Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Anterolateral Fixation and Cement Augmentation for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases in the Elderly Population: A Retrospective Study.

IF 1.8 2区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopaedic Surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1111/os.14315
Weiqi Han, Lei He, Fei Wang, Xiaofeng Zhao, Cong Jin
{"title":"Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Anterolateral Fixation and Cement Augmentation for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases in the Elderly Population: A Retrospective Study.","authors":"Weiqi Han, Lei He, Fei Wang, Xiaofeng Zhao, Cong Jin","doi":"10.1111/os.14315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Cage subsidence is a common complication of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), particularly in elderly patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. While bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPS) is effective in reducing subsidence, it is associated with longer operative times, increased blood loss, and greater tissue trauma. In contrast, anterolateral fixation (AF) is less invasive but linked to higher subsidence rates. Ensuring both minimal invasiveness and adequate stability in OLIF-assisted fixation remains a significant challenge. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of combining AF with cement augmentation (AF + CA) in reducing cage subsidence and improving clinical outcomes compared with AF and BPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 138 elderly patients with degenerative lumbar diseases treated with OLIF. Patients were divided into three groups: AF + CA (32 patients), AF (32 patients), and BPS (74 patients). Clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared among the groups, and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for cage subsidence after OLIF.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 1 year postoperatively, the disc height of the AF + CA group was significantly greater than that of the AF group. The cage subsidence rate in the AF + CA group was 24.3%, significantly lower than that in the AF group (48.8%, p < 0.05) and comparable to the BPS group (30.4%). Survivorship curve analysis showed better outcomes in reducing cage subsidence in the AF + CA group compared with the AF group, with no significant difference between the AF + CA and BPS groups. Compared with the AF + CA and BPS groups, the AF group had significantly higher grades and severity of cage subsidence. Fusion rates at 1 year were 91.9% in the AF + CA group, 90.2% in the AF group, and 95.1% in the BPS group, with no significant differences. The AF + CA group had significantly shorter operative times, less intraoperative blood loss, lower VAS scores at 3 days and 1 year postoperatively, and lower ODI scores at 3 days and 3 months compared with the BPS group. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that AF was a significant risk factor for cage subsidence, with an odds ratio of 3.399 compared with AF + CA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>AF + CA effectively reduces cage subsidence in OLIF surgeries, offering results comparable to BPS while providing advantages such as shorter surgical time, reduced blood loss, and improved early postoperative outcomes. AF + CA is a viable alternative, especially for elderly patients with comorbidities who may not tolerate the longer operative durations or greater blood loss associated with BPS.</p>","PeriodicalId":19566,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"446-459"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11787981/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/os.14315","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Cage subsidence is a common complication of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), particularly in elderly patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. While bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPS) is effective in reducing subsidence, it is associated with longer operative times, increased blood loss, and greater tissue trauma. In contrast, anterolateral fixation (AF) is less invasive but linked to higher subsidence rates. Ensuring both minimal invasiveness and adequate stability in OLIF-assisted fixation remains a significant challenge. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of combining AF with cement augmentation (AF + CA) in reducing cage subsidence and improving clinical outcomes compared with AF and BPS.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 138 elderly patients with degenerative lumbar diseases treated with OLIF. Patients were divided into three groups: AF + CA (32 patients), AF (32 patients), and BPS (74 patients). Clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared among the groups, and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for cage subsidence after OLIF.

Results: At 1 year postoperatively, the disc height of the AF + CA group was significantly greater than that of the AF group. The cage subsidence rate in the AF + CA group was 24.3%, significantly lower than that in the AF group (48.8%, p < 0.05) and comparable to the BPS group (30.4%). Survivorship curve analysis showed better outcomes in reducing cage subsidence in the AF + CA group compared with the AF group, with no significant difference between the AF + CA and BPS groups. Compared with the AF + CA and BPS groups, the AF group had significantly higher grades and severity of cage subsidence. Fusion rates at 1 year were 91.9% in the AF + CA group, 90.2% in the AF group, and 95.1% in the BPS group, with no significant differences. The AF + CA group had significantly shorter operative times, less intraoperative blood loss, lower VAS scores at 3 days and 1 year postoperatively, and lower ODI scores at 3 days and 3 months compared with the BPS group. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that AF was a significant risk factor for cage subsidence, with an odds ratio of 3.399 compared with AF + CA.

Conclusions: AF + CA effectively reduces cage subsidence in OLIF surgeries, offering results comparable to BPS while providing advantages such as shorter surgical time, reduced blood loss, and improved early postoperative outcomes. AF + CA is a viable alternative, especially for elderly patients with comorbidities who may not tolerate the longer operative durations or greater blood loss associated with BPS.

斜腰椎椎体间融合联合前外侧固定和骨水泥增强治疗老年人退行性腰椎疾病的回顾性研究
目的:椎笼下沉是斜腰椎体间融合术(OLIF)的常见并发症,尤其是老年骨质疏松或骨质减少患者。虽然双侧椎弓根螺钉固定(BPS)可以有效地减少沉陷,但它会增加手术时间、出血量和更大的组织损伤。相比之下,前外侧固定(AF)侵入性较小,但与较高的沉降率有关。在olif辅助下确保最小的侵入性和足够的稳定性仍然是一个重大的挑战。本研究旨在评估AF联合水泥增强(AF + CA)与AF和BPS相比在减少笼型下沉和改善临床结果方面的疗效。方法:对138例老年退行性腰椎疾病行OLIF治疗的患者进行回顾性分析。患者分为三组:AF + CA(32例)、AF(32例)和BPS(74例)。比较各组的临床和影像学结果,并进行logistic回归分析,以确定OLIF后笼子下沉的危险因素。结果:术后1年,AF + CA组椎间盘高度明显大于AF组。AF + CA组的轿厢下沉率为24.3%,明显低于AF组(48.8%)。p结论:AF + CA有效降低OLIF手术中的轿厢下沉,效果与BPS相当,同时具有缩短手术时间、减少出血量、改善术后早期预后等优势。AF + CA是一种可行的替代方案,特别是对于有合并症的老年患者,他们可能无法忍受与BPS相关的更长的手术时间或更大的出血量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthopaedic Surgery
Orthopaedic Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
374
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopaedic Surgery (OS) is the official journal of the Chinese Orthopaedic Association, focusing on all aspects of orthopaedic technique and surgery. The journal publishes peer-reviewed articles in the following categories: Original Articles, Clinical Articles, Review Articles, Guidelines, Editorials, Commentaries, Surgical Techniques, Case Reports and Meeting Reports.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信