A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.

In This Article

  • Summary
  • Abstract
  • Introduction
  • Protocol
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Disclosures
  • Acknowledgements
  • Materials
  • References
  • Reprints and Permissions

Summary

This study describes the application of oblique lateral interbody fusion in lumbar spinal surgeries.

Abstract

Lumbar spine diseases often cause lower back pain, lower extremity pain, numbness, and paresthesia. In severe cases, intermittent claudication may occur, affecting the quality of life of patients. Surgery is often required when conservative treatment fails, or when patients' symptoms become unbearable. Surgical treatments include laminectomy and discectomy, as well as interbody fusion. The main purpose of laminectomy and discectomy is to relieve nerve compression; however, recurrence is common due to spinal instability. Interbody fusion improves stability while relieving nerve compression and significantly reduces the risk of recurrence compared to non-fusion surgery. Nonetheless, conventionally posterior intervertebral fusion requires separation of the muscles to expose the operated segment, which causes more trauma to the patient. In contrast, the oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) technique achieves spinal fusion with minimal trauma to the patients and shortens the recovery time. This article introduces procedures of stand-alone OLIF surgery performed in the lumbar spine, providing a reference for other spine surgeons.

Introduction

Lumbar spine disorders are a global economic concern, with affected patients experiencing lower quality of life1. The treatment of lumbar spine diseases can be divided into two categories: conservative and surgical treatment. Conservative treatment includes rest, oral nonsteroidal drugs, massage, and physical therapy. For instance, studies have shown that estrogen can be used to delay degeneration of the intervertebral disc, thus providing a basis for its treatment of lumbar spine disease2,3. For patients who have failed in conservative treatment, surgery is typically required to treat lumbar spine diseases. Among the surgical methods used for this cohort, interbody fusion is generally preferred.

Briefly, the techniques reported consist of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)4,5. Among these surgical approaches, OLIF has its unique advantages. In comparison with DLIF and XLIF, OLIF has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative hip flexion weakness and thigh numbness6,7. Moreover, compared with ALIF, surgeries with OLIF have a lower risk of both postoperative retrograde ejaculation and damage of blood vessels anterior to the vertebral body8. Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning that PLIF and TLIF techniques exhibit a good operative field, which could reduce damage to important structures; the placement of pedicle screws used by these methods could reduce the probability of non-fusion of the interbody cage. Nonetheless, compared with OLIF, PLIF and TLIF require intraoperative muscle dissociation and stretching the muscle for an extended period of time, which could result in increased intraoperative blood loss, slow wound healing, and prolonged patient recovery time9,10,11.

By harnessing the OLIF approach, the intervertebral site can be accessed through the space between the anterior border of the psoas muscle and the major abdominal vessels. The surgery is performed by removing the diseased disc and implanting an interbody cage. Because of the reduced damage to muscle, OLIF can minimize intraoperative blood loss and operation time, shortening patients' postoperative recovery. In addition, earlier studies have shown that the placement of interbody cages can boost restoration of the disc height and patients' physiological curvature of the spine6,12,13,14,15,16. In the present study, the surgical procedures of stand-alone OLIF for the treatment of L4-5 lumbar diseases are introduced in detail.

Protocol

This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University. The patients signed informed consent, consented to be filmed, and allowed the investigators to use their surgical data.

1. Patient selection

  1. Select patients based on the following inclusion criteria.
    1. Select patients for whom conservative treatment time was longer than 3 months and to which the patients responded poorly.
    2. Select patients whose symptoms and signs were consistent with the imaging findings.
    3. Select patients whose magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the lumbar spine shows a width greater than 1 cm between the psoas muscle and the anterior border of the vertebral artery.
    4. Select patients with no significant variants on abdominal vascular examination.
  2. Apply the following exclusion criteria.
    1. Exclude patients with spinal canal infection and tumor complications.
    2. Exclude patients with spinal stenosis due to severe facet joint hyperplasia and prolapse of the nucleus pulposus.
    3. Exclude patients with severe lumbar spondylolisthesis greater than grade III.
    4. Exclude patients with a history of abdominal surgery.

