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.