Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Cage subsidence (CS) was previously reported as one of the most common complications following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). We aimed to assess the impacts of CS on surgical results following OLIF combined with anterolateral fixation, and determine its radiological characteristics as well as related risk factors. Methods Two hundred and forty-two patients who underwent OLIF at L4-5 and with a minimum 12 months follow-up were reviewed. Patients were divided into three groups according to the extent of disk height (DH) decrease during follow-up: no CS (DH decrease ≤ 2 mm), mild CS (2 mm < DH decrease ≤ 4 mm) and severe CS (DH decrease > 4 mm). The clinical and radiological results were compared between groups to evaluate radiological features, clinical effects and risk factors of CS. Results CS was identified in 79 (32.6%) patients, including 48 (19.8%) with mild CS and 31 (11.8%) with severe CS. CS was mainly identified within 1 month postoperatively, it did not progress after 3 months postoperatively, and more noted in the caudal endplate (44, 55.7%). In terms of clinical results, patients in the mild CS group were significantly worse than those in the no CS group, and patients in the severe CS group were significantly worse than those in the mild CS group. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between no CS (92.6%, 151/163) and mild CS (83.3%, 40/48) groups. However, significant lower fusion rate was observed in severe CS group (64.5%, 20/31) compared to no CS group. CS related risk factors included osteoporosis (OR = 5.976), DH overdistraction (OR = 1.175), flat disk space (OR = 3.309) and endplate injury (OR = 6.135). Conclusion CS following OLIF was an early postoperative complication. Higher magnitudes of CS were associated with worse clinical improvements and lower intervertebral fusion. Osteoporosis and endplate injury were significant risk factors for CS. Additionally, flat disk space and DH over-distraction were also correlated with an increased probability of CS.

The present study reviewed the relevant recent literature regarding the development and application of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), with a particular focus on its application and associated complications. The study evaluated the rationality of this technique and demonstrated the direction of future research by collecting data on previous operative outcomes and complications. A literature search was performed in Pubmed and Web of Science, including the following keywords and abbreviations: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), adjacent segment disease (ASD), and adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS). A search of literature published from January 2005 to January 2019 was conducted and all studies evaluating development and application of OLIF were included in the review. According to the literature, the indications for OLIF are various. OLIF has excellent orthopaedic effects in degenerative scoliosis patients and the incidence of bony fusion is higher than for other approaches. It also provides a better choice for revision surgery. It has various advantages in many aspects, but the complications cannot be ignored. As a new minimally invasive technique, the advantages of OLIF are obvious, but further evaluation is needed to compare its operation‐related data with that of traditional open surgery. In addition, more prospective studies are required to compare minimally invasive and open spinal surgery to confirm its specific efficacy, risk, advantages, learning curve, and ultimate clinical efficacy.

Purpose Minimally invasive single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with simultaneous robot-assisted posterior fixation has technical and anatomic considerations that need further description. Methods This is a retrospective case series of single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with robotic assisted fixation. End points included radiographic parameters, lordosis distribution index (LDI), complications, pedicle screw accuracy, and inpatient metrics. Results There were 17 patients with mean age of 60.5 years. Eight patients underwent interbody fusion at L5-S1, five patients at L4-S1, two patients at L3-S1, and one patient at L2-S1 in single lateral position. Operative times for 1-level and 2-level cases were 193 min and 278 min, respectively. Mean EBL was 71 cc. Mean improvements in L5-S1 segmental lordosis were 11.7 ± 4.0°, L1-S1 lordosis of 4.8 ± 6.4°, sagittal vertical axis of − 0.1 ± 1.7 cm°, pelvic tilt of − 3.1 ± 5.9°, and pelvic incidence lumbar–lordosis mismatch of − 4.6 ± 6.4°. Six patients corrected into a normal LDI (50–80%) and no patients became imbalanced over a mean follow-up period of 14.4 months. Of 100 screws placed in lateral position with robotic assistance, there were three total breaches (two lateral grade 3, one medial grade 2) for a screw accuracy of 97.0%. There were no neurologic, vascular, bowel, or ureteral injuries, and no implant failure or reoperation. Conclusion Single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with simultaneous robotic placement of pedicle screws by a second surgeon is a safe and effective technique that improves global alignment and lordosis distribution index.

