Prevalence and Clinical Impact of Coronal Malalignment Following Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgery (CMIS) for Adult Spinal Deformity Correction.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: To determine prevalence and clinical importance of patients who had postoperative CM after CMIS for ASD correction. METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent CMIS technique. Inclusion criteria were patients who were diagnosed with ASD, which is defined as having at least one of the following: coronal Cobb angle >20, SVA >50 mm, PI-LL >10, PT >20. They underwent >4 spinal levels fusion with CMIS technique and had at least 1-year follow-up. Preoperative and 1-year postoperative radiographs and clinical outcome measures (VAS, ODI, and SRS-22 scores) were used to make the comparisons. RESULTS: 120 patients were included. Radiographic outcomes, including CVA, coronal Cobb angle, LSF curve, SVA, LL, and PI-LL, and clinical outcomes, were significantly improved postoperatively in each of the 3 preoperative subgroups (Bao type A, B, and C). At 1-year post-operation, 10 patients (12.4 %) of type A turned out to be CM, 4 patients (21.1%) of type B, and 8 patients (40%) of type C remained CM. Comparing coronally aligned (CA) to coronally mal-aligned patients at 1-year follow-up in each coronal subtype revealed that clinical and radiographic outcomes were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: CMIS technique significantly improves radiographic and clinical outcomes for ASD patients. Incidence rates of postoperative CM were similar to open surgery. Type C patients were at risk of postoperative CM than types A and B. However, most 1-year outcomes were not significantly different between postoperative CA and CM patients regardless of the preoperative coronal alignment characteristics except ODI scores in type A.

Risk Factors of Unsatisfactory Outcomes Requiring Additional Intervention Following Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a minimally invasive procedure for stabilizing the spine and indirectly decompressing the neural elements. There is sparse data on unsatisfactory outcomes that require additional interventions (surgery or intervention) after OLIF. This study aimed to identify the causes, and risk factors of these reintervention. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of the patients who underwent the OLIF procedure from June 2016 to March 2023. Several clinical and radiographic parameters were studied. We also analyzed associations between several potential risk factors and the reintervention following OLIF. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were included. Over an average of 2.5 years of follow-up, 28 patients (12.1%) required a reintervention. Adjacent segment disease (ASD) was the most common cause of reintervention. The risk factors associated with reintervention were previous surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-16.33; p=0.02) and high preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08; p=0.03). Although increasing the duration of follow-up was not statistically significant, the 95% CI was consistent with an increased risk of reintervention with longer follow-up (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.94-1.50). CONCLUSION: This study showed that patients with prior lumbar surgery and high preoperative ODI scores were more likely to require additional intervention after the OLIF procedure. In addition, an increasing duration of follow-up was associated with an increased risk of reintervention. The most common reason for reintervention was ASD after OLIF.

[Reasons and strategies of reoperation after oblique lateral interbody fusion].

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the reasons and management strategies of reoperation after oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), and put forward preventive measures. METHODS: From October 2015 to December 2019, 23 patients who underwent reoperation after OLIF in four spine surgery centers were retrospectively analyzed. There were 9 males and 14 females with an average age of (61.89±8.80) years old ranging from 44 to 81 years old. The index diagnosis was degenerative lumbar intervertebral dics diseases in 3 cases, discogenic low back pain in 1 case, degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis in 6 cases, lumbar spinal stenosis in 9 cases and degenerative lumbar spinal kyphoscoliosis in 4 cases. Sixteen patients were primarily treated with Stand-alone OLIF procedures and 7 cases were primarily treated with OLIF combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation. There were 17 cases of single fusion segment, 2 of 2 fusion segments, 4 of 3 fusion segments. All the cases underwent reoperation within 3 months after the initial surgery. The strategies of reoperation included supplementary posterior pedicle screw instrumentation in 16 cases;posterior laminectomy, cage adjustment and neurolysis in 2 cases, arthroplasty and neurolysis under endoscope in 1 case, posterior laminectomy and neurolysis in 1 case, pedicle screw adjustment in 1 case, exploration and decompression under percutaneous endoscopic in 1 case, interbody fusion cage and pedicle screw revision in 1 case. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) index were used to evaluate and compare the recovery of low back pain and lumbar function before reoperation and at the last follow-up. During the follow-up process, the phenomenon of fusion cage settlement or re-displacement, as well as the condition of intervertebral fusion, were observed. The changes in intervertebral space height before the first operation, after the first operation, before the second operation, 3 to 5 days after the second operation, 6 months after the second operation, and at the latest follow-up were measured and compared. RESULTS: There was no skin necrosis and infection. All patients were followed up from 12 to 48 months with an average of (28.1±7.3) months. Nerve root injury symptoms were relieved within 3 to 6 months. No cage transverse shifting and no dislodgement, loosening or breakage of the instrumentation was observed in any patient during the follow-up period. Though the intervertebral disc height was obviously increased at the first postoperative, there was a rapid loss in the early stage, and still partially lost after reoperation. The VAS for back pain recovered from (6.20±1.69) points preoperatively to (1.60±0.71) points postoperatively(P<0.05). The ODI recovered from (40.60±7.01)% preoperatively to (9.14±2.66)% postoperatively(P<0.05). CONCLUSION: There is a risk of reoperation due to failure after OLIF surgery. The reasons for reoperation include preoperative bone loss or osteoporosis the initial surgery was performed by Stand-alone, intraoperative endplate injury, significant subsidence of the fusion cage after surgery, postoperative fusion cage displacement, nerve damage, etc. As long as it is discovered in a timely manner and handled properly, further surgery after OLIF surgery can achieve better clinical results, but prevention still needs to be strengthened.

Biomechanical changes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion with different fixation techniques in degenerative spondylolisthesis lumbar spine: a finite element analysis.

OBJECTIVE: There is a dearth of comprehensive research on the stability of the spinal biomechanical structure when combining Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) with internal fixation methods. Hence, we have devised this experiment to meticulously examine and analyze the biomechanical changes that arise from combining OLIF surgery with different internal fixation techniques in patients diagnosed with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Seven validated finite element models were reconstructed based on computed tomography scan images of the L3-L5 segment. These models included the intact model, a stand-alone (S-A) OLIF model, a lateral screw rod (LSR) OLIF model, a bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) OLIF model, an unilateral pedicle screw (UPS) OLIF model, a bilateral CBT (BCBT) OLIF model, and an unilateral CBT(UCBT) OLIF model. The range of motion (ROM), as well as stress levels in the cage, L4 lower endplate, L5 upper endplate, and fixation constructs were assessed across these different model configurations. RESULTS: S-A model had the highest average ROM of six motion modes, followed by LSR, UPS, UCBT, BPS and BCBT. The BCBT model had a relatively lower cage stress than the others. The maximum peak von Mises stress of the fixation constructs was found in the LSR model. The maximum peak von Mises stress of L4 lower endplate was found in the S-A model. The peak von Mises stress on the L4 lower endplate of the rest surgical models showed no significant difference. The maximum peak von Mises stress of the L5 upper endplate was found in the S-A model. The minimum peak von Mises stress of the L5 upper endplate was found in the BCBT model. No significant difference was found for the peak von Mises stress of the L5 upper endplate among LSR, BPS, UPS and UCBT models. CONCLUSION: Among the six different fixation techniques, BCBT exhibited superior biomechanical stability and minimal stress on the cage-endplate interface. It was followed by BPS, UCBT, UPS, and LSR in terms of effectiveness. Conversely, S-A OLIF demonstrated the least stability and resulted in increased stress on both the cage and endplates. Combining OLIF with BCBT fixation technique enhanced biomechanical stability compared to BPS and presented as a less invasive alternative treatment for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Factors that influence the results of indirect decompression employing oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Indirect decompression is one of the potential benefits of anterior reconstruction in patients with spinal stenosis. On the other hand, the reported rate of revision surgery after indirect decompression highlights the necessity of working out prediction models for the radiographic results of indirect decompression with assessing their clinical relevance. AIM: To assess factors that influence radiographic and clinical results of the indirect decompression in patients with stenosis of the lumbar spine. METHODS: This study is a single-center cross-sectional evaluation of 80 consecutive patients (17 males and 63 females) with lumbar spinal stenosis combined with the instability of the lumbar spinal segment. Patients underwent single level or bisegmental spinal instrumentation employing oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. Radiographic results of the indirect decompression were assessed using computerized tomography, while MacNab scale was used to assess clinical results. RESULTS: After indirect decompression employing anterior reconstruction using OLIF, the statistically significant increase in the disc space height, vertebral canal square, right and left lateral canal depth were detected (Р < 0.0001). The median (M) relative vertebral canal square increase came to М = 24.5% with 25%-75% quartile border (16.3%; 33.3%) if indirect decompression was achieved by restoration of the segment height. In patients with the reduction of the upper vertebrae slip, the median of the relative increase in vertebral canal square accounted for 49.5% with 25%-75% quartile border (2.35; 99.75). Six out of 80 patients (7.5%) presented with unsatisfactory results because of residual nerve root compression. The critical values for lateral recess depth and vertebral canal square that were associated with indirect decompression failure were 3 mm and 80 mm2 respectively. CONCLUSION: Indirect decompression employing anterior reconstruction is achieved by the increase in disc height along the posterior boarder and reduction of the slipped vertebrae in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Vertebral canal square below 80 mm2 and lateral recess depth less than 3 mm are associated with indirect decompression failures that require direct microsurgical decompression.

