Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Group Research Articles

Long-Term Incidence of Adjacent Segmental Pathology After Minimally Invasive vs. Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Retrospective cohort study. To compare the incidence of adjacent segmental pathology (ASP) following minimally invasive (MI) vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and to identify factors linked to ASP requiring reoperation. This retrospective study reviewed the outcomes of patients who underwent MI-TLIF or open TLIF. Radiographic ASP (RASP) was evaluated using X-ray imaging to distinguish between degenerative changes, spondylolisthesis, and instability in the adjacent spinal segment. Clinical ASP (CASP) was assessed with the visual analog scale score for leg and back pain and the Oswestry disability index. Patient data were collected 1, 2, 5, and 10 years postoperatively. The timing and frequency of ASP reoperation were analyzed. Five years postoperatively, the RASP rate was 35.23% and 45.95% in the MI-TLIF and open TLIF groups. The frequency of CASP differed significantly between the MI-TLIF and open TLIF groups at 1 year postoperatively. The rates of RASP, CASP, and ASP necessitating reoperation were not significantly different 10years postoperatively. Cranial facet violation significantly affected ASP in both groups. In the open TLIF group, preoperative adjacent segment disc degeneration significantly influenced ASP. The RASP rate at 5years postoperatively and the CASP rate at 1year postoperatively differed significantly between groups. There was no difference in the rate of ASP requiring reoperation. Cranial facet violation is a crucial driving factor for ASP after both surgical procedures.

Early result of percutaneous full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective study.

The study aimed to evaluate the short-term clinical efficacy of percutaneous full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). From July 2020 to July 2021, 93 patients who underwent single-level lumbar fusion procedure were retrospective analysis. The patients were divided into Endo-TLIF group and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) group. General demographic and perioperative data were recorded, the clinical outcomes were evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS) and oswestry disability index (ODI). The disk height (DH) was compared between the two groups. All of the surgical procedures were successfully completed, and the patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years. Intraoperative blood loss, drainage volume, time to independent ambulation and hospital length of stay in the Endo-TLIF group were significantly decreased in comparison with the open TLIF group (p < 0.05). The VAS for back pain on postoperative 7day and ODI on postoperative 1 month were lower in the Endo-TLIF group than in the open TLIF group (P < 0.05), but no significant difference at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively (P > 0.05). The VAS score of leg pain had no demographic statistically significant differences between the groups (P > 0.05). The DH were significantly heightened after surgery compared to the preoperative height (p < 0.05). Endo-TLIF is a minimally invasive, safety surgery which can achieve comparable short-term effects as open TLIF. It may be a promising option for the treatment of LDD.

A comparative study of perioperative pain, blood loss, and hospital stay in an Indian population undergoing mini-open oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

There are several approaches for lumbar fusion, although there is yet to be a consensus on which approach is the best. This study aimed to evaluate the intraoperative blood loss and acute postoperative pain in single-level mini-open oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgeries for the degenerative spine. Thirty-two patients were assigned by the surgeon to OLIF or TLIF groups - 16 in mini-open OLIF and 16 in open TLIF groups. The intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hemoglobin, numerical rating scale (NRS) at proposed time intervals for 24 h postoperative, and rescue analgesics used were compared among the groups. The operative duration and hospital stay in both groups were also compared. The OLIF group showed significantly higher postoperative hemoglobin (11.5 vs. 10.5 g %, P = 0.04), lower 24-h postoperative pain scores on movement, (NRS 4 vs. 5.5, P = 0.0001), and shorter hospital stay (4.5 vs. 7 days, P = 0.003) than TLIF group. However, the surgery duration was significantly longer in OLIF than in TLIF (190 vs. 150 min, P = 0.005). Intraoperative hemodynamics, other postoperative pain scores at variable time points, and rescue analgesics given were comparable among groups (P > 0.05). Intraoperative blood loss was lower in OLIF than TLIF (275 vs. 500 mL) but was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Mini-open OLIF has favorable perioperative outcomes compared to open TLIF. Patients have higher postoperative hemoglobin and lesser pain on movement on the first postoperative day, leading to earlier mobilization and a shorter hospital stay.

