scholarly journals Lumbopelvic Sagittal Alignment and Foraminal Height from Single Interbody Cage in L5-S1 Segment: Comparison between Anterior Cage for OLIF (Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion) and Curvilinear Cage for TLIF (Transforaminal Interbody Fusion)

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-12
Author(s):  
Seong-Gon Kim ◽  
Jong-Tae Kim ◽  
Myung-Hoon Shin ◽  
Du-Yong Choi
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Interbody Cage ◽  
Transforaminal Interbody Fusion ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Foraminal Height

Minimally invasive surgery for low-grade spondylolisthesis: percutaneous endoscopic or oblique lumbar interbody fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 639-650
Author(s):  
Mengran Jin ◽  
Guokang Xu ◽  
Tong Shen ◽  
Jun Zhang ◽  
Haiyu Shao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Radiographic Outcomes ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Foraminal Height ◽  
Perioperative Risks

Aim: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of percutaneous endoscopic-assisted lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF) versus oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) for the treatment of symptomatic low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis. Material & methods: The clinical and radiographic records of 48 patients underwent single-level minimally invasive lumbar fusion with a PELIF (n = 16) or OLIF (n = 32) were reviewed. Results: The clinical and radiographic outcomes were similar in both groups. PELIF procedure exhibited superior capability of the enlargement of foraminal width, but inferior capability of the restoration of foraminal height than OLIF procedure. Conclusion: PELIF minimizes the iatrogenic damages and perioperative risks to a great extent, and seems to be a promising option for the treatment of symptomatic low-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Simultaneous Robotic Single Position Surgery (SR-SPS) with Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case Series

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Daniel Diaz-Aguilar ◽  
Vrajesh Shah ◽  
Alexander Himstead ◽  
Nolan J. Brown ◽  
Mickey E. Abraham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Outcomes of 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironobu Sakaura ◽  
Tomoya Yamashita ◽  
Toshitada Miwa ◽  
Kenji Ohzono ◽  
Tetsuo Ohwada
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Single Level ◽  
The Mean

Object A systematic review concerning surgical management of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) showed that a satisfactory clinical outcome was significantly more likely with adjunctive spinal fusion than with decompression alone. However, the role of adjunctive fusion and the optimal type of fusion remain controversial. Therefore, operative management for multilevel DS raises more complicated issues. The purpose of this retrospective study was to elucidate clinical and radiological outcomes after 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS with the least bias in determination of operative procedure. Methods Since 2005, all patients surgically treated for lumbar DS at the authors' hospital have been treated using posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with pedicle screws, irrespective of severity of slippage, patient age, or bone quality. The authors conducted a retrospective review of 20 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent 2-level PLIF for 2-level DS and had been followed up for 2 years or longer (2-level PLIF group). They also analyzed data from 92 consecutive cases involving patients who underwent single-level PLIF for single-level DS during the same time period and had been followed for at least 2 years (1-level PLIF group). This second group served as a control. Clinical status was assessed using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score. Fusion status and sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine were assessed by comparing serial plain radiographs. Surgery-related complications and the need for additional surgery were evaluated. Results The mean JOA score improved significantly from 12.8 points before surgery to 20.4 points at the latest follow-up in the 2-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 51.8%), and from 14.2 points preoperatively to 22.5 points at the latest follow-up in the single-level PLIF group (mean recovery rate 55.3%). At the final follow-up, 95.0% of patients in the 2-level PLIF group and 96.7% of those in the 1-level PLIF group had achieved solid spinal fusion, and the mean sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine was more lordotic than before surgery in both groups. Early surgery-related complications, including transient neurological complications, occurred in 6 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (30.0%) and 11 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (12.0%). Symptomatic adjacent-segment disease was found in 4 patients in the 2-level PLIF group (20.0%) and 10 patients in the 1-level PLIF group (10.9%). Conclusions The clinical outcome of 2-level PLIF for 2-level lumbar DS was satisfactory, although surgery-related complications including symptomatic adjacent-segment disease were not negligible.

scholarly journals Posterior fixation can further improve the segmental alignment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with oblique lumbar interbody fusion

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingye Wu ◽  
Tenghui Ge ◽  
Ning Zhang ◽  
Jianing Li ◽  
Wei Tian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Reduction Ratio ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Slip Ratio ◽  
Radiographic Parameters ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Segmental Lordosis