Defining cage subsidence in anterior, oblique, and lateral lumbar spine fusion approaches: a systematic review of the literature.

One of the most common complications of lumbar fusions is cage subsidence, which leads to collapse of disc height and reappearance of the presenting symptomology. However, definitions of cage subsidence are inconsistent, leading to a variety of subsidence calculation methodologies and thresholds. To review previously published literature on cage subsidence in order to present the most common methods for calculating and defining subsidence in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) approaches. A search was completed in PubMed and Embase with inclusion criteria focused on identifying any study that provided descriptions of the method, imaging modality, or subsidence threshold used to calculate the presence of cage subsidence. A total of 69 articles were included in the final analysis, of which 18 (26.1%) reported on the ALIF approach, 22 (31.9%) on the OLIF approach, and 31 (44.9%) on the LLIF approach, 2 of which reported on more than one approach. ALIF articles most commonly calculated the loss of disc height over time with a subsidence threshold of > 2 mm. Most OLIF articles calculated the total amount of cage migration into the vertebral bodies, with a threshold of > 2 mm. LLIF was the only approach in which most articles applied the same method for calculation, namely, a grading scale for classifying the loss of disc height over time. We recommend future articles adhere to the most common methodologies presented here to ensure accuracy and generalizability in reporting cage subsidence.

Associations of overweight/obesity with patient-reported outcome measures after oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

Background: Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with transpedicular screw fixation has been practiced for degenerative spinal diseases of elderly patients for years. However, overweight patients have been shown to have longer operative times and more complications from surgery. The effect on clinical outcome is still uncertified. The objective of this study was to determine is overweight a risk factor to clinical outcome of OLIF combined with transpedicular screw fixation technique. Material and methods: A retrospective study in patients submitted to OLIF combined with transpedicular screw fixation from January 2018 to August 2019 was conducted. VAS score, ODI score and EQ5D were measured before the operation and one year after the operation. Results: A total of 111 patients were included with 48 patients in the non-obese group and 55 patients in the overweight/obese group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in gender, age, smoking history, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus. Overweight/obese group has higher BMI (28.4 vs. 22.7, p < 0.001) than non-obese group. There was no difference between the two groups in pre-operative VAS score, ODI score and EQ5D score. However, the healthy weight group improved much more than the overweight score in VAS score, ODI score and EQ5D score. Conclusion: The overweight/obese patient group had clinical outcomes worse than the non-obese group in terms of pain relief and life functions.

