Comparison between oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has produced good results for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs), its efficacy vis-a-vis posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of OLIF and PLIF for the treatment of LDDs.MethodsA comprehensive assessment of the literature was conducted, and the quality of retrieved studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Clinical parameters included the visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for pain, disability, and functional levels. Statistical analysis related to operative time, intraoperative bleeding, length of hospital stay, lumbar lordosis angle, postoperative disc height, and complication rates was performed. The PROSPERO number for the present systematic review is CRD42023406695.ResultsIn total, 574 patients (287 for OLIF, 287 for PLIF) from eight studies were included. The combined mean postoperative difference in ODI and lumbar VAS scores was − 1.22 and − 0.43, respectively. In postoperative disc, height between OLIF and PLIF was 2.05. The combined advantage ratio of the total surgical complication rate and the mean difference in lumbar lordosis angle between OLIF and PLIF were 0.46 and 1.72, respectively. The combined mean difference in intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay between OLIF and PLIF was − 128.67 and − 2.32, respectively.ConclusionBoth the OLIF and PLIF interventions showed good clinical efficacy for LDDs. However, OLIF demonstrated a superior advantage in terms of intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay, degree of postoperative disc height recovery, and postoperative complication rate.