Do Obliquity and Position of the Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Influence the Degree of Indirect Decompression of Foraminal Stenosis?

Akaworn Mahatthanatrakul,Vit Kotheeranurak,Guang-Xun Lin,Jung-Woo Hur,Ho-Jung Chung,Yadhu K Lokanath,Boonserm Pakdeenit,Jin-Sung Kim 대한신경외과학회 2022 Journal of Korean neurosurgical society Vol.65 No.1

Objective : Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is a surgical technique that utilizes a large interbody cage to indirectly decompress neural elements. The position of the cage relative to the vertebral body could affect the degree of foraminal decompression. Previous studies determined the position of the cage using plain radiographs, with conflicting results regarding the influence of the position of the cage to the degree of neural foramen decompression. Because of the cage obliquity, computed tomography (CT) has better accuracy than plain radiograph for the measurement of the obliquely inserted cage. The objective of this study is to find the correlation between the position of the OLIF cage with the degree of indirect decompression of foraminal stenosis using CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods : We review imaging of 46 patients who underwent OLIF from L2-L5 for 68 levels. Segmental lordosis (SL) was measured in a plain radiograph. The positions of the cage were measured in CT. Spinal canal cross-sectional area (SCSA), and foraminal crosssectional area (FSCA) measurements using MRI were taken into consideration. Results : Patients’ mean age was 69.7 years. SL increases 3.0±5.1 degrees. Significant increases in SCSA (33.3%), FCSA (43.7% on the left and 45.0% on the right foramen) were found (p<0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis shows putting the cage in the more posterior position correlated with more increase of FSCA and decreases SL correction. The position of the cage does not affect the degree of the central spinal canal decompression. Obliquity of the cage does not result in different degrees of foraminal decompression between right and left side neural foramen. Conclusion : Cage position near the posterior part of the vertebral body increases the decompression effect of the neural foramen while putting the cage in the more anterior position correlated with increases SL.

A 30-Year Worldwide Research Productivity of Scientific Publication in Full-Endoscopic Decompression Spine Surgery: Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

Yanting Liu,Vit Kotheeranurak,Javier Quillo-Olvera,Van Isseldyk Facundo,Sagar Sharma,Siravich Suvithayasiri,Khanathip Jitpakdee,Guang-Xun Lin,Akaworn Mahatthanatrakul,Hussam Jabri,Ashwinkumar Vasant K 대한척추신경외과학회 2023 Neurospine Vol.20 No.1

Objective: The ever-growing number of articles related to full-endoscopic spine surgery published in the last few decades presents a challenge which is perplexing and time-consuming in identifying the current research status. The study aims to identify and analyze the most cited works related to full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery, compare the articles published by different publishers and area, and show the current publication status of full-endoscopic research. Methods: Using Bibliometrix, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer, we analyzed the bibliometric data selected from the Web of Science database between 1992 and 2022. Spine has the highest H-index with the most-cited journal in the field of full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery. China ranked as the most productive country, whereas the most cited with high H-index papers came from South Korea. For the author analysis, Yeung AT, Ruetten S, Hoogland T, Ahn Y, Choi G, and Mayer HM were the most impactful authors in the global and local citations. The most productive organization is Wooridul Spine Hospital. Conclusion: The bibliometric study showed a growing trend of research on full-endoscopic decompression spine surgery over the past 30 years. It has demonstrated that there is a significant increase in the number of authors, institutions, and internationally collaborated countries. However, the quality of studies is still low, and the lack of high-quality clinical evidence and the trend of general journal submissions has somewhat affected the quality of endoscopy journals in recent years.

The Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Narrative Review, and Future Perspective

Phattareeya Pholprajug,Vit Kotheeranurak,Yanting Liu,김진성 대한척추신경외과학회 2023 Neurospine Vol.20 No.4

Lumbar interbody fusion stands as a preferred surgical solution for degenerative lumbar spine diseases. The procedure primarily aims to establish lumbar segment stability, directly addressing patient symptoms associated with spinal complications. Traditional open surgery, though effective, is linked with notable morbidities and extended recovery time. To mitigate these concerns, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has garnered significant popularity, presenting an appealing alternative with numerous benefits such as reduced soft tissue trauma, decreased blood loss, and expedited recovery. Among MIS procedures, full endoscopic spinal surgery, characterized by its minimal invasiveness, holds the potential to further minimize morbidities while enhancing surgical outcomes. Endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion, a novel procedure within this paradigm, has gained attention for offering advantages comparable to those of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. However, the safety, efficacy, and associated surgical techniques and instrument design of this method continue to be subjects of ongoing debate. This paper critically reviews current evidence on the safety, efficacy, and advantages of endoscopic lumbar spinal interbody fusion, examining whether it could indeed supersede existing mainstream techniques.

An Expanded Surgical Corridor of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion at L4–5: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study

Worawat Limthongkul,Pakawas Praisarnti,Teerachat Tanasansomboon,Natavut Prasertkul,Vit Kotheeranurak,Wicharn Yingsakmongkol,Weerasak Singhatanadgige 대한척추신경외과학회 2023 Neurospine Vol.20 No.4

Objective: We introduced a new preoperative method, the “expanded surgical corridor,” to evaluate the actual safety corridor, which may expand the possibility of performing oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF). Methods: Axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance images at the L4–5 disc level of 511 lumbar degenerative disease patients was evaluated. The distance between the medial edge of the left-sided psoas muscle and the major artery was measured as the conventional surgical corridor (CSc). The distance between the major vein and lumbar plexus was measured as the expanded surgical corridor (ESc). Results: The mean CSc and ESc were 13.9 ± 8.20 and 37.43 ± 10.1 mm, respectively. No surgical corridor was found in 7.05% of CSc and 1.76% of ESc, small corridor ( ≤ 1 cm) was found in 27.40% of CSc and 0.59% of ESc, moderate corridor (1–2 cm) was found in 42.07% of CSc and 1.96% of ESc, and large corridor ( > 2 cm) was found in 23.48% of CSc and 95.69% of ESc. A total of 33.83% (45 of 133) of whom were preoperatively categorized as having a limited surgical corridor by conventional measurement, underwent OLIF L4–5 successfully. Conclusion: By using the ESc, only 2.35% were categorized as having a limited surgical corridor. The other 97.65% of the patients had an approachable corridor that could be successfully operated by experienced spine surgeons who employ meticulous surgical dissection and thorough understanding of the anatomical structures. The ESc may represent true accessibility to the disc space for OLIF, particularly at the L4–5 level.

Successful Criteria for Indirect Decompression With Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Wicharn Yingsakmongkol,Khanathip Jitpakdee,Stephen Kerr,Worawat Limthongkul,Vit Kotheeranurak,Weerasak Singhatanadgige 대한척추신경외과학회 2022 Neurospine Vol.19 No.3

Objective: No consensus criteria have been established regarding ideal candidates for indirect decompression with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), and contributing factors of indirect decompression failure were rarely reported. We aim to investigate the success rate of indirect decompression by LLIF with proposed selection criteria and identify risk factors associated with indirect decompression failure, defined as persistent pain requiring revision with direct decompression. Methods: Data from 191 patients undergoing LLIF were retrospectively reviewed. All the following criteria must be fulfilled: (1) dynamic clinical symptoms (pain relief in supine position), (2) presence of reducible disc height (recovered disc height in supine position), (3) no profound weakness, and (4) no static stenosis. The success rate of indirect decompression with LLIF and results after at least 1 year of follow-up were collected. Preoperative, procedure-related, and postoperative factors were assessed for their relationship with failure. Results: Of 191 patients,13 patients (6.8%) required additional direct decompression due to persistent pain, giving a criteria success rate of 93.2%. Factors associated with indirect decompression failure included low bone mineral density (T-score < 2.1), low reducible disc height (<13%), low postoperative disc height (< 10 mm), high-grade cage subsidence, and use of plate fixation. Conclusion: We proposed patient selection criteria for indirect decompression with LLIF which had a satisfactory success rate and identified factors associated with the need for additional direct decompression. Our proposed criteria may assist selection of patients likely to achieve good results following indirect decompression with LLIF, and optimize selection based on risk factors of failure.

