OBJECTIVETo evaluate the clinical outcomes between extreme lateral interbody fusion and conventional posterior operation in the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation.

METHODSAmong 60 patients with upper lumbar disc herniation were treated with extreme lateral interbody fusion(XLIF) or conventional posterior operation from June 2010 to December 2014, 30 patients(19 males and 11 females) were treated with XLIF (XLIF group); and the other 30 patients(17 males and 13 females) were treated with conventional posterior operation (conventional group). In XLIF group, the lesions occurred at T₁₂L₁ segments in 2 patients, at L₁,₂ segments in 6 patients, at L₂,₃ segments in 10 patients, and at L₃,₄ segment in 12 patients. In conventional group, the lesions occurred at T₁₂L₁ segments in 1 patient, at L₁,₂ segments in 6 patients, at L₂,₃ segments in 8 patients, and at L₃,₄ segment in 15 patients. Operative incision lengths, time, blood loss, postoperative draining volume, hospital stays were recorded. Pre-and post-operative visual analogue score(VAS) and Japanese Orthopedic Association(JOA) were compared between two groups. According to the image data, the intervertebral fusion device was observed to be displaced and the rate of interbody fusion was analyzed.

RESULTSAll the patients were followed up, and the duration ranged from 12 to 48 months, with an average of 29 months. The complications included 2 femoral nerve damage in XLIF group (postoperative recovery within 3 months) and superficial incision infection in conventional group(cured by anti-infection). There were no patients with cerebrospinal fluid leakage(CSFL), cauda equina injuries or functional deterioration in the nerve root of lower limbs. In the XLIF group: the operative time was (65.6±20.5) minutes, blood loss was (48.8±15.3) ml, postoperative draining volume was 0 ml. In the conventional group: the operative time was (135.2±33.9) minutes, blood loss was (260.3±125.7) ml, postoperative draining volume was (207.1±50.2) ml. The operative time, blood loss, postoperative draining volume in XLIF group were less than those in the conventional group(<0.05). The JOA and VAS score were significantly improved in both groups during the follow-up period compared with those before operation(<0.05). But the difference of the JOA and VAS score between the two groups 1, 6, and 24 months after surgery had not significant differences(>0.05). There were no significant differences in the fusion rate between the two groups 6 and 12 months after operation(>0.05).

CONCLUSIONSThe XLIF fusion for the treatment of upper lumbar disc herniation has several advantages such as minimal invasive, stable vertebral plate, less complications and postoperative fusion rate, which has a better clinical effect.