Effect of Approach Based Lumbar Interbody Fusion on Sagittal Spinopelvic Parameters and Functional Outcomes: Comparison between Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF)

被引:0
|
作者
Jain, Mantu [1 ]
Sethy, Siddharth S. [2 ]
Sahoo, Auroshish [1 ]
Khan, Shahnawaz [1 ]
Tripathy, Sujit [1 ]
Ramasubbu, Mathan Kumar [3 ]
机构
[1] All India Inst Med Sci, Dept Orthopaed, Bhubaneswar 751019, Orissa, India
[2] All India Inst Med Sci, Dept Orthopaed, Rishikesh 249201, Uttaranchal, India
[3] All India Inst Med Sci, Dept Pharmacol, Bhubaneswar 751019, India
关键词
Spinal Fusion; Sagittal spinal parameters; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF); Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF); ALIGNMENT; METAANALYSIS; SPINE;
D O I
10.1007/s43465-024-01229-w
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
PurposeTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) are the most commonly conducted operations for interbody fusions. In addition to fusion, the restoration of proper spinal alignment has become crucial for achieving favorable functional outcomes. There is a lack of agreement on which lumbar interbody fusion technique provides the most effective correction for sagittal spinopelvic parameters (SSPs). This study aims to investigate the functional outcome in terms of SSPs in patients undergoing single level OLIF and TLIF for lumbar degenerative disc disease.MethodologyRetrospective analysis of single level OLIF or TLIF was done. The patients' index and follow-up data until 6 months of surgery were collected. Radiographic parameters analysis included disc height (DH), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), pelvic index, lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL). Clinical outcomes were recorded using visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).ResultsIn a total of 38 patients (19 in each group) mean age was 51.52 +/- 12.67 years in OLIF and 52.17 +/- 9.73 years in TLIF. Improvement in DH was more in OLIF but not statistically significant (p = 0.075). Significant improvements were seen in PT, and SL post-TLIF. Change in SSPs among groups shown no significant differences. Both VAS and ODI shown improvements in both the groups but no significant difference was noted while comparing the two groups.ConclusionThe study showed better restoration of SSPs by TLIF in terms of PT and SL although functional outcomes appear similar in both procedures. Increase in DH is the important determinant for resulting good outcome. Patients with maintained spinopelvic balance can be treated satisfactorily with less-invasive OLIF.
引用
收藏
页码:40 / 46
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A Comparative Study between Single-Level Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Adjacent Segment Disease
    Chang, Chung-Tse
    Lin, Yu-Hsien
    Wu, Yun-Che
    Shih, Cheng-Min
    Chen, Kun-Hui
    Pan, Chien-Chou
    Lee, Cheng-Hung
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2024, 13 (19)
  • [42] Time Course Observation of Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Lin, Guang-Xun
    Park, Chun-Kun
    Hur, Jung-Woo
    Kim, Jin-Sung
    NEUROLOGIA MEDICO-CHIRURGICA, 2019, 59 (06) : 222 - 230
  • [43] Outcomes of extended transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar spondylosis
    Talia, Adrian J.
    Wong, Michael L.
    Lau, Hui C.
    Kaye, Andrew H.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2015, 22 (11) : 1762 - 1770
  • [44] Comparison of the Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Diseases: A Matched Case-Control
    Shi, Liang
    Ding, Tao
    Shi, Yihua
    Wang, Fang
    Wu, Chengcong
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2022, 167 : E1231 - E1240
  • [45] Percutaneous Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique Note and Comparison of Early Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Zhang, Hao
    Zhou, Chuanli
    Wang, Chao
    Zhu, Kai
    Tu, Qihao
    Kong, Meng
    Zhao, Chong
    Ma, Xuexiao
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GENERAL MEDICINE, 2021, 14 : 549 - 558
  • [46] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Interbody Fusion
    Stadler, James A., III
    Dandaleh, Nader S.
    Smith, Zachary A.
    Koski, Tyler R.
    NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2014, 25 (02) : 377 - +
  • [47] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Multilevel: Comparison with Conventional Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
    Lee, Won-chul
    Park, Jeong-Yoon
    Kim, Kyung Hyun
    Kuh, Sung Uk
    Chin, Dong Kyu
    Kim, Keun Su
    Cho, Yong Eun
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2016, 85 : 236 - 243
  • [48] Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Which One in Which Patient?
    Dada, Abraham
    Liles, Campbell
    Kanter, Adam S.
    Alan, Nima
    NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2025, 36 (01) : 1 - 10
  • [49] Biomechanical Evaluation of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion on the Adjacent Segment: A Finite Element Analysis
    Wang, Bingjin
    Hua, Wenbin
    Ke, Wencan
    Lu, Saideng
    Li, Xingsheng
    Zeng, Xianlin
    Yang, Cao
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2019, 126 : E819 - E824
  • [50] Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    de Kunder, Suzanne L.
    van Kuijk, Sander M. J.
    Rijkers, Kim
    Caelers, Inge J. M. H.
    van Hemert, Wouter L. W.
    de Bie, Rob A.
    van Santbrink, Henk
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2017, 17 (11): : 1712 - 1721