L5 Nerve Root Radiculopathy as a Rare Complication Following Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion at L5/S1 Combined With Posterior Fixation via Percutaneous Pedicle Screws for Adult Spinal Deformity.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is an established and less invasive surgical approach for patients with adult spinal deformities. This method can also be applied to the L5/S1 region (termed "OLIF51"); however, reports on L5 nerve root radiculopathy as a rare complication of OLIF51 are limited. Here, we present the case of a 77-year-old woman with progressive adult spinal deformity who was followed up after an initial OLIF for the L3/4 and L4/5 levels. An additional operation was performed to resolve ambulation difficulty and back pain related to adult spinal deformity. Circumferential fixation was performed over two sessions. Initially, OLIF51 was performed concurrently with OLIF for L1/2 and L2/3. Eight days later, posterior fixation surgery from T10 to the ilium via percutaneous pedicle screws was performed. Two days after the second operation, the patient started complaining of left L5 nerve root radiculopathy, for which medication and rehabilitation were both ineffective. Retrospectively, we identified that the left L5/S1 foramen narrowed after the lordotic correction by OLIF51 and posterior fixation. Additionally, posterior facetectomy for L5/S1 was performed, and the left L5 nerve root radiculopathy was resolved. L5 nerve root radiculopathy can develop as a rare complication of OLIF51. Neurosurgeons should be aware of this rare complication related to OLIF51.

Single position, prone oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF)-case illustration and technical considerations.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a powerful method to treat various spinal conditions and is frequently combined with posterior instrumentation. This is traditionally performed in dual positions, with the patient first in lateral then turned prone. Single position lateral surgery (SPS-L) has been studied in a bid to improve surgical efficiency and reduce operative costs, but various limitations have been identified. More recently, the single position prone surgery (SPS-P) has been described as an alternative to address some of these limitations. This case illustrates a patient who underwent SPS-P using an OLIF corridor with subsequent posterior decompression and instrumentation. The benefits and limitations of this procedure compared to the conventional techniques are highlighted in this case. We present the case of a 75-year-old female presenting with thoracic myelopathy over T11/12 and concurrent L2-4 spinal stenosis. She underwent OLIF of L2/3 and L3/4, posterior decompression of T11/12 and L2/3, and posterior instrumented fusion from T10-L4 via a single prone position. We aim to describe the advantages of this approach and the challenges encountered through our experience. SPS-P offers numerous benefits compared to the already powerful SPS-L. In the upper levels of the lumbar spine, a pre-psoas approach may also be feasible. However, the prone lateral technique does not replace all patients suited for a lateral interbody fusion but should be seen as a viable option for selected cases such as those with previous fusion at the L5/S1 with adjacent degeneration requiring extension and posterior fixation.

Clinical efficacy and imaging analysis of oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of different types of lumbar intervertebral foramen stenosis.

PURPOSE: To analyze and study the clinical efficacy and imaging indexes of oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) in the treatment of lumbar intervertebral foramen stenosis(LFS) caused by different causes. METHOD: 33 patients with LFS treated with OLIF from January 2018 to May 2022 were reviewed. Oswestry Dysfunction Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) were calculated before and after operation. Segmental lordotic angle (SLA), lumbar lordotic angle (LLA) and segmental scoliosis angle (SSA), disc height (DH), posterior disc height (PDH), lateral disc height (LDH), foraminal height (FH), foramen width (FW) and foraminal cross-sectional area (FSCA) were measured before and after operation. RESULT: The VAS and ODI after operation were significantly improved as compared with those before operation. Compared with pre-operation, the DH, PHD increased by 67.6%, 94.6%, LDH increased by 107.4% (left), 101.7% (right), and FH increased by 30.2% (left), 34.5% (right). The FSCA increased by 93.1% (left), 89.0% (right), and the FW increased by 137.0% (left), 149.6% (right). The postoperative SSA was corrected by 74.5%, the postoperative SLA, LLA were corrected by 70.2%, 38.1%, respectively. All the imaging indexes were significantly improved (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The clinical efficacy and imaging data of OLIF in the treatment of LFS caused by low and moderate lumbar spondylolisthesis, intervertebral disc bulge and reduced intervertebral space height, degenerative lumbar scoliosis, articular process hyperplasia or dislocation have been well improved. OLIF may be one of the better surgical treatments for LFS caused by the above conditions.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5-S1: feasibility, surgical approach window, incision line, and influencing factors.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to describe the feasibility, surgical approach window (SAW), and incision line (IL) for oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5-S1 (OLIF51) using computed tomography (CT). A secondary aim was to identify associations among approach characteristics and demographic and anthropometric factors. METHODS: We performed a radiographic study of 50 male and 50 female subjects who received abdominal CT imaging. SAW was measured as the distance from the midline to the medial border of the iliac vessel. IL was measured at the skin surface corresponding to the distance between the center of the disc space and SAW lateral margin. OLIF51 feasibility was defined as the existence of at least a 1-cm SAW without retraction of soft tissues. RESULTS: For the left side, the OLIF51 SAW and IL were 12.1 ± 4.6 and 175.1 ± 55.3 mm. For the right side, these measures were 10.0 ± 4.3 and 185.0 ± 52.5 mm. Correlations of r = 0.648 (p < 0.001) and r = 0.656 (p < 0.001) were observed between weight and IL on the left and right sides, respectively. OLIF51 was not feasible 23% of the time. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the largest CT study to determine the feasibility of performing an OLIF51. Without the use of retraction, OLIF51 is not feasible 23% of the time. Left-sided OLIF51 allows for a larger surgical approach window and smaller incision compared to the right side. Larger incisions are required for adequate surgical exposure in patients with higher weight.

