients achieved interbody fusion, no loosening and fracture of instrumentation were found, and no recurrence happened. Single-stage posterior operation for lumbar debridement, reduction, interbody fusion, and instrumentation is beneficial for treating lumbar brucellosis spondylitis combined with spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, the reconstruction of spinal stability may relieve pain, heal lesions, and improve patients’ living.

show abstract

Efficacy and Safety of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cited by 11 publications

References 20 publications

Comparative analysis of the effects of OLIF and TLIF on adjacent segments after treatment of L4 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Comparative analysis of the effects of OLIF and TLIF on adjacent segments after treatment of L4 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Comparisons of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a prospective cohort study with a 2-year follow-up

Beneficial influence of single-stage posterior surgery for the treatment of lumbar brucella spondylitis combined with spondylolisthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About