Jiaqi Li1, Xianzheng Wang1, Yapeng Sun1, Fei Zhang1, Yuan Gao1, Zeyang Li1, Wenyuan Ding1, Yong Shen1, Wei Zhang2. 1. Department of Spinal Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China. 2. Department of Spinal Surgery, The Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China. Electronic address: zhangweiat430@sina.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Until now, there were few studies on the safety analysis of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) in the initial stage of learning curve. The purpose of this study was to find out the safety differences between the 2 minimally invasive fusion methods in the initial stage of learning curve and to provide reference for beginners. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the first 30 cases of lumbar degenerative disease with OLIF or XLIF in our center since June 2014. Patients were divided into group OLIF and group XLIF according to different operative methods. The clinical efficacy and complications of the 2 groups were compared. A P <0.05 was statistically significant. RESULTS: Group XLIF were aged 37-74 years (mean 58.4 years) and group OLIF were aged 39-71 years (mean 56.1 years). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in age, sex, operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, operation segment, and follow-up time. The incidence of complications in group XLIF was significantly lower than that in group OLIF (10% vs. 33.3%; P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: OLIF has a higher risk of neurovascular injury in the initial stage of learning. By contrast, the XLIF approach is simple and the incidence of complications is relatively low. Therefore, we believed that XLIF is more acceptable in the initial stage of anterolateral lumbar interbody fusion.
OBJECTIVE: Until now, there were few studies on the safety analysis of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) in the initial stage of learning curve. The purpose of this study was to find out the safety differences between the 2 minimally invasive fusion methods in the initial stage of learning curve and to provide reference for beginners. METHODS: We retrospectively collected the first 30 cases of lumbar degenerative disease with OLIF or XLIF in our center since June 2014. Patients were divided into group OLIF and group XLIF according to different operative methods. The clinical efficacy and complications of the 2 groups were compared. A P <0.05 was statistically significant. RESULTS: Group XLIF were aged 37-74 years (mean 58.4 years) and group OLIF were aged 39-71 years (mean 56.1 years). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in age, sex, operation time, intraoperative bleeding volume, operation segment, and follow-up time. The incidence of complications in group XLIF was significantly lower than that in group OLIF (10% vs. 33.3%; P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: OLIF has a higher risk of neurovascular injury in the initial stage of learning. By contrast, the XLIF approach is simple and the incidence of complications is relatively low. Therefore, we believed that XLIF is more acceptable in the initial stage of anterolateral lumbar interbody fusion.
Authors: Alexander O Aguirre; Mohamed A R Soliman; Shady Azmy; Asham Khan; Patrick K Jowdy; Jeffrey P Mullin; John Pollina Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Tristan B Fried; Khoa Tran; Mark J Lambrechts; Nicholas D D'Antonio; Brian A Karamian; Justin Chu; Jose A Canseco; Alan S Hilibrand; Christopher K Kepler; Alexander R Vaccaro; Gregory D Schroeder Journal: J Craniovertebr Junction Spine Date: 2022-09-14
Authors: Bu Kwang Oh; Dong Wuk Son; Su Hun Lee; Jun Seok Lee; Soon Ki Sung; Sang Weon Lee; Geun Sung Song Journal: J Korean Neurosurg Soc Date: 2021-04-30
Authors: Alexander Von Glinski; Christopher J Elia; Ariel Takayanagi; Emre Yilmaz; Basem Ishak; Joe Dettori; Benjamin A Schell; Erik Hayman; Clifford Pierre; Jens R Chapman; Rod J Oskouian Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2020-03-27