How to Choose Surgical Corridor in Left Oblique Approach Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the L5-S1 Segment: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: There are 2 surgical corridors to L5-S1 lumbar interbody fusion via the left oblique approach: anterior to psoas-oblique lateral interbody fusion (ATP-OLIF) and oblique-anterior lumbar interbody fusion (O-ALIF). The aim of this study was to evaluate criteria to guide the selection of surgical corridors for L5-S1 lumbar interbody fusion via the left oblique approach. METHODS: According to the structure of L5-S1 segment left common iliac vein (LCIV) in axial magnetic resonance image, the LCIV was divided into 6 types. O-ALIF was performed for type I and type II. ATP-OLIF was performed for type A and type B. For sexually active men, ATP-OLIF was chosen. Between April 2020 and April 2022, 22 patients were assigned to ATP-OLIF or O-ALIF based on the type of LCIV. Clinical outcomes and radiographic outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: There were 11 cases in O-ALIF group (type I, n = 10; type II, n = 1) and 11 cases in ATP-OLIF group (type A, n = 8; type B, n = 3). No differences were observed in clinical outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index, VAS, and complication rate); radiographic outcomes (mean disk height and segmental lordosis angle); length of hospital stay; operation time; and blood loss. No vascular injury occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS: This may be an appropriate criterion to guide the selection of surgical corridor for L5-S1 lumbar interbody fusion through the left oblique approach. O-ALIF was performed for type I and type II. ATP-OLIF was performed for type A and type B. For sexually active men, ATP-OLIF was chosen. According to this standard, the operation can be performed safely and with good clinical results.

Biomechanical evaluation of different oblique lumbar interbody fusion constructs: a finite element analysis.

BACKGROUND: Finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to investigate the biomechanical differences between different adjunct fixation methods for oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and to further analyze its effect on adjacent segmental degeneration. METHODS: We built a single-segment (Si-segment) finite element model (FEM) for L4-5 and a double-segment (Do-segment) FEM for L3-5. Each complete FEM was supplemented and modified, and both developed two surgical models of OLIF with assisted internal fixation. They were OLIF with posterior bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw (TINA system) fixation (OLIF + BPS) and OLIF with lateral plate system (OLIF + LPS). The range of motion (ROM) and displacement of the vertebral body, cage stress, adjacent segment disc stress, and spinal ligament tension were recorded for the four models during flexion/extension, right/left bending, and right/left rotation by applying follower load. RESULTS: For the BPS and LPS systems in the six postures of flexion, extension, right/left bending, and right/left rotation, the ROM of L4 in the Si-segment FEM were 0.32°/1.83°, 0.33°/1.34°, 0.23°/0.47°, 0.24°/0.45°, 0.33°/0.79°, and 0.34°/0.62°; the ROM of L4 in the Do-segment FEM were 0.39°/2.00°, 0.37°/1.38°, 0.23°/0.47°, 0.21°/0.44°, 0.33°/0.57°, and 0.31°/0.62°, and the ROM of L3 in the Do-segment FEM were 6.03°/7.31°, 2.52°/3.50°, 4.21°/4.38°, 4.21°/4.42°, 2.09°/2.32°, and 2.07°/2.43°. BPS system had less vertebral displacement, less cage maximum stress, and less spinal ligament tension in Si/Do-segment FEM relative to the LPS system. BPS system had a smaller upper adjacent vertebral ROM, greater intervertebral disc stress in terms of left and right bending as well as left and right rotation compared to the LPS system in the L3-4 of the Do-segment FEM. There was little biomechanical difference between the same fixation system in the Si/Do-segment FEM. CONCLUSIONS: Our finite element analysis showed that compared to OLIF + LPS, OLIF + BPS (TINA) is more effective in reducing interbody stress and spinal ligament tension, and it better maintains the stability of the target segment and provides a better fusion environment to resist cage subsidence. However, OLIF + BPS (TINA) may be more likely to cause adjacent segment degeneration than OLIF + LPS.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbosacral fractional curve correction in degenerative lumbar scoliosis.

