Table 6.
Literatures review of the clinical and radiologic outcomes of OLIF compared other lumbar interbody fusion
| Study | Properties (mean follow-up) | Subjects | Group (n) | Results | Limitations of the study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fujibayashi et al. [10] 2015 | A prospective consecutive clinical study | Degenerative lumbar diseases | 28 in OLIF-PF | Significant improvement in DH, SDA, JOA score | The study population was heterogeneous with different lumbar levels and pathologies. |
| Fusion rate: 100%. | |||||
| Sato et al. [11] 2015 | A prospective study, 12 months | Degenerated spondylolisthesis | 20 in OLIF-PF | Significant improvement in VAS, ODI, DH, CSA, FH | The sample size was small, the follow-up time was short, and bone fusion was not evaluated. |
| Zhang et al. [12] 2018 | A retrospective study, 7 months for all patients | Degenerative lumbar disease | 22 in OLIF | Significant improvement in VAS, ODI, SF-36 | There was no comparison between OLIF and fixed follow-up, no statistical fusion, and the follow-up time was short. |
| Sardhara et al. [6] 2019 | A retrospective study, 5.7 months for all patients | Lumbar spondylolisthesis | 8 in OLIF-PF, 5 in OLIF-LF, 2 in OLIF-RPSF | Fusion rate: 57% in OLIF-PF, and 100% in OLIF-LLF | The follow-up time is short and the sample size is small. |
| Wang et al. [13] 2019 | A preliminary retrospective study, 9.7 months for OLIF-AF | Degenerative spine deformity | 11 in OLIF-AF | Similar changes in coronal Cobb angle, LL, PT, PI-LL mismatch, CSVL, and SVA, VAS for back pain and ODI score | The number of cases was small, patients had selection bias, and the follow-up time was short. |
| Fusion rate: 100% | |||||
| Xie et al. [14] 2019 | A retrospective analysis, 15.0 months for OLIF-AF | Lumbar degenerative disc disease | 65 in OLIF-AF | Significant improvement in ODI score, VAS, cross-sectional area, disk height, foraminal height | There is no distinction between segments resulting in differences. |
| Fusion rate at 12 months: 93.8% | |||||
| Liu et al. [15] 2020 | A retrospective study, 21 months for all patients | Degenerative lumbar diseases | 14 in OLIF-AF | Significant improvement in DH, FA, and CSA, VAS, ODI | The sample size was small. |
| Fusion rate at follow-up months: 95% | |||||
| Luo et al. [16] 2019 | A retrospective study, 31.8 months for all patients | Lumbar polymicrobial spondylodiscitis | 7 in OLIF-PF | Significant improvement in VAS, ODI | The sample size was small. |
| Fusion rate at 24 months: 100% | |||||
| He et al. [4] 2020 | A retrospective study, 24 months for OLIF, 24 months for OLIF-PF | Spondylolisthesis | 32 in OLIF | Similar changes in VAS score, posterior disc height, foraminal height, foraminal width | Prognosis assessment was incomplete and there was no multivariate analysis. |
| 41 in OLIF-PF | OLIF was superior to OLIF-PF in operation time, intraoperative blood loss. | ||||
| Fusion rate at 24 months: 93.8% in OLIF and 100% in OLIF-PF | |||||
| Cheng et al. [17] 2021 | A retrospective study, 23.3 months for all patients | Degenerative lumbar diseases | 48 in OLIF, 15 in OLIF-PF, 16 in OLIF-AF | Similar changes in VAS, ODI, the DH, SLL, LL, CSA, PT, and PI-LL mismatch had also improved by final follow-up. | The study population was heterogeneous with different lumbar levels and pathologies. |
| The fusion rate, operative time, bleeding and other differences between the 3 groups were not compared. | |||||
| Guo et al. [18] 2021 | A retrospective analysis, 18.6 months for OLIF-AF; 17.9 months for OLIF-PF | Single-segment mild degenerative lumbar diseases | 24 in OLIF-AF, 27 in OLIF-PF | Similar changes in ODI score, anterior and posterior disc heights, foraminal height, fusion rate, and incidence of complications; OLIF-AF was superior to OLIF-PF in Anesthesia time, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of intraoperative fluoroscopy, and VAS score. | The effect of double segments was not included, the number of cases was small and the follow-up time was short. |
| Fusion rate at 18 months: 87.5% in OLIF-AF and 92.6% in OLIF-PF | |||||
| Zhang et al. [7] 2022 | A retrospective analysis, 24 months for all patients | Lumbar spondylolisthesis | 25 in OLIFASRSF, 28 in OLIF-PF | Significant improvement in VAS, FH, LL, DH. OLIF-ASRSF was superior to OLIF-PF in ODI at 24 months postsurgery. | The sample size was small and there was no independent evaluation based on surgical level, the patients were young with ideal bone quality, and elderly patients were not counted. |
| Fusion rate at 24 months:100% in OLIF-ASARSF, 100% in OLIF-PF |
OLIF, oblique lateral interbody fusion; OLIF-PF, OLIF combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation; OLIF-AF, OLIF combined with anterolateral screw fixation; DH, disc height; SDA, segmental disc angle; JOA score, Japanese Orthopaedic Association; VAS, visual analogue scale; ODI, Oswestry Disability; SF-36, 36-item Short Form health survey; FH, foraminal height; OLIF-RPSF, OLIF combined with reverse pedicle screw fixation; OLIF-LLF, OLIF combined with lateral lumbar intervertebral fixation; LL, lumbar lordotic angle; PT, pelvic tilt; PILL, pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis; CSVL, central sacral vertical line; SVA, sagittal vertical axis; SLL, segmental lumbar lordotic angle; FA, foramen area; CSA, cross-sectional area.