Comparison between intervertebral oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter study

Quantifying Satisfaction of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients in Post-lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: Establishing Critical JOABPEQ Cutoff Scores

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study aimed to determine the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) cutoff scores for assessing patient satisfaction postlateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) patients.

METHODS

Analyzing 136 DLSS patients (83 males, 53 females), the study evaluated demographics, pain (Numeric Rating Scale), and JOABPEQ outcomes (low back pain, lumbar function, walking ability, social life, mental health). Patient satisfaction was surveyed, and based on their responses, patients were categorized into "Beneficial" and "Nonbeneficial" groups. Statistical analysis encompassed the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U test, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for JOABPEQ cutoff determination.

RESULTS

Postoperative improvements in JOABPEQ scores, especially in walking ability, social life function, and mental health, were significant. Pain intensity, assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale, also showed notable reductions. The Δ walking ability cutoff was set at 25.00, indicating substantial mobility improvement. This domain's area under the curve (AUC) was 0.815 (95% CI: 0.726-0.903), demonstrating high effectiveness in assessing patient satisfaction postsurgery. The study also found no significant differences in complication rates between groups for conditions like transient motor weakness, thigh pain/numbness, and revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores the value of patient-centered outcomes in evaluating LLIF surgery success for DLSS. The identified JOABPEQ cutoff values provide a quantitative tool for assessing patient satisfaction, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive postoperative evaluations beyond traditional clinical metrics for improved patient care and life quality.

Eye lens dose in spine surgeons during myelography procedures: a dosimetry study

To determine the eye lens dose (3 mm dose equivalent [Hp(3)]) received by spine surgeons during myelography and evaluate the effectiveness of radiation-protective glasses and x-ray tube system positioning in reducing radiation exposure. This study included spine surgeons who performed myelography using over- or under-table x-ray tube systems. Hp(3) was measured for each examination using a radio-photoluminescence glass dosimeter (GD-352M) mounted on radiation-protective glass. This study identified significantly high Hp(3) levels, especially in the right eye lens in spinal surgeons. The median Hp(3) values in the right eye were 524 (391-719) and 58 (42-83)μSv/examination for over- and under-table x-ray tube systems, respectively. Further, Hp(3)AK, which was obtained by dividing the cumulative air kerma from Hp(3), was 8.09 (6.69-10.21) and 5.11 (4.06-6.31)μSv mGy-1for the over- and under-table x-ray tube systems, respectively. Implementing radiation-protective glasses resulted in dose reduction rates of 54% (50%-57%) and 54% (51%-60%) for the over- and under-table x-ray tube systems, respectively. The use of radiation protection glasses significantly reduced the radiation dose in the eye lens during myelography, with the most effective measures being the combination of using radiation protection glasses and an under-table x-ray tube system.

Different lumbar fusion techniques for lumbar spinal stenosis: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To comprehensively compare and assess the effects of different lumbar fusion techniques in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS).

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched up to December 24, 2022 in this network meta-analysis. Outcomes were pain (pain, low back pain, and leg pain), Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), complications, reoperation, and fusion. Network plots illustrated the direct and indirect comparisons of different fusion techniques for the outcomes. League tables showed the comparisons of any two fusion techniques, based on both direct and indirect evidence. The efficacy of each fusion technique for LSS was ranked by rank probabilities.

RESULTS

Totally 29 studies involving 2,379 patients were eligible. For pain, percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-TLIF) was most likely to be the best technique, followed by minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (Endo-PLIF) had the greatest likelihood to be the optimal technique for low back pain, followed sequentially by MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF), XLIF, Endo-TLIF, TLIF, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). MIS-PLIF was ranked the most effective technique concerning leg pain, followed by Endo-TLIF, MIS-TLIF, TLIF, Endo-PLIF, PLIF, OLIF, PLF, and XLIF. As regards JOA scores, Endo-TLIF had the maximum probability to be the best technique, followed by MIS-TLIF and TLIF. Endo-PLIF had the greatest likelihood to be the optimum technique for complications, followed by TLIF, MIS-TLIF, Endo-TLIF, OLIF, and XLIF.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive fusion techniques may be effective in the treatment of LSS, compared with traditional techniques. Minimally invasive techniques were likely non-inferior with regards to postoperative complications.

Efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the differences in postoperative efficacy between oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Strictly based on the search strategy, we searched the published papers on OLIF and TLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. A total of 607 related papers were retrieved, and 15 articles were finally included. The quality of the papers was evaluated according to the Cochrane systematic review methodology, and the data were extracted and meta-analyzed using Review manager 5.4 software.

RESULTS

Through comparison, it was found that in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, the OLIF group had certain advantages over the TLIF group in terms of intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) for leg pain (VAS-LP), Oswestry disability index (ODI), disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), fused segmental lordosis (FSL), and cage height, and the differences were statistically significant. The results were similar in terms of surgery time, complications, fusion rate, VAS for back pain (VAS-BP) and various sagittal imaging indicators, and there was no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF and TLIF can relieve low back pain symptoms in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, but OLIF has certain advantages in terms of ODI and VAS-LP. In addition, OLIF has the advantages of minor intraoperative trauma and quick postoperative recovery.

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) and mini-incision L5/S1 OLIF with a self-lock cage for the surgical treatment of L5 spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVES

We reported thirteen cases of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) under local anesthesia and mini-incision L5/S1 OLIF (OLIF51) with a self-lock cage for the treatment of L5 spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

From Jan 2019 to Feb 2020, the patients with L5 spondylolisthesis with nerve root symptoms undergoing PTES and OLIF51 were included in this study. PTES under local anesthesia was performed in a prone position, and OLIF51 with a self-lock cage and allograft was then undertaken through a left abdominal mini-incision and oblique retroperitoneal approach between bilateral iliac vessels with the external oblique, internal oblique and transverse abdominal muscles bluntly separated in turn for L5/S1 in a right oblique position under general anesthesia. Back and leg pain were preoperatively and postoperatively evaluated using the VAS, and the clinical outcomes were evaluated with the ODI before surgery and at the 2-year follow-up. The anterior and posterior intervertebral space height (AISH, PISH), lumbar lordotic, and surgical segmental lordotic angle (SLA) were measured on lumbar spine X-rays preoperatively and postoperatively. The fusion status was assessed according to Bridwell's fusion grades.

RESULTS

Thirteen cases of L5 spondylolisthesis were included. The operation duration was 49.1 ± 5.6 min for PTES and 73.6 ± 8.2 min for OLIF. There was blood loss of 25 (15-45) ml. The incision length was 7.5 ± 1.1 mm for PTES and 46.8 ± 3.8 mm for OLIF. The hospital stay was 5 (4-6) days, and the follow-up duration was 29 (24-37) months. For the clinical evaluation, the VAS of back and leg pain significantly dropped after surgery (p < 0.001), and the ODI significantly decreased from 64.7 ± 7.8% to 12.9 ± 4.3% 2 years after surgery (p < 0.001). AISH, PISH and SLA significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.05). Fusion grades based on the Bridwell grading system at the 2-year follow-up were grade I in 9 segments (69.2%) and grade II in 4 segments (30.8%). No patients had any form of permanent iatrogenic nerve damage or major complications. No failure of instruments was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

PTES and mini-incision OLIF51 with a self-lock cage is a viable option of minimally invasive surgery for L5 spondylolisthesis, which can achieve direct neurologic decompression, satisfactory fusion and hardly destroys the rectus abdominis and its sheath, paraspinal muscles and bone structures.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors for reoperation after degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery

BACKGROUND

Considering the high reoperation rate in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) patients undergoing lumbar surgeries and controversial results on the risk factors for the reoperation, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the reoperation rate and risk factors for the reoperation in DLS patients undergoing lumbar surgeries.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted from inception to October 28, 2022 in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Odds ratio (OR) was used as the effect index for the categorical data, and effect size was expressed as 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity test was performed for each outcome effect size, and subgroup analysis was performed based on study design, patients, surgery types, follow-up time, and quality of studies to explore the source of heterogeneity. Results of all outcomes were examined by sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed using Begg test, and adjusted using trim-and-fill analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 39 cohort studies (27 retrospective cohort studies and 12 prospective cohort studies) were finally included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall results showed a 10% (95%CI: 8%-12%) of reoperation rate in DLS patients undergoing lumbar surgeries. In surgery types subgroup, the reoperation rate was 11% (95%CI: 9%-13%) for decompression, 10% (95%CI: 7%-12%) for fusion, and 9% (95%CI: 5%-13%) for decompression and fusion. An increased risk of reoperation was found in patients with obesity (OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.04-3.51), diabetes (OR = 2.01, 95%CI: 1.43-2.82), and smoking (OR = 1.51, 95%CI: 1.23-1.84).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a 10% of reoperation rate in DLS patients after lumbar surgeries. Obesity, diabetes, and smoking were risk factors for the reoperation.

Comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Context

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) are 2 popular minimally invasive spinal fusion techniques with unique approach-related complication profiles. Accordingly, patient-specific anatomical factors, such as vascular anatomy or iliac crest height, greatly influence which technique to use. Previous studies comparing these approaches do not account for the inability of XLIF to access the L5-S1 disc space and therefore do not exclude this level in their analysis. The purpose of this study was to compare radiological and clinical outcomes of these techniques in the L1-L5 region.

Methods

A query of 3 electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL plus, and SCOPUS) was performed, without time restriction, to identify studies that evaluated outcomes of single-level OLIF and/or XLIF between L1 and L5. Based on heterogeneity, a random effects meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the pooled estimation of each variable between the groups. An overlap of 95% confidence intervals suggests no statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level.

Results

A total of 1,010 patients (408 OLIF, 602 XLIF) were included from 24 published studies. Improvements in disc height (OLIF: 4.2 mm; XLIF: 5.3 mm), lumbar segmental (OLIF: 2.3°; XLIF: 3.1°), and lumbar lordotic angles (OLIF: 5.3°; XLIF: 3.3°) showed no significant difference. The rate of neuropraxia was significantly greater in the XLIF group at 21.2% versus 10.9% in the OLIF group (p<.05). However, the rate of vascular injury was higher in the OLIF cohort at 3.2% (95% CI:1.7-6.0) as compared to 0.0 (95% CI: 0.0-1.4) in the XLIF cohort. Improvements in VAS-b (OLIF: 5.6; XLIF: 4.5) and ODI (OLIF: 37.9; XLIF: 25.6) scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates similar clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF from L1 to L5. XLIF had significantly higher rates of neuropraxia, whereas OLIF had greater rates of vascular injury.

Comparison of oblique and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: An updated meta-analysis

Objective

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. A meta-analysis was performed to examine the clinical and radiological effects of these two techniques.

Methods

A search of relevant literature from several databases was conducted until November 2021. Perioperative outcomes, clinical and radiological results, and complications were analyzed.

Results

Fifteen qualified studies were included. OLIF showed a shorter operative time and length of hospital stay and less blood loss than TLIF. Early postoperative Visual Analogue Scale for back pain were significantly lower in OLIF than in TLIF (P = 0.004). Noteworthy, although the preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of the OLIF group was higher than that of the TLIF group (P = 0.04), the postoperative ODI was significantly lower (P < 0.05). Radiologically, the results showed that the disc and foraminal heights of OLIF were significantly higher than those of TLIF postoperatively. Moreover, OLIF can restore more segmental lordosis than TLIF in the early postoperative period. Furthermore, OLIF showed better fusion rates than TLIF (P = 0.02), with no difference in cage subsidence (13.4% vs. 16.6%). No significant differences in overall and approach-related complications between the two groups.

Conclusion

The OLIF group showed an advantage in terms of operative time, hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, early back pain relief, postoperative function recovery, disc and foraminal heights, early segmental lordosis, and fusion rate compared to TLIF. For both procedures, the incidence rates of overall and approach-related complications were comparable.

Comparisons of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: a prospective cohort study with a 2-year follow-up

Objective

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between oblique (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis during a 2-year follow-up.

Methods

Patients with symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis who underwent OLIF (OLIF group) or TLIF (TLIF group) were prospectively enrolled in the authors' hospital and followed up for 2 years. The primary outcomes were treatment effects [changes in visual analog score (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) from baseline] at 2 years after surgery; these were compared between two groups. Patient characteristics, radiographic parameters, fusion status, and complication rates were also compared.

