Sang-Jin Park1, Jong-Moon Hwang2, Dae-Chul Cho3, Subum Lee4, Chi Heon Kim5,6, Inbo Han7, Dae-Won Park8, Heum-Dai Kwon9, Kyoung-Tae Kim3. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Charmjoeun Spine and Joint Hospital, Daegu, Korea. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Korea. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Korea. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Neurosurgery and Medical Device Development, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 7. Department of Neurosurgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea. 8. Department of Neurosurgery, Good Moonhwa Hospital, Busan, Korea. 9. Department of Neurosurgery, Pohang Stroke and Spine Hospital, Pohang, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the radiological and clinical outcomes with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to evaluate the effect of indirect decompression through oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) as revision surgery. METHODS: We enrolled patients who underwent single-level fusion with revision surgery at the same level as the previous decompression level. We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients who underwent OLIF from 2017 to 2018 and 25 who received TLIF from 2014 to 2018. Radiologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, thickness and area of ligamentum flavum (LF), subsidence, disc height, fusion rate, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Compared with OLIF, the thickness and area of the LF after surgery were significantly less in TLIF, and the resulting CSA extension was also significantly higher. However, both groups showed improvement in ODI and VAS after surgery, and there was no difference between the groups. Complications related to the posterior approach in TLIF were 4 cases, and in OLIF, there were 2 cases that underwent additional posterior decompression surgery and 6 cases of transient paresthesia. CONCLUSION: Since complications associated with the posterior approach can be avoided, OLIF is a safer and useful minimally invasive surgery. Therefore, appropriate indications are applied, OLIF is a good alternative to TLIF when revision surgery is considered.
OBJECTIVE: This study compared the radiological and clinical outcomes with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to evaluate the effect of indirect decompression through oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) as revision surgery. METHODS: We enrolled patients who underwent single-level fusion with revision surgery at the same level as the previous decompression level. We retrospectively reviewed 25 patients who underwent OLIF from 2017 to 2018 and 25 who received TLIF from 2014 to 2018. Radiologic and clinical outcomes were evaluated by cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, thickness and area of ligamentum flavum (LF), subsidence, disc height, fusion rate, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Compared with OLIF, the thickness and area of the LF after surgery were significantly less in TLIF, and the resulting CSA extension was also significantly higher. However, both groups showed improvement in ODI and VAS after surgery, and there was no difference between the groups. Complications related to the posterior approach in TLIF were 4 cases, and in OLIF, there were 2 cases that underwent additional posterior decompression surgery and 6 cases of transient paresthesia. CONCLUSION: Since complications associated with the posterior approach can be avoided, OLIF is a safer and useful minimally invasive surgery. Therefore, appropriate indications are applied, OLIF is a good alternative to TLIF when revision surgery is considered.
Authors: Brook I Martin; Sohail K Mirza; Bryan A Comstock; Darryl T Gray; William Kreuter; Richard A Deyo Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Yaroslav Gelfand; Joshua Benton; Rafael De la Garza-Ramos; Vijay Yanamadala; Reza Yassari; Merritt D Kinon Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Kris Radcliff; Patrick Curry; Alan Hilibrand; Christopher Kepler; Jon Lurie; Wenyan Zhao; Todd J Albert; James Weinstein Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-04-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Stephen K Mendenhall; Scott L Parker; Owoicho Adogwa; David N Shau; Joseph Cheng; Oran Aaronson; Clinton J Devin; Matthew J McGirt Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2014-10