Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 13 items for :

  • "oblique lateral interbody fusion" x
Clear All
Open access

Christopher Wilkerson, Vance Mortimer, Andrew T. Dailey and Marcus D. Mazur

, Hynes RA , Otsuki B , Kimura H , Takemoto M , Matsuda S : Effect of indirect neural decompression through oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease . Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40 : E175 – E182 , 2015 3 Li JX , Phan K , Mobbs R : Oblique lumbar interbody fusion: technical aspects, operative outcomes, and complications . World Neurosurg 98 : 113 – 123 , 2017 4 Mayer HM : A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion . Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22 : 691 – 700 , 1997 5 Mobbs RJ

Restricted access

Daehyun Park, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Ratnesh Mehra, Yonguk Kwon, Sungtae Kim, Hui Bing Ruan and Dean Chou

.7% in FA, and 33.1% in CCD. Only 2 patients (9.5%) required secondary additional posterior decompression. 13 Sato et al. reported that 20 patients with oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) showed a significant increase in DH (61%), FA (21% on the right, 39% on the left), and sagittal CCD (32%). Posterior decompression was not performed in any of their patients. 17 Although indirect decompression seems to be effective for many degenerative lumbar conditions, it is still unclear if all patients can be treated with indirect decompression only. Radiographic and

Restricted access

Corey T. Walker, S. Harrison Farber, Tyler S. Cole, David S. Xu, Jakub Godzik, Alexander C. Whiting, Cory Hartman, Randall W. Porter, Jay D. Turner and Juan Uribe

fusion [LLIF], direct lateral interbody fusion [DLIF], extreme lateral interbody fusion [XLIF], etc.) or in an oblique prepsoas manner (oblique lateral interbody fusion [OLIF], antepsoas, etc.). An immense amount of focus has been placed on improving both of these techniques and expanding their application to various spine pathologies. Subtle anatomical differences affect the complication profiles of these approaches and have created polarizing opinions about which is safer. Proponents of the transpsoas approach assert that an orthogonal trajectory to the vertebral

Full access

Bungo Otsuki, Mitsuru Takemoto, Shunsuke Fujibayashi, Hiroaki Kimura, Kazutaka Masamoto and Shuichi Matsuda

fused, but the L2–3, L3–4, and L5–S1 levels showed pseudarthroses with destructive spondylolysis ( Fig. 6B ). We planned the revision fusion surgery from L-2 to the sacrum. Because the L-2 vertebra had 2 large bone defects along the previous pedicle screw trajectories ( Fig. 6G ), we planned to insert the pedicle screws with another trajectory from the tip of the superior articular facet of L-2 toward the anterior edge of the distal endplate ( Fig. 6G ), and an appropriate CSI guide was fabricated ( Fig. 6C and D ). During surgery, oblique lateral interbody fusion

Restricted access

Yawara Eguchi, Masaki Norimoto, Munetaka Suzuki, Ryota Haga, Hajime Yamanaka, Hiroshi Tamai, Tatsuya Kobayashi, Sumihisa Orita, Miyako Suzuki, Kazuhide Inage, Hirohito Kanamoto, Koki Abe, Tomotaka Umimura, Takashi Sato, Yasuchika Aoki, Atsuya Watanabe, Masao Koda, Takeo Furuya, Junichi Nakamura, Tsutomu Akazawa, Kazuhisa Takahashi and Seiji Ohtori

underwent spinal surgery with L2–3 and L3–4 oblique lateral interbody fusion. The criterion for DLS was lumbar scoliosis > 10° in the coronal plane. 1 Patients with single or multiple thoracolumbar compression fractures or a history of spinal surgery were excluded. Spinal Alignment in DLS Coronal and lateral radiographs including the spine and pelvis were obtained with patients standing in an upright position. We obtained radiographic measurements for lumbar scoliosis (LS), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT

Full access

Jeffery R. Head, George N. Rymarczuk, Kevin D. He and James S. Harrop

: 674 – 678 , 2017 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.05.062 28532911 22 Woods KRM , Billys JB , Hynes RA : Technical description of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and evaluation of complication and fusion rates . Spine J 17 : 545 – 553 , 2017 27884744 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.10.026 23 Yuan PS , Rowshan K , Verma RB , Miller LE , Block JE : Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion with direct psoas visualization . J Orthop Surg Res 9 : 20 , 2014 24666669 10.1186/1749-799X-9-20

Restricted access

Takayoshi Shimizu, Shunsuke Fujibayashi, Bungo Otsuki, Koichi Murata and Shuichi Matsuda

MG , Girardi FP , An institutional six-year trend analysis of the neurological outcome after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a 6-year trend analysis of a single institution . Spine (Phila Pa 1976) . 2013 ; 38 ( 23 ): E1483 – E1490 . 4 Fujibayashi S , Hynes RA , Otsuki B , Effect of indirect neural decompression through oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease . Spine (Phila Pa 1976) . 2015 ; 40 ( 3 ): E175 – E182 . 5 Fujibayashi S , Kawakami N , Asazuma T , Complications associated with lateral interbody

Free access

Anthony M. DiGiorgio, Caleb S. Edwards, Michael S. Virk, Praveen V. Mummaneni and Dean Chou

fusion and transpsoas approach-related morbidity . Neurosurg Focus 31 ( 4 ): E4 , 2011 21961867 10.3171/2011.7.FOCUS11137 10 Ohtori S , Orita S , Yamauchi K , Eguchi Y , Ochiai N , Kishida S , : Mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar spinal degeneration disease . Yonsei Med J 56 : 1051 – 1059 , 2015 26069130 10.3349/ymj.2015.56.4.1051 11 Ozgur BM , Aryan HE , Pimenta L , Taylor WR : Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior

Free access

The evolution of minimally invasive spine surgery

JNSPG 75th Anniversary Invited Review Article

Jang W. Yoon and Michael Y. Wang

reported to be as high as 4.8% at the L4–5 level. 8 , 57 The identification of safer working zones in the lateral lumbar spine was sought; however, it is possible that there may not be an absolute safe working zone. 3 Subsequent lateral modifications such as a shallow docking technique or a more anterior pre-psoas approach have thus been advocated, and a family of lateral methods has now been developed. Procedures such as the oblique lateral interbody fusion leverage a more anterior approach, which has the potential to allow access as low as L5–S1, anterior

Restricted access

Zhuo Xi, Shane Burch, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Rory Richard Mayer, Charles Eichler and Dean Chou

transpsoas approaches . J Neurosurg Spine . 2019 ; 30 : 446 – 460 . 23 Woods KR , Billys JB , Hynes RA . Technical description of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and evaluation of complication and fusion rates . Spine J . 2017 ; 17 ( 4 ): 545 – 553 .