Results

In total, 45 patients were eligible for the OLIF group and 47 patients for the TLIF group. The rates of follow-up were 89% and 87% at 2 years, respectively. The comparisons of primary outcomes demonstrated no different changes in VAS-leg (OLIF, 3.4 vs. TLIF, 2.7), VAS-back (OLIF, 2.5 vs. TLIF, 2.1), and ODI (OLIF, 26.8 vs. TLIF, 30). The fusion rates were 86.1% in the TLIF group and 92.5% in the OLIF group at 2 years (P = 0.365). The OLIF group had less estimated blood loss (median, 200 ml) than the TLIF group (median, 300 ml) (P < 0.001). Greater restoration of disc height was obtained by OLIF (mean, 4.6 mm) than the TLIF group (mean, 1.3 mm) in the early postoperative period (P < 0.001). The subsidence rate was lower in the OLIF group than that in the TLIF group (17.5% vs. 38.9%, P = 0.037). The rates of total problematic complications were not different between the two groups (OLIF, 14.6% vs. TLIF, 26.2%, P = 0.192).

Conclusion

OLIF did not show better clinical outcomes than TLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis, except for lesser blood loss, greater disc height restoration, and lower subsidence rate.

Comparison of Outcomes of Multi-Level Anterior, Oblique, Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery : Impact on Global Sagittal Alignment

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in terms of global sagittal alignment.

METHODS

From January 2007 to December 2019, 141 adult patients who underwent multilevel interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders were enrolled. Regarding the approach, patients were divided into the ALIF (n=23), OLIF (n=60), and TLIF (n=58) groups. Outcomes, including local radiographic parameters and global sagittal alignment, were then compared between the treatment groups.

RESULTS

Regarding local radiographic parameters, ALIF and OLIF were superior to TLIF in terms of the change in the anterior disc height (7.6±4.5 mm vs. 6.9±3.2 mm vs. 4.7±2.9 mm, p<0.001), disc angle (-10.0°±6.3° vs. -9.2°±5.2° vs. -5.1°±5.1°, p<0.001), and fused segment lordosis (-14.5°±11.3° vs. -13.8°±7.5° vs. -7.4°±9.1°, p<0.001). However, regarding global sagittal alignment, postoperative lumbar lordosis (-42.5°±9.6° vs. -44.4°±11.6° vs. -40.6°±12.3°, p=0.210), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (7.9°±11.3° vs. 6.7°±11.6° vs. 11.5°±13.0°, p=0.089), and the sagittal vertical axis (24.3±28.5 mm vs. 24.5±34.0 mm vs. 25.2±36.6 mm, p=0.990) did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Although the anterior approaches were superior in terms of local radiographic parameters, TLIF achieved adequate global sagittal alignment, comparable to the anterior approaches.

Surgical Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Disease With Neurologic Deficits: Comparison Between Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgeries and to confirm the effects of additional partial laminectomy on the surgical outcomes of OLIF.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 130 patients who underwent OLIF or PLIF for single-level fusion. Among them, 42 patients underwent PLIF and open pedicle screw fixation and 88 underwent OLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. In the OLIF group, 42 patients received additional neural decompression through partial laminectomy and discectomy (direct OLIF), whereas the remaining 46 patients did not (indirect OLIF). To measure the neurological deficits, the clinical outcomes were evaluated using a visual analog scale for back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index. Radiologic outcomes were evaluated based on the disc and foraminal heights as well as the segmental lordotic and lumbar lordotic angles.

RESULTS

The improvement in the clinical outcomes did not differ significantly among the 3 groups. Radiologically, the 2 OLIF groups showed statistically significant improvements in the disc and foraminal heights when compared with the PLIF group. The PLIF group showed a significant decrease in the disc height and segmental lordotic angle when compared with the OLIF group in the postoperative 1-year period.

CONCLUSION

Both OLIF and PLIF showed similar clinical outcomes in the single-level lumbar fusion. However, OLIF grafts showed an advantage over PLIF with respect to the radiographic outcomes and complication rates. Additionally, partial laminectomy did not significantly affect the radiological results.

Comparing the medium-term outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion via transforaminal and oblique approach in treating lumbar degenerative disc diseases

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be effective in treating lumbar degenerative disorders (LDDs) via indirect decompression. However, its superiority over transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains questionable, especially in terms of medium-term follow-up.