Background The authors designed a modified lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure named as XOLIF and compared the efficacy and safety with traditional LLIF procedures. Methods Patients were divided into XLIF, OLIF, and XOLIF group according to the surgical approach. Cases of psoas major and vascular space stenosis, psoas major muscle elevation, psoas major muscle hypertrophy, and high iliac crest were recorded. Basic information, composition ratio of specific cases, Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), interbody fusion rate and complications were compared between the 3 groups. Results The study included 156 cases of L4-5 LLIF. There was no statistical difference in age, gender, BMI among the three groups. Cases with stenosis between psoas muscle and artery accounted for 11.8 and 18.4% of the XLIF and XOLIF group, respectively, while no case of this type had undergone OLIF surgery, the difference was statistically significant ( P  < 0.05). The proportions of high iliac crest cases in the OLIF and XOLIF group were 12.5 and 18.4%, respectively, while the XLIF group with vertical approach is not suitable for cases with high iliac crest. The postoperative VAS and ODI of the three groups were significantly improved compared with those before operation. There were 51 cases (32.7%) of complications including 21cases in XLIF group, 20 cases in OLIF Group and 10 cases in XOLIF group. XOLIF group has more advantages in reducing lumbar plexus injury and the risk of vascular injury. Conclusions XOLIF showed good clinical efficacy and technical advantages with a low incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications, especially in the specific cases.

Background Current evidence suggests that the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score is a good parameter for evaluating bone quality. We aimed to assess whether the VBQ score can predict the occurrence of postoperative cage subsidence after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) surgery. Methods Patients ( n  = 102) who had undergone single-level OLIF with a minimal follow-up for 1 year were reviewed in this study. Demographic and radiographic data of these patients were collected. Cage subsidence was defined as ≥ 2 mm of cage migration into the inferior endplate, superior endplate, or both. Further, the MRI-based VBQ score was measured on T1-weighted images. Moreover, univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses were performed. Meanwhile, Pearson analysis was used to evaluate the correlation among the VBQ score, average lumbar dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) T-score, and degree of cage subsidence. Furthermore, ad-hoc analysis was used along with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to assess the predictive ability of the VBQ score and average lumbar DEXA T-score. Results Of 102 participants, cage subsidence was observed in 39 (38.24%) patients. According to the univariable analysis, patients with subsidence had older age, higher antiosteoporotic drug use, larger disk height change, a more concave morphology of inferior and superior endplates, higher VBQ score, and lower average lumbar DEXA T-score compared to patients without subsidence. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, a higher VBQ score was significantly associated with an increased risk of subsidence (OR = 23.158 ± 0.849, 95% CI 4.381–122.399, p  < 0.001), and it was the only significant and independent predictor of subsidence after OLIF. Moreover, the VBQ score was moderately correlated with the average lumbar DEXA T-score ( r  = − 0.576, p  < 0.001) and the amount of cage subsidence ( r  = 0.649, p  < 0.001). Furthermore, this score significantly predicted cage subsidence with an accuracy of 83.9%. Conclusions The VBQ score can independently predict postoperative cage subsidence in patients undergoing OLIF surgery.

Objective The purpose of this study is aiming to compare the intra-operative, radiographic, and mid-term clinical outcomes between direct decompression of BE-TLIF and indirect decompression of OLIF in patients with single level spondylolisthesis. Method Between December 2020 and May 2022, patients with single level spondylolisthesis and received either OLIF or BE-TLIF from the authors’ orthopedic departments were selected to enroll in this retrospective study. Results A total of 34 patients that underwent single-level OLIF and 30 patients that received single-level BE-TLIF in the spine department of our institutions were included. Both groups had similar demographic parameters. BE-TLIF showed significantly less blood loss compared to that of OLIF ( p  < 0.001). The OLIF group yielded shorter operation time than the BE-TLIF group (p = 0.002). The improvement in restoration of follow-up segmental lordosis was significantly more in OLIF group than BE-TLIF group ( p  < 0.001). The OLIF group was significantly better in post-operative VAS back pain ( p  = 0.035). The cage subsidence rates between the two groups were not significantly different. The follow-up Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and overall visual analogue scale were comparable between the 2 groups without significant difference. Conclusion While OLIF still offers superior results in restoration of lumbar lordotic angle and short term post-operative back pain, the use of endoscopic technique in BE-TLIF may achieve comparable radiographic and clinical outcomes in cage subsidence rate and follow-up VAS back/leg pain compared to the indirect decompression of OLIF.

This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. A computer search for the published literature on OLIF and MIS-TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and other databases was performed, from which 522 related articles were retrieved and 13 were finally included. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies and analyzed them using RevMan 5.4. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane systematic analysis and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis showed that the blood loss [95% confidence intervals (CI) (− 121.01, − 54.56), P < 0.001 ], hospital stay [95% CI (− 1.98, − 0.85), P < 0.001 ], postoperative fusion rate [95%CI (1.04, 3.60), P = 0.04 ], postoperative disc height [95% CI (0.50, 3.63), P = 0.01 ], and postoperative foraminal height [95% CI (0.96, 4.13), P = 0.002 ] were all better in the OLIF group; however, the complication rates were significantly lower in the MIS-TLIF group [95% CI (1.01, 2.06), P = 0.04 ]. However, there were no significant differences between the two in terms of surgery time, patient satisfaction, or postoperative functional scores. The OLIF group had the advantages of lower blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, a higher postoperative fusion rate, and better recovery of the disc and foraminal heights, whereas MIS-TLIF had a relatively lower complication rate.

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.

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.