Indirect decompression via oblique lumbar interbody fusion is sufficient for treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis

Sheng-Chieh Tseng; Yu-Hsien Lin; Yun-Che Wu; Cheng-Min Shih; Kun-Hui Chen; Cheng-Hung Lee; Chien-Chou Pan

doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.911514

Indirect decompression via oblique lumbar interbody fusion is sufficient for treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis

Front Surg. 2022 Aug 18:9:911514. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.911514. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Sheng-Chieh Tseng¹, Yu-Hsien Lin¹, Yun-Che Wu¹, Cheng-Min Shih^{1

2}, Kun-Hui Chen^{1

3

4

5

6}, Cheng-Hung Lee^{1

6

7}, Chien-Chou Pan^{1

8}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan.
² Department of Physical Therapy, HungKuang University, Taichung, Taiwan.
³ Department of Nursing, Jenteh Junior College of Medicine, Nursing and Management, Miaoli, Taiwan.
⁴ Department of Computer Science and Information Engineering, College of Computing and Informatics, Providence University, Taichung, Taiwan.
⁵ Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Intelligent Technology, HungKuang University, Taichung, Taiwan.
⁶ College of Medicine, National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan.
⁷ Department of Food Science and Technology, Hungkuang University, Taichung, Taiwan.
⁸ Department of Rehabilitation Science, Jenteh Junior College of Medicine, Nursing and Management, Miaoli, Taiwan.

Abstract

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is a popular technique for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease. There are no clear guidelines on whether direct posterior decompression (PD) is necessary after OLIF. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of the indirect decompression obtained from OLIF in patients with lumbar foraminal stenosis. We retrospectively reviewed 33 patients who underwent OLIF surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal disease between 1 January 2018, and 30 June 2019. The inclusion criteria included patients who were diagnosed with lumbar foraminal stenosis by preoperative MRI. The exclusion criteria included the presence of central canal stenosis, spinal infection, vertebral fractures, and spinal malignancies. The clinical results, evaluated using the visual analogue scale of back pain (VAS-Back), VAS of leg pain (VAS-Leg), and Oswestry disability index (ODI), were recorded. The radiologic parameters were also measured. The VAS-Back, VAS-Leg, and ODI showed significant improvement in both the PD and non-posterior decompression (Non-PD) groups postoperatively (all, p < 0.05). Patients in the Non-PD group showed better results than those in the PD group in the VAS-Back at 12- and 24 months postoperatively (0.00 vs. 3.00 postoperatively at 12 months, p = 0.030; 0.00 vs. 4.00 postoperatively at 24 months, p = 0.009). In addition, the ODI at 24 months postoperatively showed better improvement in the Non-PD group (8.89 vs. 24.44, p = 0.038). The disc height in both the PD and the Non-PD groups increased significantly postoperatively (all, p < 0.05), but the restoration of foraminal height was significantly different only in the Non-PD group. There was no statistically significant difference in cage position, cage subsidence, fusion grade, or screw loosening between the PD and the Non-PD groups. Indirect decompression via OLIF for lumbar foraminal stenosis showed favorable outcomes. The use of interbody cages and posterior instrumentation was sufficient for relieving symptoms in patients with lumbar foraminal stenosis. Additional direct posterior decompression may deteriorate results in the follow-up period.

Keywords: direct decompression; indirect decompression; laminectomy; laminotomy; lumbar foraminal stenosis; oblique lumbar interbody fusion.