PURPOSE

To compare the medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes of TLIF and OLIF in treating patients with LDDs.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Fifty-two patients treated by TLIF and forty-six patients treated by OLIF.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical records including the visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back and leg and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiological records including disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, and fusion rate. Surgical-related information and complications were also recorded.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients who were surgically managed for LDDs at L4-5 between 2015 and 2017 and completed at least 4 years of follow-up. A total of 98 patients were analyzed, with 46 patients treated by OLIF combined with anterolateral single screw-rod fixation (OLIF-AF group), and 52 patients treated by TLIF (TLIF group). Parameters including postoperative outcomes and perioperative complications were compared with evaluate the efficacy of the two approaches.

RESULTS

There was significantly less bleeding, surgical duration, and hospitalization in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group. Significant improvements in the clinical score were achieved in both groups. However, the VAS score of the lower back was significantly higher in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group throughout the whole follow-up period. Significantly higher expansion of the CSA was found in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group. However, the improvements in DH, LL, and SL were significantly lower in the TLIF group. The fusion rate was significantly higher in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group within 6 months postoperatively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups at the final record. No significant difference was found in the rate of overall complications between the two groups (25.0% vs. 23.9%, p=.545). The intraoperative complication rate in the TLIF group (13.5%) was slightly higher than that in the OLIF-AF group (6.5%) (p=.257). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adjacent segment disorder (ASD) between the two groups (7.7% vs. 10.9%, p=.422). Cage subsidence was slightly lower in the TLIF group (5.8%) than in the OLIF-AF group (13.0%) (p=.298).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the TLIF and OLIF-AF approaches demonstrated good medium-term outcomes in treating LDDs. Compared with TLIF, OLIF-AF showed advantages in postoperative recovery, improvement of intervertebral space and lumbar sagittal balance, and early intervertebral fusion but was associated with inferior spinal canal decompression efficacy. The two approaches shared comparable overall complication rates. However, OLIF-AF tended to have fewer intraoperative complications, and a higher incidence of subsidence.

Pearls and Pitfalls of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Lumbar degenerative disease is a common problem in an aging society. Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique that utilizes a retroperitoneal antepsoas corridor to treat lumbar degenerative disease. OLIF has theoretical advantages over other lumbar fusion techniques, such as a lower risk of lumbar plexus injury than direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF). Previous studies have reported favorable clinical and radiological outcomes of OLIF in various lumbar degenerative diseases. The use of OLIF is increasing, and evidence on OLIF is growing in the literature. The indications for OLIF are also expanding with the help of recent technical developments, including stereotactic navigation systems and robotics. In this review, we present current evidence on OLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease, focusing on the expansion of surgical indications and recent advancements in the OLIF procedure.

Clinical and radiological evaluation of cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral fixation

Background

Cage subsidence (CS) was previously reported as one of the most common complications following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). We aimed to assess the impacts of CS on surgical results following OLIF combined with anterolateral fixation, and determine its radiological characteristics as well as related risk factors.

Methods

Two hundred and forty-two patients who underwent OLIF at L4-5 and with a minimum 12 months follow-up were reviewed. Patients were divided into three groups according to the extent of disk height (DH) decrease during follow-up: no CS (DH decrease ≤ 2 mm), mild CS (2 mm < DH decrease ≤ 4 mm) and severe CS (DH decrease > 4 mm). The clinical and radiological results were compared between groups to evaluate radiological features, clinical effects and risk factors of CS.

Results

CS was identified in 79 (32.6%) patients, including 48 (19.8%) with mild CS and 31 (11.8%) with severe CS. CS was mainly identified within 1 month postoperatively, it did not progress after 3 months postoperatively, and more noted in the caudal endplate (44, 55.7%). In terms of clinical results, patients in the mild CS group were significantly worse than those in the no CS group, and patients in the severe CS group were significantly worse than those in the mild CS group. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between no CS (92.6%, 151/163) and mild CS (83.3%, 40/48) groups. However, significant lower fusion rate was observed in severe CS group (64.5%, 20/31) compared to no CS group. CS related risk factors included osteoporosis (OR = 5.976), DH overdistraction (OR = 1.175), flat disk space (OR = 3.309) and endplate injury (OR = 6.135).

Conclusion

CS following OLIF was an early postoperative complication. Higher magnitudes of CS were associated with worse clinical improvements and lower intervertebral fusion. Osteoporosis and endplate injury were significant risk factors for CS. Additionally, flat disk space and DH over-distraction were also correlated with an increased probability of CS.