侧位融合是斜腰椎体间融合手术的独特特征:一项回顾性队列研究。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Global Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-17 DOI:10.1177/21925682241310151
Tong Yongjun, Fu Chudi, Zhang Qibin, Huang Bao, Ou Changjiang, Zhang Xuyang, Liu Junhui, Fan Shunwu, Zhao Fengdong
{"title":"侧位融合是斜腰椎体间融合手术的独特特征:一项回顾性队列研究。","authors":"Tong Yongjun, Fu Chudi, Zhang Qibin, Huang Bao, Ou Changjiang, Zhang Xuyang, Liu Junhui, Fan Shunwu, Zhao Fengdong","doi":"10.1177/21925682241310151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.ObjectiveLimited clinical literature addresses potential differences in fusion features between Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We observed that in OLIF, there are many cases with the appearance of extra-vertebral bone bridges (EVB), a phenomenon distinct from traditional TLIF fusion. This study aims to compare fusion rates, cage subsidence, and fusion features among OLIF stand-alone (OLIF-SA), OLIF with posterior pedicle screw fixation (OLIF-PS), and TLIF.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 198 patients (311 levels) undergoing OLIF-SA, OLIF-PS, or TLIF from July 2017 to June 2021. We assessed patient-reported outcomes, cage subsidence, fusion rate, and fusion features on CT scans.ResultsThe study included 64 OLIF-SA patients (102 levels), 60 OLIF-PS patients (99 levels), and 74 TLIF patients (110 levels). Cage settling rates were 33.3% (OLIF-SA), 17.2% (OLIF-PS), and 32.8% (TLIF), with significant differences between OLIF-PS and TLIF (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Cage subsidence rates showed no significant difference: 11.8% (OLIF-SA), 9.1% (OLIF-PS), and 12.7% (TLIF) (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Fusion rates were 100% (OLIF-SA), 97.0% (OLIF-PS), and 96.4% (TLIF) (<i>P</i> = 0.167). Lateral fusion rates significantly differed: 49.0% (OLIF-SA), 30.3% (OLIF-PS), and 10.9% (TLIF) (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Preoperative osteophytes strongly promote lateral fusion (<i>P</i> < 0.001). VAS and ODI scores improved significantly post-surgery (<i>P</i> < 0.01).ConclusionsOLIF-SA, OLIF-PS, and TLIF surgeries show satisfactory results with comparable fusion rates. Notably, distinctive differences exist in fusion features between OLIF and TLIF surgeries, with lateral fusion more prevalent in OLIF, particularly in OLIF-SA surgeries.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"2714-2725"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11653389/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lateral Fusion is a Unique Feature in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Tong Yongjun, Fu Chudi, Zhang Qibin, Huang Bao, Ou Changjiang, Zhang Xuyang, Liu Junhui, Fan Shunwu, Zhao Fengdong\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/21925682241310151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.ObjectiveLimited clinical literature addresses potential differences in fusion features between Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We observed that in OLIF, there are many cases with the appearance of extra-vertebral bone bridges (EVB), a phenomenon distinct from traditional TLIF fusion. This study aims to compare fusion rates, cage subsidence, and fusion features among OLIF stand-alone (OLIF-SA), OLIF with posterior pedicle screw fixation (OLIF-PS), and TLIF.