Guang-Xun Lin1, Kutbuddin Akbary1, Vit Kotheeranurak2, Javier Quillo-Olvera1, Hyun-Jin Jo1, Xiao-Wei Yang1, Akaworn Mahatthanatrakul3, Jin-Sung Kim4. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea. 2. Spine Unit, Department of Orthopaedics, Queen Savang Vadhana Memorial Hospital, Sriracha, Chonburi, Thailand. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, Naresuan University Hospital, Phitsanulok, Thailand. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; The Catholic Central Laboratory of Surgery (CCLS), Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea. Electronic address: mdlukekim@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the radiologic and clinical outcomes between oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) without laminectomy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). METHODS: This was a retrospective study. Between April 2012 and January 2017, 25 patients in each of the MI-TLIF and OLIF groups were recruited as matched pairs. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and satisfaction rates. Radiographic outcomes comprised disc height (DH) and fusion status. Intraoperative data and complications were collected. All patients completed the clinical and radiologic outcomes. Outcomes were compared preoperatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: Matched pairs were compared between 2 groups in terms of demographic data and preoperative measurements; less blood loss and shorter operative time were found in OLIF versus MI-TLIF (P < 0.001). The total complication rate was 36% in OLIF and 32% in MI-TLIF (P = 0.77). The outcomes of visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index were significantly improved in both groups, and there was no significant difference between 2 groups. Satisfaction rates of the both groups were more than 90%. OLIF was superior to MI-TLIF with respect its capability to restore DH (P < 0.001). Earlier time of fusion was observed in OLIF (80%) compared with MI-TLIF (52%) at 6 months (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: OLIF may achieve equivalent clinical and radiologic outcomes compared with MI-TLIF when the stenosis is minimal because the decompression performed is indirect. Furthermore, the OLIF shows less blood loss and shorter operative time, better restoration of DH, and earlier time to fusion than the MI-TLIF.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the radiologic and clinical outcomes between oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) without laminectomy and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). METHODS: This was a retrospective study. Between April 2012 and January 2017, 25 patients in each of the MI-TLIF and OLIF groups were recruited as matched pairs. Clinical outcomes included visual analogue scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and satisfaction rates. Radiographic outcomes comprised disc height (DH) and fusion status. Intraoperative data and complications were collected. All patients completed the clinical and radiologic outcomes. Outcomes were compared preoperatively and postoperatively. RESULTS: Matched pairs were compared between 2 groups in terms of demographic data and preoperative measurements; less blood loss and shorter operative time were found in OLIF versus MI-TLIF (P < 0.001). The total complication rate was 36% in OLIF and 32% in MI-TLIF (P = 0.77). The outcomes of visual analogue scale and Oswestry Disability Index were significantly improved in both groups, and there was no significant difference between 2 groups. Satisfaction rates of the both groups were more than 90%. OLIF was superior to MI-TLIF with respect its capability to restore DH (P < 0.001). Earlier time of fusion was observed in OLIF (80%) compared with MI-TLIF (52%) at 6 months (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: OLIF may achieve equivalent clinical and radiologic outcomes compared with MI-TLIF when the stenosis is minimal because the decompression performed is indirect. Furthermore, the OLIF shows less blood loss and shorter operative time, better restoration of DH, and earlier time to fusion than the MI-TLIF.