一项回顾性队列研究,比较TLIF和OLIF手术患者围手术期临床结果和影像学结果。

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Qingyang Huang, Weiguo Zhu, Peng Cui, Shuaikang Wang, Di Han, Peng Wang, Shibao Lu
{"title":"一项回顾性队列研究,比较TLIF和OLIF手术患者围手术期临床结果和影像学结果。","authors":"Qingyang Huang, Weiguo Zhu, Peng Cui, Shuaikang Wang, Di Han, Peng Wang, Shibao Lu","doi":"10.1186/s12893-025-02920-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the perioperative outcomes, clinical manifestations, and radiographic indicators in patients who underwent oblique lateral lumbar fusion (OLIF) and posterior instrumentation, compared with those who underwent posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and instrumentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective cohort analysis, elderly patients diagnosed with L4-5 lumbar spinal stenosis between July 2022 and July 2023 at our institution who underwent OLIF and posterior instrumentation (OLIF group), compared with those who underwent posterior TLIF and instrumentation (TLIF group). Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol was implemented for all patients. The perioperative data, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), radiographic assessments, and complications were gathered immediately after surgery and again at the 1-year follow-up. The perioperative outcomes and immediately postoperative and follow-up radiographic outcomes were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 120 patients participated in this study, with 60 patients assigned to the OLIF group and 60 to the TLIF group. With respect to outcomes, the length of stay was notably shorter in the OLIF group compared to the TLIF group (P < 0.001). Patients in the OLIF group exhibited significantly reduced postoperative drainage volume (P < 0.001), first ambulation on the postoperative day (POD) (P < 0.001), drain placement duration (P < 0.001), and urinary catheter retention (P = 0.037) compared to those in the TLIF group. Furthermore, there were statistically significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (1 vs. 8, P = 0.015), urinary tract infection (2 vs. 11, P = 0.008), pulmonary infection (2 vs. 10, P = 0.015), and nausea and vomiting (3 vs. 11, P = 0.023). With respect to radiographic measurements, At the 1-year follow-up, the posterior disc height (PDH) and intervertebral disc angle (IDA) demonstrated statistically increase in the OLIF group. The sagittal vertical axis (SVA) was statistically decrease and Lumbosacral lordosis (LL) was statistically increase in the OLIF group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>OLIF was demonstrated to have significant advantages in terms of perioperative, clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters for L4-5 lumbar spinal stenosis for elderly patients, comapred with TLIF.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"188"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12042309/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A retrospective cohort study comparing perioperative clinical outcomes and radiographic results between patients undergoing TLIF and OLIF surgeries.\",\"authors\":\"Qingyang Huang, Weiguo Zhu, Peng Cui, Shuaikang Wang, Di Han, Peng Wang, Shibao Lu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12893-025-02920-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the perioperative outcomes, clinical manifestations, and radiographic indicators in patients who underwent oblique lateral lumbar fusion (OLIF) and posterior instrumentation, compared with those who underwent posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and instrumentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective cohort analysis, elderly patients diagnosed with L4-5 lumbar spinal stenosis between July 2022 and July 2023 at our institution who underwent OLIF and posterior instrumentation (OLIF group), compared with those who underwent posterior TLIF and instrumentation (TLIF group). Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol was implemented for all patients. The perioperative data, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), radiographic assessments, and complications were gathered immediately after surgery and again at the 1-year follow-up. The perioperative outcomes and immediately postoperative and follow-up radiographic outcomes were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 120 patients participated in this study, with 60 patients assigned to the OLIF group and 60 to the TLIF group. With respect to outcomes, the length of stay was notably shorter in the OLIF group compared to the TLIF group (P < 0.001). Patients in the OLIF group exhibited significantly reduced postoperative drainage volume (P < 0.001), first ambulation on the postoperative day (POD) (P < 0.001), drain placement duration (P < 0.001), and urinary catheter retention (P = 0.037) compared to those in the TLIF group. Furthermore, there were statistically significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (1 vs. 8, P = 0.015), urinary tract infection (2 vs. 11, P = 0.008), pulmonary infection (2 vs. 10, P = 0.015), and nausea and vomiting (3 vs. 11, P = 0.023). With respect to radiographic measurements, At the 1-year follow-up, the posterior disc height (PDH) and intervertebral disc angle (IDA) demonstrated statistically increase in the OLIF group. The sagittal vertical axis (SVA) was statistically decrease and Lumbosacral lordosis (LL) was statistically increase in the OLIF group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>OLIF was demonstrated to have significant advantages in terms of perioperative, clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters for L4-5 lumbar spinal stenosis for elderly patients, comapred with TLIF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12042309/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-02920-x\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-02920-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较斜侧腰椎融合术(OLIF)和后路内固定术与后路经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)和内固定术的围手术期结局、临床表现和影像学指标。方法:在这项回顾性队列分析中,将2022年7月至2023年7月期间在我院接受OLIF和后路内固定术(OLIF组)诊断为L4-5腰椎管狭窄的老年患者与后路TLIF和内固定术(TLIF组)进行比较。所有患者均采用ERAS(术后增强恢复)方案。围手术期数据、患者报告的预后(PROs)、影像学评估和并发症在手术后立即收集,并在1年随访时再次收集。比较两组患者围手术期、术后即刻及随访的影像学结果。结果:共有120例患者参与了本研究,其中60例患者被分配到OLIF组,60例患者被分配到TLIF组。结果方面,OLIF组的住院时间明显短于TLIF组(P结论:OLIF在老年L4-5腰椎管狭窄患者的围手术期、临床结果和影像学参数方面均较TLIF有显著优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A retrospective cohort study comparing perioperative clinical outcomes and radiographic results between patients undergoing TLIF and OLIF surgeries.