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 198 patients (311 levels) undergoing OLIF-SA, OLIF-PS, or TLIF from July 2017 to June 2021. We assessed patient-reported outcomes, cage subsidence, fusion rate, and fusion features on CT scans.ResultsThe study included 64 OLIF-SA patients (102 levels), 60 OLIF-PS patients (99 levels), and 74 TLIF patients (110 levels). Cage settling rates were 33.3% (OLIF-SA), 17.2% (OLIF-PS), and 32.8% (TLIF), with significant differences between OLIF-PS and TLIF (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Cage subsidence rates showed no significant difference: 11.8% (OLIF-SA), 9.1% (OLIF-PS), and 12.7% (TLIF) (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Fusion rates were 100% (OLIF-SA), 97.0% (OLIF-PS), and 96.4% (TLIF) (<i>P</i> = 0.167). Lateral fusion rates significantly differed: 49.0% (OLIF-SA), 30.3% (OLIF-PS), and 10.9% (TLIF) (<i>P</i> < 0.001). Preoperative osteophytes strongly promote lateral fusion (<i>P</i> < 0.001). VAS and ODI scores improved significantly post-surgery (<i>P</i> < 0.01).ConclusionsOLIF-SA, OLIF-PS, and TLIF surgeries show satisfactory results with comparable fusion rates. Notably, distinctive differences exist in fusion features between OLIF and TLIF surgeries, with lateral fusion more prevalent in OLIF, particularly in OLIF-SA surgeries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2714-2725\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11653389/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Spine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241310151\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241310151","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计:回顾性队列研究。目的:有限的临床文献探讨了斜腰椎体间融合术(OLIF)和经椎间孔腰椎体间融合术(TLIF)在融合特征上的潜在差异。我们观察到,在OLIF中,有许多病例出现椎外骨桥(EVB),这一现象与传统的TLIF融合不同。本研究旨在比较OLIF独立(OLIF- sa)、OLIF联合后路椎弓根螺钉固定(OLIF- ps)和TLIF的融合率、笼沉降和融合特征。方法:我们回顾性分析了2017年7月至2021年6月期间接受OLIF-SA、OLIF-PS或TLIF治疗的198例患者(311个级别)。我们评估了患者报告的结果、笼沉降、融合率和CT扫描的融合特征。结果:纳入64例OLIF-SA患者(102个水平),60例OLIF-PS患者(99个水平),74例TLIF患者(110个水平)。笼内沉降率分别为OLIF-SA 33.3%、OLIF-PS 17.2%和TLIF 32.8%, OLIF-PS与TLIF差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。笼子下沉率分别为11.8% (OLIF-SA)、9.1% (OLIF-PS)和12.7% (tliff),差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。融合率分别为100% (OLIF-SA)、97.0% (OLIF-PS)和96.4% (TLIF) (P = 0.167)。侧位融合率差异显著:OLIF-SA组为49.0%,OLIF-PS组为30.3%,TLIF组为10.9% (P < 0.001)。术前骨赘强烈促进侧位融合(P < 0.001)。术后VAS、ODI评分明显改善(P < 0.01)。结论:OLIF-SA、OLIF-PS和TLIF手术的融合率相当,效果令人满意。值得注意的是,OLIF手术和TLIF手术在融合特征上存在明显差异,OLIF手术中外侧融合更为普遍,尤其是OLIF- sa手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Lateral Fusion is a Unique Feature in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Study DesignRetrospective cohort study.ObjectiveLimited clinical literature addresses potential differences in fusion features between Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We observed that in OLIF, there are many cases with the appearance of extra-vertebral bone bridges (EVB), a phenomenon distinct from traditional TLIF fusion. This study aims to compare fusion rates, cage subsidence, and fusion features among OLIF stand-alone (OLIF-SA), OLIF with posterior pedicle screw fixation (OLIF-PS), and TLIF.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 198 patients (311 levels) undergoing OLIF-SA, OLIF-PS, or TLIF from July 2017 to June 2021. We assessed patient-reported outcomes, cage subsidence, fusion rate, and fusion features on CT scans.ResultsThe study included 64 OLIF-SA patients (102 levels), 60 OLIF-PS patients (99 levels), and 74 TLIF patients (110 levels). Cage settling rates were 33.3% (OLIF-SA), 17.2% (OLIF-PS), and 32.8% (TLIF), with significant differences between OLIF-PS and TLIF (P < 0.05). Cage subsidence rates showed no significant difference: 11.8% (OLIF-SA), 9.1% (OLIF-PS), and 12.7% (TLIF) (P > 0.05). Fusion rates were 100% (OLIF-SA), 97.0% (OLIF-PS), and 96.4% (TLIF) (P = 0.167). Lateral fusion rates significantly differed: 49.0% (OLIF-SA), 30.3% (OLIF-PS), and 10.9% (TLIF) (P < 0.001). Preoperative osteophytes strongly promote lateral fusion (P < 0.001). VAS and ODI scores improved significantly post-surgery (P < 0.01).ConclusionsOLIF-SA, OLIF-PS, and TLIF surgeries show satisfactory results with comparable fusion rates. Notably, distinctive differences exist in fusion features between OLIF and TLIF surgeries, with lateral fusion more prevalent in OLIF, particularly in OLIF-SA surgeries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信