Management of lumbar spondylolisthesis: A retrospective analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

One of the most frequent etiologies for spinal surgery is unstable lumbar spondylolisthesis (ULS). To decompress affected structures while maintaining or restoring stability through fusion, surgeons utilize a variety of procedures. When paired with interbody fusion, posterior fusion is most applied, resulting in greater fusion rates. The two most popular techniques for implementing spinal fusion are posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). As a result, these two procedures have been assessed formally. A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent interbody fusion for lumbar stenosis through PLIF and minimally invasive (MI)-TLIF was performed. The patients were followed up for 24 months and fusion rates, Visual Analog Score (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) alongside the MacNab clinical outcome score, were assessed. The Bridwell interbody fusion grading system was used to evaluate fusion rates in computed tomography (CT). Operations were performed in 60 cases where patients suffered from ULS. PLIF was performed on 33 patients (55%) (14 males and 19 females) and 27 patients (45%) (11 males and 16 females) who underwent MI-TLIF. In 87% of our respective cohort, either the L4-5 or the L5-S1 level was operated on. Overall fusion rates were comparable between the two groups; however, the TLIF group improved more in terms of VAS, ODI, and MacNab scores. On average, MI-TLIF surgery was longer and resulted in reduced blood loss. MI-TLIF patients were more mobile than PLIF patients postoperatively. With well-established adequate results in the literature, TLIF offers benefits over other methods used for interbody lumbar fusion in ULS or other diseases of the spine. However, MI-TLIF may procure more advantageous for patients if MI methods are implemented. In this instance, TLIF outperformed PLIF due to shorter operating times, less blood loss, faster ODI recovery, better MacNab scores, and a greater decline in VAS pain ratings.

Comparative Analysis of Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Wiltse Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Approaches for Treating Single-Level Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the surgical outcomes of two different surgical approaches, open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and Wiltse TLIF, in the treatment of single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis and also to provide the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Methods: This retrospective study included 600 patients with single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent fusion surgery at a single academic institution between January 2018 and December 2022. Patients were divided into two groups: traditional open TLIF (group A; 300 patients) and the Wiltse TLIF approach (group B; 300 patients). Preoperative diagnostic tests were performed on all patients. Results: The fluoroscopy time for the Wiltse TLIF group was longer, whereas the mean blood loss for the Wiltse TLIF approach was less. Both techniques resulted in significant improvements in pain relief and functional disability, with no significant difference between the two groups in terms of their pre- or post-operative (Oswestry Disability Index) ODI scores. The Wiltse TLIF technique resulted in significantly shorter hospital stays and had a lower rate of complications compared with the open TLIF technique. Conclusion: The Wiltse TLIF approach showed advantages in shorter surgical times, reduced blood loss, and shorter hospital stays, whereas the traditional open TLIF approach exhibited shorter fluoroscopy times.

Comparison of Intraoperative Endplate Injury between Mini-Open Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) and Analysis of Risk Factors: A Retrospective Study

Objective The study aimed to compare the incidence of intraoperative endplate injury in patients who underwent Transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and mini-open lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery. The independent risk factors related to endplate injury in LLIF procedure were analyzed. Methods A total of 199 patients who underwent LLIF (n = 106) or TLIF (n = 93) surgery from June 2019 to September 2021 were reviewed. The endplate injury was assessed by postoperative sagittal CT scan. A binary logistic analysis model were used to identify independent risk factors related to LLIF endplate injury based on univariate analysis. Results There was an obvious difference in the occurrence of intraoperative endplate injury between LLIF (42/106, 39.6%) and TLIF group (26/93, 28%), although it did not reach the significant level. L1 CT value (OR = 0.985, 95% CI = 0.972–0.998), cage position (OR = 3.881, 95% CI = 1.398–10.771) and height variance (OR = 1.263, 95% CI = 1.013–1.575) were independent risk factors for endplate injury in LLIF procedure. According to the cage settlement patterns, there 5 types of A to E. The severity of the facet joint degeneration was positively related to the occurrence of endplate injury. Conclusions The incidence of intraoperative endplate injury is higher in LLIF than in TLIF procedures. Low bone quantity, cage posterior position and larger height variance are risk factors to induce endplate injury in LLIF surgery. The facet joint degeneration may be related to severe endplate injuries and even fractures.

Comparison between Three-Dimensional Printed Titanium and PEEK Cages for Cervical and Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Controlled Trial.

The three-dimensional printing titanium (3DPT) cage with excellent biomechanical properties and osseointegration capabilities has been initially used in spinal fusion, while the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage, a bioinert material device, has been a widely used for decades with relatively excellent clinical outcomes. This study was performed to investigate the early radiographic and clinical outcomes of 3DPT cage versus PEEK cage in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). This prospective controlled trial, from December 2019 to June 2022, included patients undergoing ACDF and TLIF with 3DPT cages and compared them to patients using PEEK cages for treating spinal degenerative disorders. The outcome measures included radiographic parameters (intervertebral height [IH], subsidence, fusion status, and bone-cage interface contact) and clinical outcomes (Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA], Neck Disability Index [NDI], Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Short Form 12-Item Survey [SF-12], Visual Analog Scale [VAS], and Odom's criteria). Student's independent samples t test and Pearson's chi-square test were used to compare the outcome measures between the two groups before surgery and at 1 week, 3 and 6 months after surgery. For the patients undergoing ACDF, the 3DPT (18 patients/[26 segments]) and PEEK groups (18 patients/[26 segments]) had similar fusion rates at 3 months and 6 months follow-up (3 months: 96.2% vs. 83.3%, p = 0.182; 6 months: 100% vs. 91.7%, p = 0.225). The subsidence in the 3DPT group was significantly lower than that in the PEEK group (3 months: 0.4 ± 0.2 mm vs. 0.9 ± 0.7 mm p = 0.004; 6 months: 0.7 ± 0.3 mm vs. 1.5 ± 0.8 mm, p < 0.001). 3DPT and PEEK cage all achieved sufficient contact with the cervical endplates. For the patients undergoing TLIF, the 3DPT (20 patients/[26 segments]) and PEEK groups (20 patients/[24 segments]) had no statistical difference in fusion rate (3 months: 84.6% vs. 58.3%, p = 0.059; 6 months: 92.3% vs. 75%, p = 0.132). The subsidence was lower than that in the PEEK group without significantly difference (3 months: 0.9 ± 0.7 mm vs.1.2 ± 0.9 mm p = 0.136; 6 months: 1.6 ± 1.0 mm vs. 2.0 ± 1.0 mm, p = 0.200). At the 3-month follow-up, the bone-cage interface contact of the 3DPT cage was significantly better than that of the PEEK cage (poor contact: 15.4% vs. 75%, p < 0.001). The values of UAR were higher in the 3DPT group than in the PEEK group during the follow-up in cervical and lumbar fusion, there were more statistical differences in lumbar fusion. There were no significant differences in the clinical assessment between 3DPT or PEEK cage in spinal fusion. The 3DPT cage and PEEK cage can achieve excellent clinical outcomes in cervical and lumbar fusion. The 3DPT cage has advantage in fusion quality, subsidence severity, and bone-cage interface contact than PEEK cage.

COMPARISON OF TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION AND POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SINGLE-LEVEL LUMBAR SPONDYLOLISTHESIS

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in managing single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis. A Randomized Controlled trial was conducted at the Department of Neurosurgery, Gomal Medical College, DI Khan, Pakistan, from December 2022 to May 2023 on 50 patients presenting with adult lumbar spondylolisthesis. In group A, 25 patients underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) utilizing two cages and pedicle fixation, while 25 patients received transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) employing a single cage and pedicle fixation, representing group B. Outcomes such as mean operative times, blood loss, back and leg pain score on VAS, and complications were assessed between both groups. The mean postoperative time, blood loss, and back pain on the VAS scale were significantly lower in the TLIF group than in the PLIF group. The TLIP group showed a lower number of complications as compared to the PLIF group. TLIF outperforms PLIF regarding functional outcomes and the rate of complications for grade I/II single-level lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Comparing Cortical Bone Trajectory and Traditional Pedicle Screws in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study of One-Year Outcomes.

This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at a single institution. The objective of this study was to compare the long-term results associated with cortical bone trajectory (CBT) and traditional pedicle screw (TPS) via posterolateral approach in TLIF. Consecutive patients treated from November 2014 to March 2019 were included in the CBT TLIF group, while consecutive patients treated from October 2010 to August 2017 were included in the TPS TLIF group. Inclusion criteria comprised single-level or two-level TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis and at least one year of clinical and radiographic follow-up. Variables of interest included pertinent preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative data. Non-parametric evaluation was performed using the Wilcoxon test. Fisher's exact test was used to assess group differences for nominal data. Overall, 140 patients met the inclusion criteria; 69 patients had CBT instrumentation (mean follow-up 526 days) and 71 patients underwent instrumentation placement via TPS (mean follow-up 825 days). Examination of perioperative and postoperative outcomes demonstrate comparable results between the groups with perioperative complications, length of stay, discharge destination, surgical revision rate, and fusion rates all being similar between groups (p = 0.1; p = 0.53; p = 0.091; p = 0.61; p = 0.665, respectively). CBT in the setting of TLIF offer equivalent outcomes to TPS with TLIF at both short- and long-term intervals of care.

Which surgery is better for obese patients with lumbar degenerative diseases: open TLIF or Endo-LIF? A retrospective matched case–control study

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate short-term clinical efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-LIF) in the treatment of obese patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD). MethodsPatients who underwent single-level lumbar fusion surgery from July 2020 to July 2022 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. The main inclusion criterion was a body mass index (BMI) ≥30kg/m2. A matched case-control design was conducted to compare the short-term outcomes between the Endo-LIF and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in obese patients. Cases were defined as those who underwent Endo-LIF, and controls were matched from those patients with open TLIF according to corresponding matched criteria. Surgeon satisfaction was evaluated by questionnaires at the end of each surgery, patient satisfaction and their willingness to undergo the same surgery again were collected. ResultsTwo groups of patients were successfully completed surgery. In comparison with the open TLIF group, the Endo-LIF group had significantly less blood loss, less time to postoperative ambulation, less postoperative complications and shorter hospitalization days, but longer operation time and x-ray exposure times. The satisfaction of surgeons and patients in Endo-LIF group significantly were superior to open TLIF group. ConclusionEndo-LIF is a safe and effective surgery in the treatment of obese patients. Although this procedure needs longer operation time and x-ray exposure times, it still maybe a promising option for obese patients with LDD.

Is Full-Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Superior to Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Single-Level Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis? A Retrospective Study.

In this study, we evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of full-endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Fifty-three patients were divided into two groups according to the surgical techniques: Full endoscopic (Endo)-TLIF (n = 25) and TLIF (n = 28). Clinical efficacy was evaluated pre- and postoperatively. The operation time, operative blood loss, postoperative amount of serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK), postoperative drainage volume, postoperative hospital stay time, total cost, and operative complications were also recorded. Compared with the TLIF group, the Endo-TLIF group had similar intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative increased CPK, less postoperative drainage volume, and shorter postoperative hospital stay, but longer operative time and higher total cost. The postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores of back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores significantly improved compared with the preoperative scores in both two groups; more significant improvement of postoperative VAS scores of back pain and ODI scores were shown in the Endo-TLIF group at the 1-month follow-up (p < 0.05). No difference was found in the intervertebral fusion rate between the two groups. The Endo-TLIF has similar clinical effect compared with the TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. It also has many surgical advantages such as less muscle trauma, less postoperative back pain, and fast functional recovery of the patient. However, steep learning curve, longer operative time, and higher total cost may be the disadvantages that limit this technique. Also, the Endo-TLIF treatment of patients with bilateral lateral recess stenosis is considered a relative contraindication.

[Comparison of clinical effect and muscle injury imaging between oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis].

To compare the efficacy and muscle injury imaging between oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. The clinical data of 60 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent surgical treatment from January 2018 to October 2019 was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into OLIF groups and TLIF group according to different surgical methods. The 30 patients in the OLIF group were treated with OLIF plus posterior intermuscular screw rod internal fixation. There were 13 males and 17 females, aged from 52 to 74 years old with an average of (62.6±8.3) years old. And 30 patients in the TLIF group were treated with TLIF via the left approach. There were 14 males and 16 females, aged from 50 to 81 years old with an average of (61.7±10.4) years old. General data including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and complications were recorded for both groups. Radiologic data including disc height (DH), the left psoas major muscle, multifidus muscle, longissimus muscle area, T2-weighted image hyperintensity changes and interbody fusion or nonfusion were observed. Laboratory parameters including creatine kinase (CK) values on postoperative 1st and 5th days were analyzed. Visual analogue scale(VAS) and Oswestry disability index(ODI) were used to assess clinical efficacy. There was no significant difference in the operative time between two groups(P>0.05). The OLIF group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume compared to the TLIF group(P<0.01). The OLIF group also had DH better recovery compared to the TLIF group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in left psoas major muscle area and the hyperintensity degree before and after the operation in the OLIF group (P>0.05). Postoperativly, the area of the left multifidus muscle and longissimus muscle, as well as the mean of the left multifidus muscle and longissimus muscle in the OLIF group, were lower than those in the TLIF group (P<0.05) .On the 1st day and the 5th day after operation, CK level in the OLIF group was lower than that in the TLIF group(P<0.05). On the 3rd day after operation, the VAS of low back pain and leg pain in the OLIF group were lower than those in the TLIF group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the ODI of postoperative 12 months, low back and leg pain VAS at 3, 6, 12 months between the two groups(P>0.05). In the OLIF group, 1 case of left lower extremity skin temperature increased after the operation, and the sympathetic chain was considered to be injured during the operation, and 2 cases of left thigh anterior numbness occurred, which was considered to be related to psoas major muscle stretch, resulting in a complication rate of 10% (3/30). In the TLIF group, one patient had limited ankle dorsiflexion, which was related to nerve root traction, two patients had cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and the dural sac was torn during the operation, and one patient had incision fat liquefaction, which was related to paraspinal muscle dissection injury, resulting in a complication rate of 13% (4/30). All patients achieved interbody fusion without cage collapse during the 6- month follow-up. Both OLIF and TLIF are effective in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. However, OLIF surgery has obviously advantages, including less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative pain, and good recovery of intervertebral space height. From the changes in laboratory indexes of CK and the comparison of the left psoas major muscle, multifidus muscle, longissimus muscle area, and high signal intensity of T2 image on imaging, it can be seen that the degree of muscle damage and interference of OLIF surgery is lower than that of TLIF.

Enhanced recovery after surgery pathway with modified biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a large cage. Comparative study with minimally invasive microscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Studies about the clinical efficacy of endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway are insufficient. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate clinical usefulness of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using an ERAS compared with microscopic TLIF. Prospectively collected data were retrospectively analyzed. Patients who received modified biportal endoscopic TLIF with ERAS were grouped into an endoscopic TLIF group. Those who received microscopic TLIF without ERAS were grouped into a microscopic TLIF group. Clinical and radiologic parameters were compared between two groups. Fusion rate was evaluated using sagittal reconstruction images of postoperative computed tomographic (CT) scan. There were 32 patients in the endoscopic TLIF group with ERAS and 41 patients in the microscopic TLIF group without ERAS. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back pain preoperatively at day one and day two were significantly (p < 0.05) higher in the non-ERAS microscopic TLIF group than in the ERAS endoscopic TLIF group. Preoperative Oswestry Disability Index were significantly improved at the last follow-up in both groups. The fusion rate at postoperative one year was 87.5% in the endoscopic TLIF group and 85.4% in the microscopic TLIF group. Biportal endoscopic TLIF with ERAS pathway may have good aspect to accelerate recovery after surgery. There was no inferiority of fusion rate of endoscopic TLIF comparing to microscopic TLIF. Biportal endoscopic TLIF using a large cage with ERAS pathway may be a good alternative treatment for lumbar degenerative disease.

Clinical outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a modified posterior spinous process-splitting approach for lumbar degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis: a prospective cohort study.

In the conventional posterior approach to the lumbar spine for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), the paravertebral muscles are stripped from the spinous process. The authors developed a novel surgical procedure in which TLIF was performed via a modified spinous process-splitting (SPS) approach that enabled the preservation of the attachment of the paravertebral muscles to the spinous process. The SPS TLIF group comprised 52 patients with lumbar degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent surgery using a modified SPS TLIF technique, whereas the control group comprised 54 patients who underwent conventional TLIF. Compared with the control group, the SPS TLIF group had a significantly shorter operation time, smaller intra- and postoperative blood loss volumes, and shorter hospital stay and time to ambulation (p < 0.05). The SPS TLIF group had a lower mean visual analog scale score for back pain than the control group on both postoperative day 3 and at 2 years postoperatively (p < 0.05). Follow-up MRI showed changes in the paravertebral muscles in 46 of 54 patients (85%) in the control group and 5 of 52 patients (10%) in the SPS TLIF group (p < 0.001). This novel technique may be a useful alternative to the conventional posterior approach for TLIF.

Comparisons of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a prospective cohort study with a 2-year follow-up.

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between oblique (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis during a 2-year follow-up. Patients with symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent OLIF (OLIF group) or TLIF (TLIF group) were prospectively enrolled in the authors' hospital and followed up for 2 years. The primary outcomes were treatment effects [changes in visual analog score (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) from baseline] at 2 years after surgery; these were compared between two groups. Patient characteristics, radiographic parameters, fusion status, and complication rates were also compared. In total, 45 patients were eligible for the OLIF group and 47 patients for the TLIF group. The rates of follow-up were 89% and 87% at 2 years, respectively. The comparisons of primary outcomes demonstrated no different changes in VAS-leg (OLIF, 3.4 vs. TLIF, 2.7), VAS-back (OLIF, 2.5 vs. TLIF, 2.1), and ODI (OLIF, 26.8 vs. TLIF, 30). The fusion rates were 86.1% in the TLIF group and 92.5% in the OLIF group at 2 years (P = 0.365). The OLIF group had less estimated blood loss (median, 200 ml) than the TLIF group (median, 300 ml) (P < 0.001). Greater restoration of disc height was obtained by OLIF (mean, 4.6 mm) than the TLIF group (mean, 1.3 mm) in the early postoperative period (P < 0.001). The subsidence rate was lower in the OLIF group than that in the TLIF group (17.5% vs. 38.9%, P = 0.037). The rates of total problematic complications were not different between the two groups (OLIF, 14.6% vs. TLIF, 26.2%, P = 0.192). OLIF did not show better clinical outcomes than TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis, except for lesser blood loss, greater disc height restoration, and lower subsidence rate.

Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes between ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF over 2-year follow-up: a comparative study

BackgroundRegarding the increasing adoption of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for treating degenerative lumbar disorders, we aimed to evaluate whether OLIF, one of the options for anterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion, demonstrate clinical superiority over anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or posterior approach, represented by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).MethodsPatients who received ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disorders during the period 2017–2019 were identified. Radiographic, perioperative, and clinical outcomes were recorded and compared during 2-year follow-up.ResultsA total of 348 patients with 501 correction levels were enrolled in the study. Fundamental sagittal alignment profiles were substantially improved at 2-year follow-up, particularly in the anterolateral approach (A/OLIF) group. The Oswestry disability index (ODI) and EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) in the ALIF group were superior when compared to the OLIF and TLIF group 2-year following surgery. However, comparisons of VAS-Total, VAS-Back, and VAS-Leg revealed no statistically significance across all approaches. TLIF demonstrated highest subsidence rate of 16%, while OLIF had least blood loss and was suitable for high body mass index patients.ConclusionsRegarding treatment for degenerative lumbar disorders, ALIF of anterolateral approach demonstrated superb alignment correction and clinical outcome. Comparing to TLIF, OLIF possessed advantage in reducing blood loss, restoring sagittal profiles and the accessibility at all lumbar level while simultaneously achieving comparable clinical improvement. Patient selection in accordance with baseline conditions, and surgeon preference both remain crucial issues circumventing surgical approach strategy.

Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are two commonly used procedures for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, but the efficacy of the two procedures is not clear. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for controlled studies of OLIF and TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Include all articles published before Oct 2022. Two researchers conducted quality evaluation and data extraction on the research respectively. Results: This meta-analysis finally included 27 studies. The VAS and ODI scores of the two groups decreased significantly after the operation. The decrease of the visual Analogue Score (VAS) and The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in the OLIF group was greater than that in the TLIF group within 6 months after the operation, but no difference was found in the follow-up for more than 6 months. The OLIF group was better than TLIF in restoring the lumbar lordosis angle and intervertebral height. The operation time, blood loss and hospital stay of the OLIF group were less than those of the TLIF group, and there was no significant difference between the two in terms of surgical complications and fusion rate. Conclusions: Although there was no significant difference between the OLIF and TLIF groups in terms of long-term pain relief and functional improvement, the OLIF group experienced greater short-term efficacy than the TLIF group and the surgical safety of OLIF was better than that of TLIF.

Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Using the Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Technique Compared With Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Spine Diseases: Analysis of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.

There has been a widespread application of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques in the past few years. Unilateral biportal endoscopic has been successfully used in a variety of lumbar spine diseases, but there are few studies on lumbar fusion assisted by unilateral biportal endoscopy. To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of transforaminal interbody fusion using the unilateral biportal endoscopic technique (UBEIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients with lumbar disease. We studied 128 patients, 58 in the UBEIF group and 70 in the TLIF group. The Oswestry disability index, creatine kinase, visual analog score (VAS) for leg and back pain were used to assess clinical outcomes. Radiographic outcomes were assessed using the fusion rate, internal fixation loosening, and adjacent segment degeneration. Back and leg pain VAS scores in both groups were significantly lower 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery ( P < .05). A significant reduction in Oswestry disability index in both groups was observed 6 and 12 months after surgery ( P < .05). Compared with the TLIF group at 1 week after surgery, UBEIF patients' VAS score for back pain significantly improved ( P < .05). There was no difference in fusion rate between the 2 groups (98.27% vs 98.57%). UBEIF and TLIF have similar clinical and radiographic outcomes in the treatment of single-segment lumbar disease with lumbar instability, including improved back and leg pain, improved disability, and high fusion rates. Furthermore, with UBEIF, less blood is lost, there is better relief of early back pain, and hospital stays are shorter.

Comparison of oblique and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: An updated meta-analysis.

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. A meta-analysis was performed to examine the clinical and radiological effects of these two techniques. A search of relevant literature from several databases was conducted until November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, clinical and radiological results, and complications were analyzed. Fifteen qualified studies were included. OLIF showed a shorter operative time and length of hospital stay and less blood loss than TLIF. Early postoperative Visual Analogue Scale for back pain were significantly lower in OLIF than in TLIF (P = 0.004). Noteworthy, although the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of the OLIF group was higher than that of the TLIF group (P = 0.04), the postoperative ODI was significantly lower (P < 0.05). Radiologically, the results showed that the disc and foraminal heights of OLIF were significantly higher than those of TLIF postoperatively. Moreover, OLIF can restore more segmental lordosis than TLIF in the early postoperative period. Furthermore, OLIF showed better fusion rates than TLIF (P = 0.02), with no difference in cage subsidence (13.4% vs. 16.6%). No significant differences in overall and approach-related complications between the two groups. The OLIF group showed an advantage in terms of operative time, hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, early back pain relief, postoperative function recovery, disc and foraminal heights, early segmental lordosis, and fusion rate compared to TLIF. For both procedures, the incidence rates of overall and approach-related complications were comparable.

Surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: Effect of TLIF and slip reduction on sagittal alignment

IntroductionThe surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of adding transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to posterolateral fusion (PLF) on the local lordosis, sagittal alignment and potential complications. The second aim was to evaluate the effect of slip reduction on the same parameters. HypothesisThe initial hypothesis was that TLIF provides better correction of the local lordosis and that reducing the slip improves the global sagittal balance. MethodsIn this retrospective, single-center study, patients who had been operated on for LSD at one or two levels by laminectomy and PLF, with or without a TLIF cage, were included. Data collected consisted of age, sex, number of levels fused and whether or not a TLIF cage was used. Fusion was defined as the absence of indirect nonunion signs on radiographs at 2 years postoperative. The occurrence and time frame of any complications and the need for reoperation were documented. Lateral radiographs of the entire spine were analyzed preoperatively, in the early postoperative period (3 to 6 months) and at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The following parameters were measured: pelvic parameters, C7 sagittal tilt (C7ST), spinosacral angle (SSA), maximum lumbar lordosis (LL), lordosis at slipped level (LS), slip percentage. The analysis compared patients treated by PLF and TLIF and determined the impact of slip reduction. ResultsOne hundred and three patients were included in the study (71% women). The mean follow-up was 38 months. The mean age was 69 years. Seventy-seven patients (75%) underwent PLF. Comparing the preoperative and early postoperative data identified 5.4% better spondylolisthesis reduction in the TLIF group than the PLF group (−8.9±9.5% vs −3.5±7.6%; p=0.04) that was not maintained at the final follow-up. The fusion rate was comparable between groups: 94% in APL and 89% in TLIF (p=0.7). The overall complication rate was 46% in the TLIF group versus 33% in the PLF group (p=0.35). A comparison based on whether or not the slip was reduced found significant improvement in the reduction group of the SSA by more than 6° (6.8°±6° vs 0.5°±7.4°; p=0.04). The fusion rate was 91% in the reduced group and 95% in the non-reduced group (p=0.81); the complication rate was 44% versus 28% in the non-reduced group (p=0.10). ConclusionThis study shows that slip reduction helps to improve the sagittal alignment by increasing the SSA when treating LDS. Posterolateral fusion and TLIF produce comparable radiographic outcomes at 2 years postoperative in the segmental lordosis, slip reduction, global sagittal alignment and fusion rate. Level of evidenceIV.