Dataset Information

Quantitative analysis of paraspinal muscle atrophy after oblique lateral interbody fusion alone vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in patients with spondylolisthesis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:There is no available literature for comparison on muscle atrophy between the "stand-alone" oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and regular OLIF (i.e., combined with percutaneous pedicle screws fixation (PPSF) in patients with spondylolisthesis). This study aimed to identify changes in back muscle atrophy between the two surgeries. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent OLIF or OLIF+PPSF at Beijing Jishuitan Hospital and Shanghai ChangZheng Hospital between 07/2014 and 10/2017. Computed tomography (CT) was used to measure functional cross-sectional area (FCSA) and fat infiltration percentage (FIP) of the multifidus and erector spinae before and 24?months after surgery. RESULT:There were no differences in FCSA and FIP between OLIF (n?=?32) and OLIF+PPSF (n?=?41) groups before surgery. In the OLIF group, the multifidus and erector spinae FCSA and FIP did not change at 24?months (FCSA: multifidus: from 8.59?±?1.76 to 9.39?±?1.74?cm2, P?=?0.072; erector spinae: from 13.32?±?1.59 to 13.55?±?1.31?cm2, P?=?0.533) (FIP: multifidus: from 15.91?±?5.30% to 14.38?±?3.21%, P?=?0.721; erector spinae: from 11.63?±?3.05% to 11.22?±?3.12%, P?=?0.578). In the OLIF+PPSF group, the multifidus and erector spinae FCSA decreased (multifidus: from 7.72?±?2.69 to 5.67?±?1.71?cm2, P?

SUBMITTER: He W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6961348 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantitative analysis of paraspinal muscle atrophy after oblique lateral interbody fusion alone vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in patients with spondylolisthesis.

He Wei W He Da D Sun Yuqing Y Xing Yonggang Y Liu Mingming M Wen Jiankun J Wang Weiheng W Xi Yanhai Y Tian Wei W Ye Xiaojian X

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20200114 1

<h4>Background</h4>There is no available literature for comparison on muscle atrophy between the "stand-alone" oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and regular OLIF (i.e., combined with percutaneous pedicle screws fixation (PPSF) in patients with spondylolisthesis). This study aimed to identify changes in back muscle atrophy between the two surgeries.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent OLIF or OLIF+PPSF at Beijing Jishuitan Hospital and Shanghai Cha ...[more]

PMID: 31937277

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:To compare standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) vs. OLIF combined with posterior bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (OLIF combined) for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS:This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent standalone OLIF or combined OLIF between 07/2014 and 08/2017 at two hospitals in China. Direct decompressions were not performed. Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), satisfaction rate, anterior/posterior disc heights (DH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal width (FW), cage subsidence, cage retropulsion, fusion rate, and complications were analyzed. All imaging examinations were read independently by two physicians and the mean measurements were used for analysis. RESULTS:A total of 73 patients were included: 32 with standalone OLIF and 41 with combined OLIF. The total complication rate was 25.0% with standalone OLIF and 26.8% with combined OLIF. There were no differences in VAS and ODI scores by 2?years of follow-up, but the scores were better with standalone OLIF at 1?week and 3?months (P?<?0.05). PDH and FW was smaller in the combined OLIF group compared with the standalone OLIF group before and after surgery (all P?<?0.05). There were significant differences in FH before surgery and at 1?week and 3?months between the two groups (all P?<?0.05), but the difference disappeared by 2?years (P?=?0.111). Cage subsidence occurred in 7.3% (3/41) and 7.3% (3/41) of the patients at 3 and 24?months, respectively, in the combined OLIF group, compared with 6.3% (2/32) and 15.6% (5/32), respectively, in the standalone OLIF group at the same time points (P?=?0.287). There was no cage retropulsion in both groups at 2?years. The fusion rate was 85.4%(35/41) in the combined OLIF group and 84.4% (27/32) in the standalone OLIF group at 3?months(P?=?0.669). At 24?months, the fusion rate was 100.0% in the combined OLIF group and 93.8% (30/32) in the standalone OLIF group (P?=?0.066). CONCLUSION:Standalone OLIF may achieve equivalent clinical and radiological outcomes than OLIF combined with fixation for spondylolisthesis. The rate of complications was similar between the two groups. Patients who are osteoporotic might be better undergoing combined rather than standalone OLIF. The possibilty of proof lies within a future prospective study, preferably an RCT.