Is Direct Decompression Necessary for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)? A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Direct and Indirect Decompression With LLIF in Selected Patients

Worawat Limthongkul,Chayapong Thanapura,Khanathip Jitpakdee,Pakawas Praisarnti,Vit Kotheeranurak,Wicharn Yingsakmongkol,Teerachat Tanasansomboon,Weerasak Singhatanadgige 대한척추신경외과학회 2024 Neurospine Vol.21 No.1

Objective: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) between direct and indirect decompression in the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. Methods: Patients who underwent single-level LLIF were randomized into 2 groups: direct decompression (group D) and indirect decompression (group I). Clinical outcomes including the Oswestry Disability index and visual analogue scale of back and leg pain were collected. Radiographic outcomes including cross-sectional area (CSA) of thecal sac, disc height, foraminal height, foraminal area, fusion rate, segmental, and lumbar lordosis were measured. Results: Twenty-eight patients who met the inclusion criteria were eligible for the analysis, with a distribution of 14 subjects in each group. The average age was 66.1 years. Postoperatively, significant improvements were observed in all clinical parameters. However, these improvements did not show significant difference between both groups at all follow-up periods. All radiographic outcomes were not different between both groups, except for the increase in CSA which was significantly greater in group D (77.73 ± 20.26 mm2 vs. 54.32 ± 35.70 mm2 , p = 0.042). Group I demonstrated significantly lower blood loss (68.13 ± 32.06 mL vs. 210.00 ± 110.05 mL, p < 0.005), as well as shorter operative time (136.35 ± 28.07 minutes vs. 182.18 ± 42.67 minutes, p = 0.002). Overall complication rate was not different. Conclusion: Indirect decompression through LLIF results in comparable clinical improvement to LLIF with additional direct decompression over 1-year follow-up period. These findings suggest that, for an appropriate candidate, direct decompression in LLIF might not be necessary since the ligamentotaxis effect achieved through indirect decompression appears sufficient to relieve symptoms while diminishing blood loss and operative time.

Clinical and Radiographic Comparisons among Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison with Three-Way Matching

Yingsakmongkol Wicharn,Jitpakdee Khanathip,Varakornpipat Panapol,Choentrakool Chitapoom,Tanasansomboon Teerachat,Limthongkul Worawat,Singhatanadgige Weerasak,Kotheeranurak Vit 대한척추외과학회 2022 Asian Spine Journal Vol.16 No.5

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.Purpose: To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes among minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF), and oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) techniques.Overview of Literature: To date, there are many reports comparing outcomes between MIS-TLIF and XLIF, MIS-TLIF and OLIF, or XLIF and OLIF procedures. However, there are no previous studies comparing clinical and radiographic outcomes among all these three techniques.Methods: Data from patients who underwent minimally invasive (MI) fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases at L4–L5 level was analyzed. Thirty patients each from MIS-TLIF, XLIF, and OLIF groups were recruited for propensity score matching. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of the back and legs and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes were also compared. The fusion rate was evaluated at 1 year after surgeries.Results: The clinical outcomes were significantly improved in all groups. The disk height was significantly restored in all groups postoperatively, which was significantly more improved in XLIF and OLIF than MIS-TLIF group (<i>p</i><0.001). The axial canal area was significantly increased more in MIS-TLIF versus XLIF and OLIF (<i>p</i><0.001). The correction of lumbar lordotic angle and segmental sagittal angle were similar among these techniques. OLIF and XLIF groups showed less blood loss and shorter hospital stays than MIS-TLIF group (<i>p</i><0.001). There was no significant difference in fusion rate among all groups.Conclusions: MIS-TLIF, XLIF, and OLIF facilitated safe and effective MI procedures for treating lumbar degenerative diseases. XLIF and OLIF can achieve clinical outcomes equivalent to MIS-TLIF by indirect decompression. XLIF and OLIF showed less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and better disk and foraminal height restorations. In single-level L4–5, the restoration of sagittal alignment was similar between these three techniques.