Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research (Mar 2023)

Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes between ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF over 2-year follow-up: a comparative study

  • Kuan-Kai Tung,
  • Wei-Cheng Tseng,
  • Yun-Che Wu,
  • Kun-Hui Chen,
  • Chien-Chou Pan,
  • Wen-Xian Lu,
  • Cheng-Min Shih,
  • Cheng-Hung Lee

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-023-03652-5
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 18, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Regarding the increasing adoption of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for treating degenerative lumbar disorders, we aimed to evaluate whether OLIF, one of the options for anterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion, demonstrate clinical superiority over anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or posterior approach, represented by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods Patients who received ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disorders during the period 2017–2019 were identified. Radiographic, perioperative, and clinical outcomes were recorded and compared during 2-year follow-up. Results A total of 348 patients with 501 correction levels were enrolled in the study. Fundamental sagittal alignment profiles were substantially improved at 2-year follow-up, particularly in the anterolateral approach (A/OLIF) group. The Oswestry disability index (ODI) and EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) in the ALIF group were superior when compared to the OLIF and TLIF group 2-year following surgery. However, comparisons of VAS-Total, VAS-Back, and VAS-Leg revealed no statistically significance across all approaches. TLIF demonstrated highest subsidence rate of 16%, while OLIF had least blood loss and was suitable for high body mass index patients. Conclusions Regarding treatment for degenerative lumbar disorders, ALIF of anterolateral approach demonstrated superb alignment correction and clinical outcome. Comparing to TLIF, OLIF possessed advantage in reducing blood loss, restoring sagittal profiles and the accessibility at all lumbar level while simultaneously achieving comparable clinical improvement. Patient selection in accordance with baseline conditions, and surgeon preference both remain crucial issues circumventing surgical approach strategy.

Keywords