Dataset Information

Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis.

ABSTRACT: 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?

SUBMITTER: He W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7092594 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis.

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

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20200323 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 ra ...[more]

PMID: 32293389

Similar Datasets

Project description: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?<?0.001; erector spinae: from 12.60?±?2.04 to 10.15?±?1.82?cm2, P?<?0.001), while the FIP increased (multifidus: from 16.13?±?7.01% to 49.38?±?20.54%, P?<?0.001; erector spinae: from 11.93?±?3.22% to 22.60?±?4.99%, P?<?0.001). The differences of FCSA and FIP between the two groups at 24?months were significant (all P?<?0.001). The patients in the standalone OLIF group had better VAS back pain, and JOA scores than the patients in the OLIF combined group (all P?<?0.05) at 1?week and 3?months after surgery. There were two cases (4.9%) of adjacent segment degeneration in the OLIF combined group, while there was no case in the OLIF alone group. CONCLUSIONS:Standalone OLIF had better clinical outcomes at 1 week and 3 months than OLIF+PPSF in patients with spondylolisthesis. OLIF may not result in paraspinal muscle atrophy at 24?months after surgery.

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:BackgroundMinimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of these two procedures.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed, and the quality of retrieved studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.ResultsSeven qualified studies were included. Clinically, OLIF resulted in less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time than MIS-TLIF. Improvement of VAS for leg pain was more obvious in the OLIF group (P < 0.0001), whereas improvement of VAS for back pain (P = 0.08) and ODI (P = 0.98) as well as JOABPEQ effectiveness rate (P = 0.18) were similar in the two groups. Radiographically, OLIF was more effective in restoring disc height (P = 0.01) and equivalent in improving the disc angle (P = 0.18) and lumbar lordosis (P = 0.48) compared with MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate (P = 0.11) was similar in both groups, while the subsidence was more severe in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.00001).ConclusionsThe above evidence suggests that OLIF is associated with a shorter operation time (with supplementary fixation in the prone position) and less intraoperative blood loss than MIS-TLIF and can lead to better leg pain alleviation, disc height restoration and subsidence resistance. No differences regarding back pain relief, functional recovery, complications, disc angle restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration and fusion rate were found. However, due to the limited number of studies, our results should be confirmed with high-level studies to fully compare the therapeutic efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.Trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42020201903 .

Dataset Information

Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis.

Publications

Standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion vs. combined with percutaneous pedicle screw in spondylolisthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets