Comparison of clinical outcomes achieved with oblique lateral interbody fusion with or without supplementary instrumentation in patients with single-level lumbar degenerative disease

Abstract Background Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is applied often to treat degenerative disc disease in the lumbar spine. Stand-alone OLIF prevents morbidities associated with supplemental fixation and is less expensive. However, it remains controversial whether stand-alone OLIF is sufficient to avoid subsidence for single-level diseases. Additionally, bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) and bilateral transfacet screw (BTS) fixation are well-established posterior fixation methods that can offer improved biomechanical stability. But the comparison of clinical outcomes of OLIF with and without supplementary instrumentation is lack. Methods We retrospectively examined 20 patients who underwent single-level stand-alone OLIF for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease at L1–L5 (SA group). Groups of patients treated with OLIF plus BPS (n = 20, BPS group) or BTS (n = 20, BTS group) were matched for age, sex, diagnosis, operative level, body mass index, and bone mineral density. The disk height index (DHI), segmental lordotic (SL) angle, and lumbar lordotic (LL) angle were measured preoperatively and at 3 days and 6 months postoperatively. Clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results Significant disc height loss was observed in all groups, but was greater in the SA and BTS groups than in the BPS group at the 6-month follow-up. The SL and LL angles were not affected in any group. The operative time was significantly less in the SA group, and the estimated blood loss was significantly higher in the BPS group. At 6 months post-surgery, improvements in clinical outcomes were evident in all groups, but the VAS (back pain), JOA, and ODI scores were worse in the SA group than in the other groups. Conclusions Stand-alone OLIF was associated with greater subsidence and poorer clinical outcomes compared with OLIF plus supplementary instrumentation. The addition of BTS did not decrease the degree of subsidence, but provided clinical outcomes comparable to those achieved with BPS.