Comparison of Unremoved Intervertebral Disc Location Between 2 Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) Techniques

被引:0
|
作者
Limthongkul, Worawat [1 ,2 ]
Chantharakomen, Rawijak [3 ]
Tanasansomboon, Teerachat [4 ]
Yingsakmongkol, Wicharn [1 ,2 ]
Oh, Jacob Yoong-Leong [5 ]
Kotheeranurak, Vit [6 ]
Singhatanadgige, Weerasak [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Chulalongkorn Univ, Fac Med, Dept Orthoped, Bangkok, Thailand
[2] Chulalongkorn Univ, Ctr Excellence Biomech & Innovat Spine Surg, Bangkok, Thailand
[3] Maharaj Nakhon Si Thammarat Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Nakhon Si Thammarat, Thailand
[4] Samutsakhon Hosp, Dept Orthoped, Samutsakhon, Thailand
[5] Tan Tock Seng Hosp, Dept Orthoped Surg, Singapore, Singapore
[6] Queen Savang Vadhana Mem Hosp, Dept Orthoped Surg, Sriracha, Chonburi, Thailand
关键词
Intervertebral disc; Lateral lumbar interbody fusion; OLIF; Unremoved; XLIF; INDIRECT DECOMPRESSION; COMPLICATION; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1016/j.wneu.22.01.011
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVE: To compare location and amount of unremoved intervertebral disc between extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) and oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). METHODS: Postoperative magnetic resonance images of patients who underwent XLIF and OLIF for degenerative spine diseases were reviewed. An axial cut T2-weighted image that was the middle cut of operated disc space was selected. We divided the disc area into 5 zones: central, left anterior, left posterior, right anterior, and right posterior. Disc area was measured using a picture archiving and communication system program. The angle of intervertebral cage was also measured. RESULTS: A total of 61 levels of XLIF from 51 patients and 62 levels of OLIF from 34 patients were included. The area of unremoved disc at left anterior, right anterior, and left posterior zones of OLIF were significantly greater than XLIF (55.7 +/- 41.5 vs. 29.8 +/- 33.3 mm(2), 57.9 +/- 43.6 vs. 34.1 +/- 33.1 mm(2), and 50.5 +/- 41.8 vs. 31.5 +/- 35.9 mm(2), respectively; P < 0.01). No significant differences were found at the right posterior and central zones. A 9.2 +/- 6.1 and 0.7 +/- 4.9 cage angulation from left anterior to right posterior was found in OLIF and XLIF, respectively, with statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found a greater area of unremoved disc in OLIF compared with XLIF. The common locations were in the contralateral side of the surgical approach-right anterior in OLIF, and right posterior in XLIF. The greater area of the unremoved disc in the anterior zone after OLIF due to oblique corridor to disc space may cause cage malposition. Meticulous disc removal should be performed, especially in OLIF, to prevent complications.
引用
收藏
页码:E322 / E327
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) reduces total lifetime cost compared with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for single-level lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a cost-utility analysis in Thailand
    Boonsirikamchai, Win
    Phisalpapra, Pochamana
    Kositamongkol, Chayanis
    Korwutthikulrangsri, Ekkapoj
    Ruangchainikom, Monchai
    Sutipornpalangkul, Werasak
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2023, 18 (01)
  • [32] Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) reduces total lifetime cost compared with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for single-level lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a cost-utility analysis in Thailand
    Win Boonsirikamchai
    Pochamana Phisalpapra
    Chayanis Kositamongkol
    Ekkapoj Korwutthikulrangsri
    Monchai Ruangchainikom
    Werasak Sutipornpalangkul
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 18
  • [33] Changes in Sagittal Alignment Following Short-Level Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison between Posterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions
    Nakashima, Hiroaki
    Kanemura, Tokumi
    Satake, Kotaro
    Ishikawa, Yoshimoto
    Ouchida, Jun
    Segi, Naoki
    Yamaguchi, Hidetoshi
    Imagama, Shiro
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2019, 13 (06) : 904 - 912
  • [34] Comparison of the safety outcomes between two surgical approaches for anterior lumbar fusion surgery: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (ELIF)
    Haertl, Roger
    Joeris, Alexander
    McGuire, Robert A.
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2016, 25 (05) : 1484 - 1521
  • [35] Comparison of the safety outcomes between two surgical approaches for anterior lumbar fusion surgery: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (ELIF)
    Roger Härtl
    Alexander Joeris
    Robert A. McGuire
    European Spine Journal, 2016, 25 : 1484 - 1521
  • [36] Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature
    Joseph, Jacob R.
    Smith, Brandon W.
    La Marca, Frank
    Park, Paul
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2015, 39 (04)
  • [37] Do Lordotic Cages Provide Better Segmental Lordosis Versus Nonlordotic Cages in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)?
    Sembrano, Jonathan N.
    Horazdovsky, Ryan D.
    Sharma, Amit K.
    Yson, Sharon C.
    Santos, Edward R. G.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2017, 30 (04): : E338 - E343
  • [38] Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine
    Audat, Z.
    Moutasem, O.
    Yousef, K.
    Mohammad, B.
    SINGAPORE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 53 (03) : 183 - 187
  • [39] Comparison of Functional Outcomes Between Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery and Discectomy in Massive Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Analysis
    Gupta, Anuj
    Chhabra, H. S.
    Nagarjuna, D.
    Arora, Mohit
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2021, 11 (05) : 690 - 696
  • [40] Factors Influencing Early Disc Height Loss Following Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Kaliya-Perumal, Arun-Kumar
    Soh, Tamara Lee Ting
    Tan, Mark
    Oh, Jacob Yoong-Leong
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 14 (05) : 601 - 607