Abstract Background For patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, whether additional posterior fixation can further improve segmental alignment is unknown, compared with stand-alone cage insertion in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) procedure. The aim of this study was to compare changes of the radiographical segmental alignment following stand-alone cage insertion and additional posterior fixation in the same procedure setting of OLIF for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods A retrospective observational study. Selected consecutive patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis underwent OLIF procedure from July 2017 to August 2019. Five radiographic parameters of disc height (DH), DH-Anterior, DH-Posterior, slip ratio and segmental lordosis (SL) were measured on preoperative CT scans and intraoperative fluoroscopic images. Comparisons of those radiographic parameters prior to cage insertion, following cage insertion and following posterior fixation were performed. Results A total of thirty-three patients including six males and twenty-seven females, with an average age of 66.9 ± 8.7 years, were reviewed. Totally thirty-six slipped levels were assessed with thirty levels at L4/5, four at L3/4 and two at L2/3. Intraoperatively, with only anterior cage support, DH was increased from 8.2 ± 1.6 mm to 11.8 ± 1.7 mm (p < 0.001), DH-Anterior was increased from 9.6 ± 2.3 mm to 13.4 ± 2.1 mm (p < 0.001), DH-Posterior was increased from 6.1 ± 1.9 mm to 9.1 ± 2.1 mm (p < 0.001), the slip ratio was reduced from 11.1 ± 4.6% to 8.3 ± 4.4% (p = 0.020) with the slip reduction ratio 25.6 ± 32.3%, and SL was slightly changed from 8.7 ± 3.7° to 8.3 ± 3.0°(p = 1.000). Following posterior fixation, the DH was unchanged (from 11.8 ± 1.7 mm to 11.8 ± 2.3 mm, p = 1.000), DH-Anterior and DH-Posterior were slightly changed from 13.4 ± 2.1 mm and 9.1 ± 2.1 mm to 13.7 ± 2.3 mm and 8.4 ± 1.8 mm respectively (P = 0.861, P = 0.254), the slip ratio was reduced from 8.3 ± 4.4% to 2.1 ± 3.6% (p < 0.001) with the slip reduction ratio 57.9 ± 43.9%, and the SL was increased from 8.3 ± 3.0° to 10.7 ± 3.6° (p = 0.008). Conclusions Compared with stand-alone cage insertion, additional posterior fixation provides better segmental alignment improvement in terms of slip reduction and segmental lordosis in OLIF procedures in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Strategies for prevention of rod fracture in adult spinal deformity: cobalt chrome rod, accessory rod technique, and lateral lumbar interbody fusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ki Young Lee ◽  
Jung-Hee Lee ◽  
Kyung-Chung Kang ◽  
Sang-Kyu Im ◽  
Hae Seong Lim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Alignment ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Patient Factors ◽  
Rod Fracture ◽  
Cobalt Chrome

OBJECTIVERestoring the proper sagittal alignment in adult spinal deformity (ASD) can improve radiological and clinical outcomes, but pseudarthrosis including rod fracture (RF) is a common problematic complication. The purpose of this study was to analyze the methods for reducing the incidence of RF in deformity correction of ASD.METHODSThe authors retrospectively selected 178 consecutive patients (mean age 70.8 years) with lumbar degenerative kyphosis (LDK) who underwent deformity correction with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were classified into the non-RF group (n = 131) and the RF group (n = 47). For predicting the crucial factors of RF, patient factors, radiographic parameters, and surgical factors were analyzed.RESULTSThe overall incidence of RF was 26% (47/178 cases), occurring in 42% (42/100 cases) of pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO), 7% (5/67 cases) of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior column osteotomy, 18% (23/129 cases) of cobalt chrome rods, 49% (24/49 cases) of titanium alloy rods, 6% (2/36 cases) placed with the accessory rod technique, and 32% (45/142 cases) placed with the 2-rod technique. There were no significant differences in the incidence of RF regarding patient factors between two groups. While both groups showed severe sagittal imbalance before operation, lumbar lordosis (LL) was more kyphotic and pelvic incidence (PI) minus LL (PI-LL) mismatch was greater in the RF group (p < 0.05). Postoperatively, while LL and PI-LL did not show significant differences between the two groups, LL and sagittal vertical axis correction were greater in the RF group (p < 0.05). Nonetheless, at the last follow-up, the two groups did not show significant differences in radiographic parameters except thoracolumbar junctional angles. As for surgical factors, use of the cobalt chrome rod and the accessory rod technique was significantly greater in the non-RF group (p < 0.05). As for the correction method, PSO was associated with more RFs than the other correction methods, including LLIF (p < 0.05). By logistic regression analysis, PSO, preoperative PI-LL mismatch, and the accessory rod technique were crucial factors for RF.CONCLUSIONSGreater preoperative sagittal spinopelvic malalignment including preoperative PI-LL mismatch was the crucial risk factor for RF in LDK patients 65 years or older. For restoring and maintaining sagittal alignment, use of the cobalt chrome rod, accessory rod technique, or LLIF was shown to be effective for reducing RF in ASD surgery.

scholarly journals Introducing V-line as a New Strategy to Choose Surgical Corridor in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the L5-S1 Segment

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Xing Du ◽  
Yong Zhu ◽  
Wei Luo ◽  
Ben Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Injury Risk ◽  
Protective Factor ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Iliac Crest ◽  
Iliac Vein ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Multiple Variables ◽  
Surgical Corridor ◽  
Psoas Major

Abstract Purpose: To assess the availability of oblique lumbar interbody fusion at the level of L5-S1 (OLIF51) and to choose ideal surgical corridor in OLIF51 by introducing V-line. Methods: The axial views through the center of L5-S1 disc were reviewed. We adopt 18mm as the width of the simulated surgical corridor. The midline of the surgical corridor is at the center of L5-S1 disc. According to the traction distance of the left iliac vein (LCIV) and psoas major (PM), we defined all the subjects as V (+) (traction-difficultly LCIV), V (-) (traction-friendly LCIV), P (+) (traction-difficultly PM) and P (-) (traction-friendly PM). V-line was defined as a straight line dividing equally the simulated surgical corridor. All cases were divided into 2 groups: The V-line (+) group, more than half of the LCIV region is located in ventral part of V-line; the V-line (-) group, more than half of the LCIV region is located in dorsal part of V-line. Multiple variables regressive analysis was conducted to analyze the independent risk factors of V-line (+). Results: V-line (+) was found in 36 (38.7%) patients and V-line (-) in 57 (61.3%). Incidence of V (+) and P (+) were 35.4% (33/93) and 30.1% (28/93), respectively. 16.1% (15/93) subjects processed V (+) and P (+) at the same time. The independent risk factor of V-line (+) were gender of male (P = 0.034, OR: 12.152) and medial position of LCIV (P ＜ 0.001, OR: 265.085). High iliac crest was a significant independent protective factor (P = 0.001, OR: 0.750). Conclusions: Most patients were suitable for OLIF51. V-line could assess the injury risk of LCIV. Among male patients having the LCIV near the midline or the iliac crest relatively low, a surgical corridor external to the LCIV should be taken into consideration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document