2. Preoperative preparation

  1. Instruct the patient to undergo lumbar computed tomography (CT), lumbar MRI, and lumbar X-ray examination. Perform cardiovascular and cerebrovascular, and abdominal vascular examinations to identify and better manage risk factors to ensure safety of the operation17,18.
  2. Advise the patient on skin preparation of the surgical site preoperatively, with a fasting requirement of 12 h before the surgery.
  3. On the day of the operation, after the administration of general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation, place the patient on the operating table in a right-sided lateral decubitus position.
  4. Insert a cushion beneath the right abdomen, which is slightly tilted backward depending on the target intervertebral disc, in order to obtain adequate access to the physiologic OLIF corridor between the psoas muscle and the vena cava anteriorly.
  5. Choose the left abdomen of the patient as the surgical area.
  6. Ensure that the patient remains in the correct position for the surgery. Secure the patient with tape and confirm the operation stage.

3. Starting the operation

  1. Place a square locator on the left abdomen of the patient. Ensure the upper and lower edges of the locator correspond to the upper and lower vertebral bodies of the diseased intervertebral disc, and the anterior and posterior edges correspond to the anterior and posterior edges of the diseased intervertebral disc.
  2. Confirm the projection of the target segment on the patient's skin with X-ray fluoroscopy. Mark the surgical site (Figure 1).
  3. After identifying the surgical site, disinfect the incision area, lay sheets, and prepare surgical instruments.
  4. Make a 4-5 cm skin incision parallel to the external oblique muscle fibers. Separate the aponeurosis of the external oblique muscle, the transverse abdominis, and the transverse abdominal fascia bluntly with fingers (Figure 2).
  5. Use long-handled forceps to clamp the peanut-like gauze mass to expose the surgical intervertebral space between the abdominal vascular sheath and the psoas major muscle.
  6. After completing exposure of the target intervertebral space, insert Kirschner wire and perform intraoperative X-ray examinations to confirm that the exposed segment is the surgical segment (Figure 3A).
  7. After completing identification of the intervertebral space, insert the dilation tubes successively for expansion. Confirm the position of the expansion channel by intraoperative X-ray (Figure 3B).
  8. Attach the retractor to the operating table using the universal arm and operating table clips. Ensure that the channel does not move during the surgery, and then place the working light.
  9. Use a long-handled sharp knife to remove the annulus fibrosus, and long-handled nucleus pulposus forceps to remove the diseased disc tissue (Figure 3C).
  10. Clean the intervertebral space with a scraper and curette to clear the residual disc tissue in the surgical segment.
  11. After cleaning the intervertebral space, use a spreader to open a collapsed intervertebral space.
  12. Use a bone rasp to remove the cartilage layer on the surface of the endplate until the bony surface bleeds.
  13. Place an appropriately sized intervertebral exploration device into the disc. Perform intraoperative X-ray fluoroscopies to determine the appropriate fusion device size (Figure 3D,E).
  14. After determining the appropriate device size, add allogeneic bone to the interbody cage of the same size and implant the cage under X-ray fluoroscopy (Figure 3F,G).
  15. After placing the interbody cage, suture the wound layer by layer. Use No. 10, No. 4, and No. 1 thread to suture the muscle, fascia, and surgical incision, respectively (Figure 3H). Compress the surgical incision with gauze.
  16. Prescribe an anti-inflammatory (cefazolin) once a day for 3 days to prevent infection after the patient returns to the ward. Use antithrombotic drugs (low-molecular weight heparin sodium) to prevent deep vein thrombosis of the lower limbs on the 2nd postoperative day, once a day for 3 days.

4. Postoperative care

  1. Instruct the patient to rest in bed. Perform deep vein color Doppler on the third postoperative day.
  2. Instruct the patient to walk on the ground with the assistance of a lumbar brace, usually within 3 days post-operation if the deep vein color Doppler shows no deep vein thrombosis in the lower extremities.
  3. Change the antithrombotic medication to twice daily if an intramuscular vein thrombosis is present on a deep vein ultrasound of the lower extremities.
  4. Contact Vascular Surgery for treatment if the deep vein ultrasound of the lower extremities shows a deep vein thrombosis. Perform the lower-extremity rehabilitation exercise as reported previously19,20.

Results

Studies from other groups have shown that, compared to other methods, OLIF surgery has the advantages of a shorter operative time and less intraoperative blood loss (Table 1). Importantly, patients who undergo OLIF surgery recover faster than the commonly used TLIF surgery group12,21,22. Our research group has monitored 42 patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) undergoing OLIF surgery for more...

Discussion

Since formally introduced by Silvestre in 201223, OLIF has gradually attracted the attention of spine surgeons due to the various advantages over other methods used in treating lumbar spine diseases6,12,13,16,21,22. OLIF significantly improved patients' disc height and lordotic angle, which may be due ...

Disclosures

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest in this study.

Acknowledgements

None.