PURPOSE: In combined anterior-posterior adult spinal deformity surgery, the optimal combination of anterior and posterior procedures remains unclear. We aimed to demonstrate the radiological outcomes and relevant factors in oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for lumbosacral fractional curve (FC) correction combined with open posterior surgery in degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). METHODS: This study involved 42 consecutive patients with DLS who had a major curve (MC) ≥ 20° and an FC (L4 to S1) ≥ 10°, and underwent a combined anterior-posterior surgery Changes in the MC, FC, coronal balance distance, type of coronal imbalance, coronal/sagittal disc angle at L4-5 and L5-S1, L4 and L5 tilt, and sagittal parameters were examined. The associations between FC correction and demographic, surgical, and radiological factors were analysed. RESULTS: The FC decreased from 16.9 ± 7.3° preoperatively to 6.6 ± 4.4° at the last follow-up (P < 0.001). The coronal disc angle at L4-5 and L5-S1 were, respectively, 6.8 ± 2.2° and 6.0 ± 4.1° preoperatively and decreased to 2.2 ± 2.1 and 1.2 ± 1.3° at the last follow-up (both P < 0.001). The changes in FC were greater in uppermost instrumented level > T10 (P < 0.001), and associated with the preoperative FC (r = 0.820, P < 0.001), L4 tilt (r = 0.434, P = 0.007), and L5 tilt (r = 0.462, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: OLIF at the FC combined with open posterior surgery is an effective combined anterior-posterior correction strategy in DLS.

Clinical and Radiologic Analysis of Minimally Invasive Anterior-Posterior Combined Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity: Comparison of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion at L5/S1 (OLIF51) versus Transforaminal Interbody Fusion.

Background and Objectives: Although adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery brought about improvement in the quality of life of patients, it is accompanied by high invasiveness and several complications. Specifically, mechanical complications of rod fracture, instrumentation failures, and pseudarthrosis are still unsolved issues. To better improve these problems, oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5/S1 (OLIF51) was introduced in 2015 at my institution. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of anterior-posterior combined surgery for ASD between the use of OLIF51 and transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) at L5/S1. Materials and Methods: A total of 117 ASD patients received anterior-posterior correction surgeries either with the use of OLIF51 (35 patients) or L5/S1 TLIF (82 patients). In both groups, L1-5 OLIF and minimally invasive posterior procedures of hybrid or circumferential MIS were employed. The sagittal and coronal spinal alignment and spino-pelvic parameters were recorded preoperatively and at follow-up. The quality-of-life parameters and visual analogue scale were evaluated, as well as surgical complications at follow-up. Results: The average follow-up period was thirty months (13-84). The number of average fused segments was eight (4-12). The operation time and estimated blood loss were significantly lower in OLIF51 than in TLIF. The PI-LL mismatch, LLL, L5/S1 segmental lordosis, and L5 coronal tilt were significantly better in OLIF51 than TLIF. The complication rate was statistically equivalent between the two groups. Conclusions: The introduction of OLIF51 for adult spine deformity surgery led to a decrease in operation time and estimated blood loss, as well as improvement in sagittal and coronal correction compared to TLIF. The circumferential MIS correction and fusion with OLIF51 serve as an effective surgical modality which can be applied to many cases of adult spinal deformity.

