[Effects of oblique lateral interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lordosis correction in degenerative lumbar diseases].
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2018 Jul 03;98(25):1990-1995
Authors: Chen YL, Zhu ZH, Wang YK, Fan SW, Fang XQ, Wan SL, Zhang JF, Zhao X, Zhao FD
Goal: To match the operation time, estimated blood loss, medical final result and correction of lumbar lordosis between indirect lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in sufferers with degenerative lumbar illnesses. Strategies: Seventy-three sufferers who underwent OLIF or TLIF surgical procedure from January 2016 to December 2017 in Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital Zhejiang College have been analyzed on this retrospective case-control research. The sufferers included 31 males and 42 females, with a imply age of 65.eight years (vary, 36-88 years). Of the sufferers, there have been 9 circumstances of calcified disc herniation, 34 circumstances of spinal stenosis, 17 circumstances of degenerative spondylolithesis, 12 circumstances of degenerative scoliosis and 1 case of isthmic spondylolithesis. In response to the kind of surgical procedure, sufferers have been divided into OLIF group (34 circumstances) and TLIF group (39 circumstances). The operation time, estimated blood loss and transfusion have been recorded, pre-and post-operative visible analogue scale (VAS) for again ache and Oswestry Incapacity Index (ODI) have been evaluated, and pre- and post-operative lumbar lordosis (LL) and fused section lordosis (FSL) have been measured. Scholar t take a look at have been utilized in comparability between teams. Outcomes: Ten (29.four%) sufferers in OLIF group and all 39 (100%) sufferers in TLIF group have been supplemented with posterior instrumentation (?(2)=41.013, P<zero.05). The typical operation time and estimated blood loss was considerably decrease in OLIF group than in these in TLIF group[(163±68) vs (233±79) min, (116±148) vs (434±201) ml, t=4.019, 6.964, both P<0.05]. There was no important variations in decreases worth in VAS and ODI after surgical procedure between the 2 teams (t=1.716, zero.522, each P>zero.05). The correction of LL was four.zero°±10.zero° within the OLIF group and four.2°±6.1° within the TLIF group; the correction of FSL was four.1°±7.zero° within the OLIF group and 5.2°±four.6° within the TLIF group, with no important variations between the 2 teams too (t=zero.139, zero.805, each P>zero.05). The correction of LL was considerably larger in OLIF group with posterior instrumentation than that in TLIF group (9.9°±11.1° vs four.2°±6.1°, t=2.180, P<zero.05). Conclusions: Each OLIF and TLIF can restore LL to some extent, however OLIF has apparent benefits within the operation time and blood loss throughout surgical procedure. When supplemented with posterior instrumentation, OLIF can obtain higher correction of LL than TLIF.
PMID: 29996598 [PubMed – in process]