A comparative study of the efficacy and complications of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative scoliosis
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20200312-00158
- VernacularTitle:斜外侧入路和经椎间孔入路椎间融合术在腰椎退变性侧凸的疗效比较
- Author:
Da HE
1
;
Wei HE
;
Yuqing SUN
;
Yonggang XING
;
Qiang YUAN
;
Bo LIU
;
Yumei WANG
;
Wei TIAN
Author Information
1. 北京积水潭医院脊柱外科，北京 100035
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2020;40(8):515-525
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical effects of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative scoliosis.Methods:A retrospective study was performed in 116 patients with lumbar degenerative scoliosis and spinal stenosis, who were admitted to Beijing Jishuitan Hospital from January 2015 to May 2018. The patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical method. Among them, 56 patients underwent the OLIF approach (OLIF group), consisting of 21 men and 35 women, with an average age of 65.2±8.7 years. According to Lenke-Silva classification, there were 41 cases of type II and 15 cases of type III in OLIF group. 60 cases underwent the TLIF approach (TLIF group), consisting of 19 men and 41 women, with an average age of 61.3±11.6 years. There were 43 cases of type II and 17 cases of type III in TLIF group. The preoperative and last follow up visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were compared between the two groups. The coronal and sagittal Cobb angle changing and the offset distance for apical midline of the lumbar vertebrae between pre-operation and last follow-up were measured. The respective complications of the two groups were collected.Results:For OLIF group, VAS decreased from 7.7±1.6 at pre-operation to 1.9±1.5 at the last follow up; for TLIF group, VAS decreased from 8.1±1.2 at pre-operation to 2.2±0.9 at the last follow up. Although there were obvious improve for both group compared pre-operation to last follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups. For OLIF group, ODI decreased from preoperative 47.5%±9.1% to last follow up 22.4%±6.7%; for TLIF group, ODI decreased from preoperative 52.6%±5.8% to last follow up 25.1%±8.4%. Obvious changes were foundin both group between pre-operation and last follow up, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. For sagittal lumbar cobb angle, OLIF group changed from preoperative 8.6°±5.7° to last follow-up 23.6°±4.3°. TLIF group changed from pre-operation 9.2°±4.2° to last follow-up 21.3°±4.8°. Obvious changes were found in both group between pre-operation and last follow up, while OLIF group had better improvement than TLIF group ( P=0.01). For lumbar coronal Cobb angle, OLIF group changed from preoperative 16.4°±9.6° to last follow-up 2.8°±2.1°, and TLIF group from preoperative 15.2°±7.8° to last follow-up 6.4°±2.7°. Obvious changes were found in both group comparing pre-operation to last follow up, while OLIF group had better improvement. The offset distance for apical midline of the lumbar vertebrae in OLIF group improved from preoperative 26.3±9.4 mm to 4.3±1.9 mm; TLIF group improved from preoperative 23.4±5.5 mm to 7.5±4.2 mm. Obvious changes were found between pre-operation and last follow up for both group, while OLIF group has better improvement compared to TLIF group ( t=-5.26, P=0.03). The fusion rate was 97.7% (127/130) in OLIF group, and 91.1% (164/180) in TLIF group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups ( χ2=1.15, P=0.097). The neural complication rate was 16.1% (9/56) in OLIF groupand 8.3% (5/60) in TLIF group. There was no statistical difference between the two groups ( χ2=1.63, P=0.201). The cage subsidence was 12.3% (16/130) in OLIF group and 21.9% (35/180) in TLIF group. There was statistically significant difference between the two groups ( χ2=4.53, P=0.03). Conclusion:OLIF can be considered as an effectivesurgical option for the treatment of lumbar degenerative scoliosis with spinal stenosis, since it can achieve similar clinical effects and better correction of coronal and sagittal imbalances compared to TLIF.