Project description:Background and objectivesOblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) procedures involve anterior insertion of interbody cage in lateral position. Following OLIF, insertion of pedicle screws and rod system is performed in a prone position (OLIF-con). The location of the cage is important for restoration of lumbar lordosis and indirect decompression. However, inserting the cage at the desired location is difficult without reduction of spondylolisthesis, and reduction after insertion of interbody cage may limit the amount of reduction. Recent introduction of spinal navigation enabled both surgical procedures in one lateral position (OLIF-one). Therefore, reduction of spondylolisthesis can be performed prior to insertion of interbody cage. The objective of this study was to compare the reduction of spondylolisthesis and the placement of cage between OLIF-one and OLIF-con.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 72 consecutive patients with spondylolisthesis for this study; 30 patients underwent OLIF-one and 42 underwent OLIF-con. Spinal navigation system was used for OLIF-one. In OLIF-one, the interbody cage was inserted after reducing spondylolisthesis, whereas in OLIF-con, the cage was inserted before reduction. The following parameters were measured on X-rays: pre- and postoperative spondylolisthesis slippage, reduction degree, and the location of the cage in the disc space.ResultsBoth groups showed significant improvement in back and leg pains (p < .05). Transient motor or sensory changes occurred in three patients after OLIF-con and in two patients after OLIF-one. Pre- and postoperative slips were 26.3±7.7% and 6.6±6.2% in OLIF-one, and 23.1±7.0% and 7.4±5.8% in OLIF-con. The reduction of slippage was 74.4±6.3% after OLIF-one and 65.4±5.7% after OLIF-con, with a significant difference between the two groups (p = .04). The cage was located at 34.2±8.9% after OLIF-one and at 42.8±10.3% after OLIF-con, with a significant difference between the two groups (p = .004).ConclusionSwitching the sequence of surgical procedures with OLIF-one facilitated both the reduction of spondylolisthesis and the placement of the cage at the desired location.

Project description:BackgroundTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become one of the most widely used procedures for lumbar spinal disorders. However, it is still unclear whether TLIF with unilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation is as effective as that with bilateral PS fixation. We performed a meta-analysis of the literatures and aimed to gain a better understanding of whether TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was safe and effective for lumbar diseases.Methodology/principal findingsWe systematically searched Ovid, Springer, and Medline databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral versus bilateral PS fixation in TLIF. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We generated pooled risk ratios or weighted mean differences across studies. According to our predefined inclusion criteria, seven RCTs with a total of 441 patients were included in this study. Baseline characteristics were similar between the unilateral and bilateral groups. Our meta-analysis showed that no significant difference was detected between the two groups in terms of postoperative clinical function, fusion status, reoperation rate, complication rate, and hospital stay (p>0.05). Pooled estimates revealed that the unilateral group was associated with significantly reduced implant cost, operative time and blood loss (p<0.05).Conclusions/significancesOur meta-analysis suggested TLIF with unilateral PS fixation was as safe and effective as that with bilateral PS fixation for lumbar diseases in selected patients. Despite these findings, our meta-analysis was based on studies with small sample size and different study characteristics that might lead to the inconsistent results such as various functional outcomes among the included studies. Therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials with larger sample size are also needed to further clarify these issues and to provide the long-term outcomes.

Dataset Information

Quantitative analysis of paraspinal muscle atrophy after oblique lateral interbody fusion alone vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in patients with spondylolisthesis.

Publications

Quantitative analysis of paraspinal muscle atrophy after oblique lateral interbody fusion alone vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in patients with spondylolisthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets