Expandable versus static cages in unilateral biportal endoscopy lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS): comparison of clinical and radiological results.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, early rehabilitation after spinal fusion and the recovery of physiological curvature have attracted much attention. Therefore, expandable cages have entered the field of vision of scientists. The goal of the current study was to compare the clinical and radiological results of unilateral portal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) with expandable versus static cages. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed patients who received ULIF treatment for DLS from May 2019 to February 2021. Patients were categorized by cage type (static vs. expandable), and the main study was the preop and postop clinical and radiological index changes of the patients. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included (38 in the static cages group; 46 in the expandable cages group). There was no difference in the preop results between the two groups. The VAS scores for low back and leg pain and ODI scores in the expandable cages group 7 d postop were significantly superior to those in the static cages group (P < 0.05), and the segmental angle and PDH in the expandable cages group postop were significantly higher than those in the static cages group (P < 0.05). The fusions at 6 m postop in the expandable cages group were superior to those in the Static Cages group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that compared with the stable cage group, the expandable cage group had unique advantages in restoring the physiological curvature of the lumbar spine, increasing the fusion rate, and relieving pain in the early postoperative period. ULIF can be used to treat single-segment, mild lumbar spondylolisthesis patients using expandable cages instead of static cages.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) compared with unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a 2-year follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be an effective method of indirect decompression for the treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis (DLS). However, its superiority over Unilateral biportal endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ULIF) has not been reported yet. The current study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of OLIF and ULIF in patients with DLS. METHODS: A total of 107 patients were included in this study, divided into two groups according to the surgical methods with 45 patients treated by OLIF combined with anterolateral single screwrod fixation, and 62 patients treated by ULIF. To compare the perioperative parameters (blood loss, operation time, and postop hospitalization) and clinical (the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores of the low back pain and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) and radiological (disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal) results of the two surgical approaches to evaluate their efficacy. RESULTS: Compared with the ULIF group, the blood loss and operation time in the OLIF-AF group were significantly reduced, and the Postop hospitalization was comparable. The VAS scores in both groups were significantly improved compared to preop; however, the VAS score of low back pain in the OLIF-AF group was superior to that in ULIF group throughout the follow-up period (P < 0.05). The improvements in DH, LL, and Segmental angle were significantly lower in the ULIF group, and the expansion rate of CSA in the OLIF-AF group was superior to that in the ULIF group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The fusion rate in OLIF-AF group was significantly higher than that in ULIF group within 6 mo postop, and there was no significant difference at the last follow-up. The incidence of complications was comparable between the two groups, and there was no statistical difference. CONCLUSIONS: Both OLIF-AF and ULIF achieved good short-term results in the treatment of DLS, and both surgical approaches are desirable. However, OLIF-AF has advantages over ULIF in terms of postoperative restoration of lumbar sagittal parameters and earlier intervertebral fusion. Long-term follow-up and larger clinical studies are needed to confirm this result.