Objective:

To compare the efficacy and muscle injury imaging between oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.

Methods:

The clinical data of 60 patients with single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent surgical treatment from January 2018 to October 2019 was retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into OLIF groups and TLIF group according to different surgical methods. The 30 patients in the OLIF group were treated with OLIF plus posterior intermuscular screw rod internal fixation. There were 13 males and 17 females, aged from 52 to 74 years old with an average of (62.6±8.3) years old. And 30 patients in the TLIF group were treated with TLIF via the left approach. There were 14 males and 16 females, aged from 50 to 81 years old with an average of (61.7±10.4) years old. General data including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and complications were recorded for both groups. Radiologic data including disc height (DH), the left psoas major muscle, multifidus muscle, longissimus muscle area, T2-weighted image hyperintensity changes and interbody fusion or nonfusion were observed. Laboratory parameters including creatine kinase (CK) values on postoperative 1st and 5th days were analyzed. Visual analogue scale(VAS) and Oswestry disability index(ODI) were used to assess clinical efficacy.

Results:

There was no significant difference in the operative time between two groups(P>0.05). The OLIF group had significantly less intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume compared to the TLIF group(P<0.01). The OLIF group also had DH better recovery compared to the TLIF group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in left psoas major muscle area and the hyperintensity degree before and after the operation in the OLIF group (P>0.05). Postoperativly, the area of the left multifidus muscle and longissimus muscle, as well as the mean of the left multifidus muscle and longissimus muscle in the OLIF group, were lower than those in the TLIF group (P<0.05) .On the 1st day and the 5th day after operation, CK level in the OLIF group was lower than that in the TLIF group(P<0.05). On the 3rd day after operation, the VAS of low back pain and leg pain in the OLIF group were lower than those in the TLIF group (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the ODI of postoperative 12 months, low back and leg pain VAS at 3, 6, 12 months between the two groups(P>0.05). In the OLIF group, 1 case of left lower extremity skin temperature increased after the operation, and the sympathetic chain was considered to be injured during the operation, and 2 cases of left thigh anterior numbness occurred, which was considered to be related to psoas major muscle stretch, resulting in a complication rate of 10% (3/30). In the TLIF group, one patient had limited ankle dorsiflexion, which was related to nerve root traction, two patients had cerebrospinal fluid leakage, and the dural sac was torn during the operation, and one patient had incision fat liquefaction, which was related to paraspinal muscle dissection injury, resulting in a complication rate of 13% (4/30). All patients achieved interbody fusion without cage collapse during the 6- month follow-up.

Conclusion:

Both OLIF and TLIF are effective in the treatment of single-segment degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. However, OLIF surgery has obviously advantages, including less intraoperative blood loss, less postoperative pain, and good recovery of intervertebral space height. From the changes in laboratory indexes of CK and the comparison of the left psoas major muscle, multifidus muscle, longissimus muscle area, and high signal intensity of T2 image on imaging, it can be seen that the degree of muscle damage and interference of OLIF surgery is lower than that of TLIF.