Risk Factors of Unsatisfactory Outcomes Requiring Additional Intervention Following Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion

Overview

Journal Neurospine

Date 2024 Oct 4

PMID 39363464

Authors

Worawat Limthongkul

Bandid Chaiwongwattana

Stephen J Kerr

Teerachat Tanasansomboon

Vit Kotheeranurak

Wicharn Yingsakmongkol

Weerasak Singhatanadgige

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a minimally invasive procedure for stabilizing the spine and indirectly decompressing the neural elements. There is sparse data on unsatisfactory outcomes that require additional interventions (surgery or intervention) after OLIF. This study aimed to identify the causes, and risk factors of these reintervention.

Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study of the patients who underwent the OLIF procedure from June 2016 to March 2023. Several clinical and radiographic parameters were studied. We also analyzed associations between several potential risk factors and the reintervention following OLIF.

Results: A total of 231 patients were included. Over an average of 2.5 years of follow-up, 28 patients (12.1%) required a reintervention. Adjacent segment disease (ASD) was the most common cause of reintervention. The risk factors associated with reintervention were previous surgery (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-16.33; p=0.02) and high preoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00-1.08; p=0.03). Although increasing the duration of follow-up was not statistically significant, the 95% CI was consistent with an increased risk of reintervention with longer follow-up (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.94-1.50).

Conclusion: This study showed that patients with prior lumbar surgery and high preoperative ODI scores were more likely to require additional intervention after the OLIF procedure. In addition, an increasing duration of follow-up was associated with an increased risk of reintervention. The most common reason for reintervention was ASD after OLIF.

References

Youssef J, McAfee P, Patty C, Raley E, DeBauche S, Shucosky E . Minimally invasive surgery: lateral approach interbody fusion: results and review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35(26 Suppl):S302-11. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182023438. View

Tempel Z, McDowell M, Panczykowski D, Gandhoke G, Hamilton D, Okonkwo D . Graft subsidence as a predictor of revision surgery following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017; 28(1):50-56. DOI: 10.3171/2017.5.SPINE16427. View

Yingsakmongkol W, Jitpakdee K, Kerr S, Limthongkul W, Kotheeranurak V, Singhatanadgige W . Successful Criteria for Indirect Decompression With Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Neurospine. 2022; 19(3):805-815. PMC: 9537858. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2244058.029. View

Wang T, Nayar G, Brown C, Pimenta L, Karikari I, Isaacs R . Bony Lateral Recess Stenosis and Other Radiographic Predictors of Failed Indirect Decompression via Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion: Multi-Institutional Analysis of 101 Consecutive Spinal Levels. World Neurosurg. 2017; 106:819-826. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.07.045. View

Nguyen A, Harvey J, Khanna K, Basques B, Harada G, Phillips F . Reasons for revision following stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021; 35(1):60-66. DOI: 10.3171/2020.10.SPINE201239. View

Carreon L, Glassman S, Djurasovic M, Dimar J, Johnson J, Puno R . Are preoperative health-related quality of life scores predictive of clinical outcomes after lumbar fusion?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(7):725-30. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318198cae4. View

Nakashima H, Kawakami N, Tsuji T, Ohara T, Suzuki Y, Saito T . Adjacent Segment Disease After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Based on Cases With a Minimum of 10 Years of Follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 40(14):E831-41. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000917. View

Chang M, Kim G, Choo Y, Lee G . Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) in Interbody Fusion Technique for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Life (Basel). 2021; 11(7). PMC: 8305484. DOI: 10.3390/life11070696. View

Li J, Phan K, Mobbs R . Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Aspects, Operative Outcomes, and Complications. World Neurosurg. 2016; 98:113-123. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.074. View

10.

Hu Z, He D, Gao J, Zeng Z, Jiang C, Ni W . The Influence of Endplate Morphology on Cage Subsidence in Patients With Stand-Alone Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF). Global Spine J. 2021; 13(1):97-103. PMC: 9837506. DOI: 10.1177/2192568221992098. View

11.

Teng I, Han J, Phan K, Mobbs R . A meta-analysis comparing ALIF, PLIF, TLIF and LLIF. J Clin Neurosci. 2017; 44:11-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.06.013. View

12.

Lee C, Hwang C, Lee S, Ahn Y, Kim Y, Lee D . Risk factors for adjacent segment disease after lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(11):1637-43. PMC: 2899393. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1060-3. View

13.

Kirnaz S, Navarro-Ramirez R, Gu J, Wipplinger C, Hussain I, Adjei J . Indirect Decompression Failure After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Reported Failures and Predictive Factors: Systematic Review. Global Spine J. 2020; 10(2 Suppl):8S-16S. PMC: 7263336. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219876244. View

14.

Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B . Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature. 2019; 567(7748):305-307. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9. View

15.

Marchi L, Abdala N, Oliveira L, Amaral R, Coutinho E, Pimenta L . Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013; 19(1):110-8. DOI: 10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12319. View

16.

Jacob K, Patel M, Collins A, Ribot M, Pawlowski H, Prabhu M . The Effect of the Severity of Preoperative Disability on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. World Neurosurg. 2021; 159:e334-e346. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.12.051. View

17.

Lambrechts M, Toci G, Siegel N, Karamian B, Canseco J, Hilibrand A . Revision lumbar fusions have higher rates of reoperation and result in worse clinical outcomes compared to primary lumbar fusions. Spine J. 2022; 23(1):105-115. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.08.018. View

18.

Wang J, Liu J, Hai Y, Zhang Y, Zhou L . OLIF versus MI-TLIF for patients with degenerative lumbar disease: Is one procedure superior to the other? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2022; 9:1014314. PMC: 9606620. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1014314. View

19.

Nayar G, Roy S, Lutfi W, Agarwal N, Alan N, Ozpinar A . Incidence of adjacent-segment surgery following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021; 35(3):270-274. DOI: 10.3171/2020.12.SPINE201218. View

20.

Ciol M, Deyo R, Howell E, Kreif S . An assessment of surgery for spinal stenosis: time trends, geographic variations, complications, and reoperations. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996; 44(3):285-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb00915.x. View