Purpose: To investigate the perioperative outcomes, clinical manifestations, and radiographic indicators in patients who underwent oblique lateral lumbar fusion (OLIF) and posterior instrumentation, compared with those who underwent posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and instrumentation.

Methods: In this retrospective cohort analysis, elderly patients diagnosed with L4-5 lumbar spinal stenosis between July 2022 and July 2023 at our institution who underwent OLIF and posterior instrumentation (OLIF group), compared with those who underwent posterior TLIF and instrumentation (TLIF group). Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol was implemented for all patients. The perioperative data, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), radiographic assessments, and complications were gathered immediately after surgery and again at the 1-year follow-up. The perioperative outcomes and immediately postoperative and follow-up radiographic outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results: A total of 120 patients participated in this study, with 60 patients assigned to the OLIF group and 60 to the TLIF group. With respect to outcomes, the length of stay was notably shorter in the OLIF group compared to the TLIF group (P < 0.001). Patients in the OLIF group exhibited significantly reduced postoperative drainage volume (P < 0.001), first ambulation on the postoperative day (POD) (P < 0.001), drain placement duration (P < 0.001), and urinary catheter retention (P = 0.037) compared to those in the TLIF group. Furthermore, there were statistically significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of postoperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (1 vs. 8, P = 0.015), urinary tract infection (2 vs. 11, P = 0.008), pulmonary infection (2 vs. 10, P = 0.015), and nausea and vomiting (3 vs. 11, P = 0.023). With respect to radiographic measurements, At the 1-year follow-up, the posterior disc height (PDH) and intervertebral disc angle (IDA) demonstrated statistically increase in the OLIF group. The sagittal vertical axis (SVA) was statistically decrease and Lumbosacral lordosis (LL) was statistically increase in the OLIF group.

Conclusion: OLIF was demonstrated to have significant advantages in terms of perioperative, clinical outcomes and radiographic parameters for L4-5 lumbar spinal stenosis for elderly patients, comapred with TLIF.

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
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
×
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