Risk Factors of Cage Subsidence Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the risk factors for cage subsidence (CS) after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). METHODS: The cohort and case-control studies which reporting potential risk factors for CS following OLIF were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception to June 17, 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the literature according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RevMan5.3 software was used for Meta analysis. χ2 statistics and I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity, and the analysis results were represented by forest plots. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies with 280 cases of CS from 832 patients who underwent OLIF met the inclusion criteria. Elderly patients over 60 years old (odds ratio [OR] 2.44, 95% CI 1.38-4.31, P = 0.002), osteoporosis (OR 4.18, 95% CI 2.30-7.61, P = 0.002), end plate injury (OR 5.72, 95% CI 2.32-14.11, P = 0.0002), and overdistraction of intervertebral space (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.3 2-2.11, P < 0.0001) were potential risk factors, while Hounsfield units value of the vertebral body (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, P = 0.02) is a protective factor. The number of operative segments did not increase the risk of CS. CONCLUSIONS: Older age, osteoporosis, endplate injury, and overdistraction of the intervertebral space may increase the risk of CS after OLIF. Although the incidence rate of CS is low, implementing effective preventions is a priority for clinicians based on these risk factors.

Early outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion with posterior fixation versus posterior interbody fusion with fixation for treating adult degenerative scoliosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the surgical trauma and outcomes between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and posterior fixation and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with fixation for adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS). METHODS: We included ADS patients who underwent OLIF with fixation or PLIF with fixation treatment from June 2020 to December 2022. The preoperative and postoperative spinal pelvic parameters were measured using X-rays. Clinical symptoms were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index and a visual analog scale. We recorded operation time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, albumin infusion, surgical fixation segment, surgical osteotomy segment, time, and drainage volume. RESULTS: Forty patients with ADS were included: 20 with OLIF with posterior fixation and 20 with PLIF matched for age, sex, pelvic incidence, and Cobb angle with the OLIF group. There were no significant differences in age, gender, BMI, preoperative spinal parameters, or preoperative clinical symptoms between the groups (p > 0.05). There were no statistical differences in postoperative spinal parameters or clinical symptoms (p > 0.05). Patients in the OLIF group had less intraoperative blood loss (p < 0.01) and fewer intraoperative blood transfusions (p < 0.001) than the posterior surgery group. The number of fixed segments was fewer (p < 0.01), and there were fewer total osteotomy segments (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: OLIF with posterior fixation surgery can achieve the same corrective effect and efficacy as a posterior internal fusion with fixation surgery for treating ADS. OLIF with posterior fixation surgery causes less trauma and reduces the number of fixation segments.

Factors affecting successful immediate indirect decompression in oblique lateral interbody fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Background: Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) offers indirect decompression of stenotic lesions of the spinal canal and foramen through immediate disc height restoration. Only a few studies have reported the effect of cage position and associated intraoperatively modifiable factors for successful immediate indirect decompression following OLIF surgery. This study aimed to investigate the intraoperatively modifiable factors for successful radiological outcomes of OLIF. Methods: This study included 46 patients with 80 surgical levels who underwent OLIF without direct posterior decompression. Preoperative and postoperative radiological parameters were evaluated and intraoperatively modifiable radiologic parameters for successful immediate radiologic decompression on magnetic resonance image (MRI) were determined. Radiologic parameters were preoperative and postoperative radiological parameters including anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH) lumbar lordotic angle (LLA), segmental lordotic angle (SLA), foraminal height (FH), cage position, cross-sectional area (CSA) of the thecal sac, cross-sectional foraminal area (CSF), facet distance (FD). Results: All radiologic outcomes significantly improved. Comparing preoperative and postoperative values, mean CSA increased from 99.63±40.21 mm2 to 125.02±45.90 mm2 (p<.0001), and mean left CSF increased from 44.54±12.90 mm2 to 69.91±10.80 mm2 (p<.0001). FD also increased from 1.40±0.44 to 1.92±0.71 mm (p<.0001). FH increased from 16.31±3.3 to 18.84±3.47 mm (p<.0001). ADH and PDH also significantly increased (p<.0001). Immediate postoperative CSF and FH improvement rate (%) were significantly correlated with posterior disc height restoration rate (%) (p=.0443, and p=.0234, respectively). In addition, the patients with a cage positioned in the middle of the vertebral body experienced a greater FH improvement rate (%) compared to the patients with a cage positioned anteriorly. Finally, Visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg pain was improved immediately. Conclusions: OLIF provided satisfactory immediate indirect decompression in central and foraminal spinal stenosis. Moreover, intraoperative surgical technique for successful radiologic CSF and FH improvement included restoration of the PDH and placement of the cage in the middle.

