评估OLIF L5/S1的损伤发生率和放射预后:髂分叉与腰前肌入路。

Q3 Medicine
Korean Journal of Neurotrauma Pub Date : 2025-07-22 eCollection Date: 2025-07-01 DOI:10.13004/kjnt.2025.21.e24
Yunhee Choi, Youngmin Kwon
{"title":"评估OLIF L5/S1的损伤发生率和放射预后:髂分叉与腰前肌入路。","authors":"Yunhee Choi, Youngmin Kwon","doi":"10.13004/kjnt.2025.21.e24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) technique at the L5-S1 segment can be approached via iliac vessel bifurcation or prepsoas approaches, depending on vascular anatomy and iliac crest height. This study aims to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between these two surgical methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center retrospective study analyzed 58 patients undergoing OLIF surgery at L5-S1 from January 2020 to December 2023. Patients were divided into bifurcation (n=36) and prepsoas (n=22) approach groups. Outcomes measured included radiological parameters (anterior/posterior disc heights, foraminal height, disc angle), clinical parameters (Visual Analog Scale for leg/back pain, Oswestry Disability Index), and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were observed preoperatively between groups. Postoperatively, the prepsoas group showed significantly increased posterior disc and foraminal heights, whereas the bifurcation group had a significantly greater disc angle. Leg pain scores improved significantly more in the bifurcation group at four months. Complications were comparable, though the prepsoas approach was associated with higher incidences of contralateral root and endplate injuries.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both surgical approaches are safe and effective. The bifurcation corridor approach using an anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage optimizes segmental angulation, while the prepsoas corridor approach is more effective for increasing foraminal height. Careful preoperative anatomical evaluation is essential for selecting the optimal surgical approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":36879,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Neurotrauma","volume":"21 3","pages":"183-192"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12325886/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Injury Incidence and Radiological Outcomes in OLIF L5/S1: Iliac Bifurcation Versus Prepsoas Approach.\",\"authors\":\"Yunhee Choi, Youngmin Kwon\",\"doi\":\"10.13004/kjnt.2025.21.e24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) technique at the L5-S1 segment can be approached via iliac vessel bifurcation or prepsoas approaches, depending on vascular anatomy and iliac crest height. This study aims to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between these two surgical methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center retrospective study analyzed 58 patients undergoing OLIF surgery at L5-S1 from January 2020 to December 2023. Patients were divided into bifurcation (n=36) and prepsoas (n=22) approach groups. Outcomes measured included radiological parameters (anterior/posterior disc heights, foraminal height, disc angle), clinical parameters (Visual Analog Scale for leg/back pain, Oswestry Disability Index), and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences were observed preoperatively between groups. Postoperatively, the prepsoas group showed significantly increased posterior disc and foraminal heights, whereas the bifurcation group had a significantly greater disc angle. Leg pain scores improved significantly more in the bifurcation group at four months. Complications were comparable, though the prepsoas approach was associated with higher incidences of contralateral root and endplate injuries.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both surgical approaches are safe and effective. The bifurcation corridor approach using an anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage optimizes segmental angulation, while the prepsoas corridor approach is more effective for increasing foraminal height. Careful preoperative anatomical evaluation is essential for selecting the optimal surgical approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Journal of Neurotrauma\",\"volume\":\"21 3\",\"pages\":\"183-192\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12325886/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Journal of Neurotrauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13004/kjnt.2025.21.e24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Neurotrauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13004/kjnt.2025.21.e24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:根据血管解剖和髂嵴高度的不同,L5-S1节段的斜外侧体间融合(OLIF)技术可以通过髂血管分叉或腰前路入路。本研究旨在比较这两种手术方法的临床和影像学结果。方法:本单中心回顾性研究分析了2020年1月至2023年12月在L5-S1行OLIF手术的58例患者。患者分为分岔入路组(n=36)和胸前入路组(n=22)。测量的结果包括放射学参数(前/后椎间盘高度、椎间孔高度、椎间盘角度)、临床参数(腿部/背部疼痛的视觉模拟量表、Oswestry残疾指数)和并发症。结果:术前各组间无明显差异。术后,腰肌前组后椎间盘和椎间孔高度明显增加,而分叉组椎间盘角度明显增大。4个月时,分岔组的腿部疼痛评分明显改善。虽然腰肌前入路与对侧根和终板损伤的发生率较高,但并发症是相似的。结论:两种手术入路安全有效。采用前路腰椎椎体间融合器的分叉通道入路可优化节段成角,而腰肌前通道入路可更有效地增加椎间孔高度。术前仔细的解剖评估是选择最佳手术入路的必要条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of Injury Incidence and Radiological Outcomes in OLIF L5/S1: Iliac Bifurcation Versus Prepsoas Approach.

Objective: The oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) technique at the L5-S1 segment can be approached via iliac vessel bifurcation or prepsoas approaches, depending on vascular anatomy and iliac crest height. This study aims to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between these two surgical methods.

Methods: This single-center retrospective study analyzed 58 patients undergoing OLIF surgery at L5-S1 from January 2020 to December 2023. Patients were divided into bifurcation (n=36) and prepsoas (n=22) approach groups. Outcomes measured included radiological parameters (anterior/posterior disc heights, foraminal height, disc angle), clinical parameters (Visual Analog Scale for leg/back pain, Oswestry Disability Index), and complications.

Results: No significant differences were observed preoperatively between groups. Postoperatively, the prepsoas group showed significantly increased posterior disc and foraminal heights, whereas the bifurcation group had a significantly greater disc angle. Leg pain scores improved significantly more in the bifurcation group at four months. Complications were comparable, though the prepsoas approach was associated with higher incidences of contralateral root and endplate injuries.

Conclusion: Both surgical approaches are safe and effective. The bifurcation corridor approach using an anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage optimizes segmental angulation, while the prepsoas corridor approach is more effective for increasing foraminal height. Careful preoperative anatomical evaluation is essential for selecting the optimal surgical approach.

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
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
×
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