Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparison of pure lateral and oblique lateral inter-body fusion for treatment of lumbar degenerative disk disease: a multicentric cohort study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The most effective interbody fusion technique for degenerative disk disease (DDD) is still controversial. The purpose of our study is to compare pure lateral (LLIF) and oblique lateral (OLIF) approaches for the treatment of lumbar DDD from L1–L2 to L4–L5, in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes.

Materials and methods

45 patients underwent lumbar interbody fusion for pure lumbar DDD from  L1–L2 to L4–L5 through LLIF (n = 31, mean age 62.1 years, range 45–78 years) or OLIF (n = 14, mean age 57.4 years, range 47–77 years). Clinical evaluations were performed with ODI and SF-36 tests. Radiological assessment was based on the modification of coronal segmental Cobb angles and segmental lumbar lordosis (L1–S1).

Results

On ODI and SF-36, all patients presented good results at follow-up, with 26% the difference between the LIF and OLIF groups on ODI scale in the post-operative period, and 3.9 and 8.8 points difference on physical and mental SF-36 in favor of OLIF. Radiological parameters improved significantly in both groups. The mean correction was 6.25° for cCobb (11.3° in LIF and 1.9° in OLIF), 2.5° for sLL (2° in LLIF and 4° in OLIF).

Conclusions

LLIF and OLIF represent safe and effective MIS procedures for the treatment of lumbar DDD. LLIF had some risks of motor deficit and monitoring is mandatory, though it addressed more the coronal deformities. OLIF did not imply risks for motor deficits, but attention should be paid to vascular anatomy. It was more effective in kyphotic segmental deformities.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chou R, Baisden J, Carragee EJ et al (2009) Surgery for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Spine 34(10):1094–1109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rao PJ, Loganathan A, Yeung V, Mobbs RJ (2015) Outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery based on indication: a prospective study. Neurosurgery 76:7–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nakai S, Yoshizawa H, Kobayashi S (1999) Long-term follow-up study of posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord 12:293–299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen BL, Wei FX, Ueyama K et al (2011) Adjacent segment degeneration after single-segment PLLIF: the risk factor for degeneration and its impact on clinical outcomes. Eur Spine J 20:1946–1950

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Howard J (2008) Fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review of Oswestry Disability Index and MOS Short Form-36 outcomes. Spine J 8:747–755

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Berjano P, Lamartina C, Smith W, Aebi M (2015) Lateral access surgery: a decade of innovation. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):285–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ohtori S, Orita S, Yamauchi K et al (2015) Mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar spinal degeneration disease. Yonsei Med J 56:1051–1059

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Fujiwara A, Lim TH, An HS et al (2000) The effect of disc degeneration and facet joint osteoarthritis on the segmental flexibility of the lumbar spine. Spine 25:3036–3044

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Inoue N, Espinoza Orías AA (2011) Biomechanics of intervertebral disk degeneration. Orthop Clin N Am 42:487–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT et al (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: interbody techniques for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2:692–699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR (2006) Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:435–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Arnold PM, Anderson KK, McGuire RA Jr (2012) The lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar and thoracic spine: a review. Surg Neurol Int 3(Suppl 3):S198–S215

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Phan K, Rao PJ, Scherman DB et al (2015) Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for sagittal balance correction and spinal deformity. J Clin Neurosci 22:1714–1721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Marchi L, Abdala N, Oliveira L et al (2013) Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 19:110–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Malham GM, Parker RM, Goss B, Blecher CM (2015) Clinical results and limitations of indirect decompression in spinal stenosis with laterally implanted interbody cages: results from a prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):339–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Malham GM, Ellis NJ, Parker R et al (2017) Maintenance of segmental lordosis and disk height in stand-alone and instrumented extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF). Clin Spine Surg 30:E90–E98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Malham GM, Ellis NJ, Parker RM, Seex KA (2012) Clinical outcome and fusion rates after the first 30 extreme lateral interbody fusions. Sci World J. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/246989

  18. Barbagallo GM, Albanese V, Raich AL et al (2014) Lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF): comparative effectiveness and safety versus PLIF/TLIF and predictive factors affecting LLIF outcome. Evid Based Spine Care J 5:28–37

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee YS, Park SW, Kim YB (2014) Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological outcomes. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 55:248–254

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu L, Liang Y, Zhang H et al (2016) Imaging anatomical research on the operative windows of oblique lumbar interbody fusion. PLoS One 11(9):e0163452

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Phan K, Mobbs RJ (2015) Oblique lumbar interbody fusion for revision of non-union following prior posterior surgery: a case report. Orthop Surg 7:364–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Silvestre C, Mac-Thiong JM, Hilmi R, Roussouly P (2012) Complications and morbidities of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 179 patients. Asian Spine J 6:89–97

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Raco A, Miscusi M (2016) The extreme lateral minimally invasive approach to pure degenerative disk disease. In: Wang MY, Sama AA, Uribe JS (eds) Lateral access minimally invasive spine surgery. Springer, Switzerland, pp 143–154

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G et al (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 1:2–18

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Winder MJ, Gambhir S (2016) Comparison of ALIF vs. XLIF for L4/5 interbody fusion: pros, cons, and literature review. J Spine Surg 2:2–8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Epstein NE (2016) Extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion: do the cons outweigh the pros? Surg Neurol Int 7:S692–S700

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Uribe JS, Arredondo N, Dakwar E, Vale FL (2010) Defining the safe working zones using the minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: an anatomical study. J Neurosurg Spine 13(2):260–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Ramieri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PPTX 2290 kb)

Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 14 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miscusi, M., Ramieri, A., Forcato, S. et al. Comparison of pure lateral and oblique lateral inter-body fusion for treatment of lumbar degenerative disk disease: a multicentric cohort study. Eur Spine J 27 (Suppl 2), 222–228 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5596-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5596-y

Keywords

Navigation