Methods: A cross-sectional measurement study of 293 whole-body dried-bone samples was conducted. We measured the anteroposterior (AP) and transverse diameter of the fourth to sixth cervical vertebrae (C4–C6) and third to fifth lumbar vertebrae (L3–L5). Stenosis of the cervical spine and lumbar spine was defined as an AP diameter of <12 mm and <13 mm, respectively. We also measured the skull circumference, the AP and transverse diameters of the foramen magnum, the inner and outer inter distances between the left and right orbital bones, the humerus length, and the femoral length. Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc analyses were used in the statistical analyses. Results: The age was 22–93 years. DCSS was found in 59 (20.1%) and DLSS in 28 (9.6%). Twelve samples had both DCSS and DLSS (development spinal stenosis, DSS). When compared to the “no spinal stenosis sample,” DSS (−), DCSS and DSS had a significantly smaller skull circumference, the transverse diameter of the foramen magnum, and inner and outer distance between the orbital bone (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in humeral length, femoral length, or AP diameter of the foramen magnum. Conclusions DCSS was correlated with a small skull, a small transverse diameter of the foramen magnum, and a small orbital bone. A small skull was strongly associated with a small cervical canal. DLSS, on the other hand, was unrelated to either a small cervical canal or a small skull.

Methods: Forty-nine adults who underwent single-level L4/5 interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis were divided into BE-ELIF (n=27) and OLIF (n=22) groups based on the surgical approach used. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale and the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). Radiographic parameters, including distance of spondylolisthesis, disc height, segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, and sagittal vertical axis, were evaluated preoperatively and at final follow-up. Results: OLIF provided significantly better relief of pain in lower limbs and buttocks at 1-year follow-up. No significant between-group differences were observed in JOABPEQ domains. BE-ELIF resulted in greater improvements in spondylolisthesis distance and disc height, while other parameters did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions For L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis, BE-ELIF demonstrated superior spondylolisthesis reduction and disc height improvement than OLIF. Although BE-ELIF was associated with some inferior clinical outcomes, it provided satisfactory results, effective realignment, and a low complication risk.

Methods: Forty-nine adults who underwent single-level L4/5 interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis were divided into BE-ELIF (n=27) and OLIF (n=22) groups based on the surgical approach used. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale and the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). Radiographic parameters, including distance of spondylolisthesis, disc height, segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, and sagittal vertical axis, were evaluated preoperatively and at final follow-up. Results: OLIF provided significantly better relief of pain in lower limbs and buttocks at 1-year follow-up. No significant between-group differences were observed in JOABPEQ domains. BE-ELIF resulted in greater improvements in spondylolisthesis distance and disc height, while other parameters did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions For L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis, BE-ELIF demonstrated superior spondylolisthesis reduction and disc height improvement than OLIF. Although BE-ELIF was associated with some inferior clinical outcomes, it provided satisfactory results, effective realignment, and a low complication risk.

Methods: Forty-nine adults who underwent single-level L4/5 interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis were divided into BE-ELIF (n=27) and OLIF (n=22) groups based on the surgical approach used. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Visual Analog Scale and the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). Radiographic parameters, including distance of spondylolisthesis, disc height, segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, and sagittal vertical axis, were evaluated preoperatively and at final follow-up. Results: OLIF provided significantly better relief of pain in lower limbs and buttocks at 1-year follow-up. No significant between-group differences were observed in JOABPEQ domains. BE-ELIF resulted in greater improvements in spondylolisthesis distance and disc height, while other parameters did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions For L4/5 degenerative spondylolisthesis, BE-ELIF demonstrated superior spondylolisthesis reduction and disc height improvement than OLIF. Although BE-ELIF was associated with some inferior clinical outcomes, it provided satisfactory results, effective realignment, and a low complication risk.