Materials

NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
Bipolar electrocoagulation tweezersJuan'en Medical Devices Co.LtdBZN-Q-B-S1.2 x 190 mm
Bone raspDePuy Synthes03.809.849 35 x 8 mm
CefazolinCspc Pharmaceutical Group Limited1.0 g
Computed TomographyPHILIPS
CuretteQingniu20739.01300 x Ø9 x 5°
CuretteDePuy Synthes03.809.8736 mm
Dilation tubes DePuy Synthes03.809.913140 mm
High frequency active electrodesZhongBangTianChengGD-BZGD-BZ-J1
Interbody cageDePuy Synthes08.809.273S55 x 22 x 13 mm
Intervertebral exploration deviceDePuy Synthes03.809.23313 mm
Kirschner wireQingniu
Lighting cableDePuy Synthes03.612.031
Lighting sheetDePuy Synthes03.809.925S
Low Molecular Weight Heparin Sodium InjectionCspc Pharmaceutical Group Limited0.4 mL
MRIPHILIPS
ScraperDePuy Synthes03.809.83313 mm
SpreaderDePuy Synthes03.809.87750 x 13 mm
Surgical film3LSP453045 x 30 cm
Ultrasound Color DopplerPHILIPS
Universal armDePuy Synthes03.809.941
Universal arm operating table clipsDePuy Synthes03.809.942
 X-ray machineGE healthcare

