[Analysis of the causes and clinical results of vertebral fracture during oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion].
Zhong-You Zeng,Xing Zhao,Yu Zhang,Ping-Quan Chen,Wei Yu,Yong-Xing Song,Shun-Wu Fan,Fei Pei,Shi-Yang Fan,Guo-Hao Song,Hai-Feng Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.2023.05.003
2023-01-01
Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To analyze the causes of vertebral fracture during oblique lateral interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylopathy, summarize the clinical results, and propose preventive measures.
METHODS:Retrospective analysis was made on the data of 8 cases of lumbar spondylopathy and vertebral fracture treated by oblique lateral interbody fusion in three medical centers from October 2014 to December 2018. All were female, aged from 50 to 81 years with an average of 66.4 years. Disease types included 1 case of lumbar degenerative disease, 3 cases of lumbar spinal stenosis, 2 cases of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis and 2 cases of lumbar degenerative scoliosis. Preoperative dual energy X-ray bone mineral density test showed that 2 cases had T-value >-1 SD, 2 cases had T-value -1 to -2.5 SD, and 4 cases had T-value <-2.5 SD. Single segment fusion was in 5 cases, two segment fusion in 1 case and three segment fusion in 2 cases. Four cases were treated with OLIF Stand-alone and 4 cases were treated with OLIF combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation. Postoperative imaging examination showed vertebral fracture, and all of them were single vertebral fracture. There were 2 cases of right lower edge fracture of upper vertebral body at fusion segment, 6 cases of lower vertebral body fracture at fusion segment, and 6 cases with endplate injury and fusion cage partially embedded in vertebral body. Three cases of OLIF Stand-alone were treated with pedicle screw fixation via posterior intermuscular approach, while one case of OLIF Stand-alone and four cases of OLIF combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation were not treated specially.
RESULTS:The 5 cases of initial operation and 3 cases of reoperation did not show wound skin necrosis or wound infection. The follow-up time was from 12 to 48 months with an average of 22.8 months. Visual analogue scale (VAS) of low back pain was preoperative decreased from 4 to 8 points (averagely 6.3 points) and postoperative 1 to 3 points (averagely 1.7 points) at the final follow-up. Oswestry disability index (ODI) was preoperative 39.7% to 52.4% (averagely 40.2%), and postoperative 7.9% to 11.2% (averagely 9.5%) at the final follow-up. During the follow-up, there was no loosening or fracture of the pedicle screw system, and no lateral displacement of the fusion cage;however, the fusion cage at the vertebral fracture segment had obvious subsidence. The intervertebral space height of vertebral fracture segment was preoperaive 6.7 to 9.2 mm (averagely 8.1 mm), and postoperative 10.5 to 12.8 mm (averagely 11.2 mm). The improvement rate after operation was 37.98% compared to preoperative. The intervertebral space height at final follow-up was 8.4 to 10.9 mm (averagely 9.3 mm), and the loss rate was 16.71% compared with that after operation. At the final follow-up, interbody fusion was achieved in all cases except for one that could not be identified.
CONCLUSION:The incidence of vertebral fracture during oblique lateral interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar spondylopathy is lower, and there are many reasons for fracture, including preoperative bone loss or osteoporosis, endplate injury, irregular shape of endplate, excessive selection of fusion cage, and osteophyte hyperplasia at the affected segment. As long as vertebral fracture is found in time and handled properly, the prognosis is well. However, it still needs to strengthen prevention.