Reverse Lumbar Pedicle Screw in Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Novel Concept to Restrict Cage Subsidence.

OBJECTIVE: Cage subsidence is a common morbidity after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), with risk of compromising clinical and radiographic outcomes. The study aims to describe an innovative reverse lumbar pedicle screw (RLPS) technique in OLIF and compare its effect on restricting cage subsidence with classical lateral fixation (LF) in radiological and clinical evaluation. METHOD: Consecutive patients having undergone single-level OLIF-LF/RLPS from 2018 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. In OLIF-RLPS, the upper entry point was determined at the intersection between one horizontal line (1 cm above inferior endplate) and one vertical line (dissecting anterior and middle thirds of the vertebra) while the inferior entry point between one horizontal line (5 mm below superior endplate) and the same vertical line. Trajectories were from vertebrae reverse into contralateral pedicle. Radiological evaluation included disc height (DH) and segmental lordosis (SL); cage subsidence was evaluated by DH loss. Clinical assessment included visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Student t or Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variation according to normality analysis while Chi-square test for category variation. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients had been enrolled in the study including 14 cases in the RLPS group and 15 cases in the LF group. The DH in the OLIF-RLPS group had increased from the preoperative 9.07 ± 1.73 mm to 13.73 ± 1.83 mm postoperatively, without significant difference compared with the OLIF-LF group during the perioperative, but decreased to 12.53 ± 1.74 mm in 3 months and maintained at 12.00 ± 1.45 mm in 12 months, significantly higher than the OLIF-LF group (p < 0.05). At the last follow-up, 7.1% (1/14) cases in the OLIF-RLPS group had shown subsidence of grade I, significantly less than 46.7% (7/15) cases in the OLIF-LF group. Pain and disability had improved similarly in two groups, without significant difference detected between two groups at the last follow-up. CONCLUSION: RLPS technique with modified entry points and prolonged trajectory could effectively restrict cage subsidence in OLIF postoperatively compared with traditional lateral fixation.

Perspective; high frequency of intraoperative errors due to extreme, oblique, and lateral lumbar interbody fusions (XLIF, OLIF, LLIF): Are they "safe"?

Background: Extreme Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions (XLIF), Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF,) and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) were largely developed to provide indirect lumbar decompressions for spinal stenosis, deformity, and/or instability. Methods: Here, we have reviewed and updated the incidence of intraoperative errors attributed to XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF. Specifically, we focused on how often these procedures caused new neurological deficits, major vessel, visceral, and other injuries, including those warranting secondary surgery. Results: Performing XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF can lead to significant intraoperative surgical errors that include varying rates of; new neurological injuries (i.e. iliopsoas motor deficits (4.3-19.7-33.6-40%), proximal hip/upper thigh sensory loss/dysesthesias (5.1% to 21.7% to 40%)), life-threatneing vascular injuries (i.e., XLIF (0% - 0.4%-1.8%), OLIF (3.2%), and LLIF (2%) involving the aorta, iliac artery, inferior vena cava, iliac vein, and segmental arteries), and bowel/viscarl injuries (0.03%-0.4%) leading to reoperations (i.e., XLIF (1.8%) vs. LLIF (3.8%) vs. XLIF/LLIF/OLIF 2.2%)). Conclusion: Varying reports documented that XLIF, OLIF and LLIF caused up to a 40% incidence of new sensory/motor deficits, up to a 3.2% incidence of major vascular insults, a 0.4% frequency of visceral/bowel perforations, and a 3.8% need for reoperations. These high frequencies of intraoperative surgical errors attributed to XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF should prompt reconsideration of whether these procedures are "safe."