References

  1. Ravindra, V. M., et al. Degenerative lumbar spine disease: estimating global incidence and worldwide volume. Global Spine Journal. 8 (8), 784-794 (2018).
  2. Wang, H., et al. 17β-Estradiol alleviates intervertebral disc degeneration by inhibiting NF-κB signal pathway. Life Science. 284, 119874 (2021).
  3. Yang, S., Zhang, F., Ma, J., Ding, W. Intervertebral disc ageing and degeneration: The antiapoptotic effect of oestrogen. Ageing Research Reviews. 57, 100978 (2020).
  4. Patel, D. V., Yoo, J. S., Karmarkar, S. S., Lamoutte, E. H., Singh, K. Interbody options in lumbar fusion. Journal of Spine Surgery. 5, S19-S24 (2019).
  5. Xu, D. S., et al. Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Annals of Translational Medicine. 6 (6), 104 (2018).
  6. Kim, W. K., Son, S., Lee, S. G., Jung, J. M., Yoom, B. R. Comparison of lateral interbody fusion and posterior interbody fusion for discogenic low back pain. Turkish Neurosurgery. 32 (5), 745-755 (2022).
  7. Li, J., et al. Efficacy and safety of a modified lateral lumbar interbody fusion in L4-5 lumbar degenerative diseases compared with traditional XLIF and OLIF: a retrospective cohort study of 156 cases. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 23 (1), 217 (2022).
  8. Chung, H. W., Lee, H. D., Jeon, C. H., Chung, N. S. Comparison of surgical outcomes between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 209, 106901 (2021).
  9. Kang, G. H., et al. Surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar disease with neurologic deficits: comparison between oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Korean Journal of Neurotrauma. 18 (2), 277-286 (2022).
  10. Hu, Z. -. J., et al. Effect of pure muscle retraction on multifidus injury and atrophy after posterior lumbar spine surgery with 24 weeks observation in a rabbit model. European Spine Journal. 26 (1), 210-220 (2015).
  11. Kawaguchi, Y., Matsui, H., Tsuji, H. Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans. Spine. 19 (22), 2598-2602 (1994).
  12. Li, R., Shao, X., Li, X., Liu, Y., Jiang, W. Comparison of clinical outcomes and spino-pelvic sagittal balance in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: Minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Medicine. 100 (3), e23783 (2021).
  13. Du, X., et al. Oblique lateral interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a single-center retrospective comparative study. BioMed Research International. 2021, 6693446 (2021).
  14. Champagne, P. O., et al. Sagittal balance correction following lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of the three approaches. Asian Spine Journal. 13 (3), 450-458 (2019).
  15. Mun, H. Y., Ko, M. J., Kim, Y. B., Park, S. W. Usefulness of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5-S1 level compared to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society. 63 (6), 723-729 (2020).
  16. Huo, Y., et al. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone cages for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study with 1-year follow-up. Pain Research and Management. 2020, 9016219 (2020).
  17. Buckland, A. J., et al. Anterior column reconstruction of the lumbar spine in the lateral decubitus position: anatomical and patient-related considerations for ALIF, anterior-to-psoas, and transpsoas LLIF approaches. European Spine Journal. 31 (9), 2175-2187 (2022).
  18. Berry, C. A. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion in patient with persistent left-sided inferior vena cava: case report and review of literature. World Neurosurgery. 132, 58-62 (2019).
  19. Liu, S. K., et al. The effect of systematic lower-limb rehabilitation training in elderly patients undergoing lumbar fusion surgery: a retrospective study. Oncotarget. 8 (68), 112720-112726 (2017).
  20. Yang, S. D., et al. The effect of lower limb rehabilitation gymnastics on postoperative rehabilitation in elderly patients with femoral shaft fracture: A retrospective case-control study. Medicine. 95 (33), e4548 (2016).
  21. Sheng, S. -. R., et al. Minimally invasive surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis: transforaminal or oblique lumbar interbody fusion. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. 9 (1), 45-51 (2020).
  22. Hung, S. F., et al. Comparison of outcomes between indirect decompression of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and MIS-TLIF in one single-level lumbar spondylosis. Scientific Reports. 11 (1), 12783 (2021).
  23. Silvestre, C., Mac-Thiong, J. M., Hilmi, R., Roussouly, P. Complications and morbidities of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 179 patients. Asian Spine Journal. 6 (2), 89-97 (2012).
  24. Fan, W., et al. One-stage freehand minimally invasive pedicle screw fixation combined with mini-access surgery through OLIF approach for the treatment of lumbar tuberculosis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research. 17 (1), 242 (2022).
  25. Du, X., et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of OLIF combined posterior internal fixation for single-segment lumbar tuberculosis: a single-center retrospective cohort study. BMC Surgery. 22 (1), 54 (2022).
  26. Boghani, Z., et al. Variability in the size of the retroperitoneal oblique corridor: A magnetic resonance imaging-based analysis. Surgical Neurology International. 11, 54 (2020).
  27. Huo, Y., et al. Incidence and risk factors of lumbar plexus injury in patients undergoing oblique lumbar interbody fusion surgery. European Spine Journal. 32 (1), 336-344 (2023).
  28. Molinares, D. M., Davis, T. T., Fung, D. A. Retroperitoneal oblique corridor to the L2-S1 intervertebral discs: an MRI study. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. 24 (2), 248-255 (2016).
  29. Xi, Z., et al. The effect of obesity on perioperative morbidity in oblique lumbar interbody fusion. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. , 1-8 (2020).
  30. Wang, H., et al. Clinical rehabilitation effect of postoperative lower-limb training on the patients undergoing OLIF surgery: a retrospective study. Pain Research and Management. 2010, 1065202 (2020).
  31. Chung, N. S., Jeon, C. H., Lee, H. D., Kweon, H. J. Preoperative evaluation of left common iliac vein in oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5-S1. European Spine Journal. 26 (11), 2797-2803 (2017).
  32. Orita, S., et al. Technical and conceptual review on the L5-S1 oblique lateral interbody fusion surgery (OLIF51). Spine Surgery and Related Research. 5 (1), 1-9 (2021).
  33. Hah, R., Kang, H. P. Lateral and oblique lumbar interbody fusion-current concepts and a review of recent literature. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine. 12 (3), 305-310 (2019).
  34. Woods, K. R. M., Billys, J. B., Hynes, R. A. Technical description of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and evaluation of complication and fusion rates. The Spine Journal. 17 (4), 545-553 (2017).
  35. Ohtori, S., et al. Mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerated lumbar spinal kyphoscoliosis. Asian Spine Journal. 9 (4), 565-572 (2015).
  36. Wang, Z., et al. Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion under 3 different bone mineral density conditions: a finite element analysis. World Neurosurgery. 155, e285-e293 (2021).
  37. Fang, G., et al. Biomechanical comparison of stand-alone and bilateral pedicle screw fixation for oblique lumbar interbody fusion surgery-a finite element analysis. World Neurosurgery. 141, e204-e212 (2020).
  38. Ko, M. J., Park, S. W., Kim, Y. B. Effect of cage in radiological differences between direct and oblique lateral interbody fusion techniques. Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society. 62 (4), 432-441 (2019).

Reprints and Permissions

Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article

Request Permission

Explore More Articles

Stand Alone Oblique Lateral Interbody FusionL4 5 Lumbar DiseasesLumbar SpineLower Back PainNerve CompressionInterbody FusionLaminectomyDiscectomySurgical TreatmentsSpinal InstabilityMinimally Invasive SurgeryRecovery TimeSpine Surgeons

This article has been published

Video Coming Soon

JoVE Logo

Privacy

Terms of Use

Policies

Research

Education

ABOUT JoVE

Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved