Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 41586610

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion With Lateral Vertebral Screw Fixation Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Severe Lumbar Stenosis: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

Xuefeng Li·Cheng Lin·Tangyiheng Chen·Renjie Li·Dapeng Li·Sheng Song·Huilin Yang·Genlei Chu·Weimin Jiang·Yijie Liu
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The benefits of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) vs transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in severe lumbar stenosis (Schizas C/D) remain uncertain. This randomized trial compared clinical, radiographic, and safety outcomes of OLIF and TLIF. METHODS: From November 2018 to December 2021, a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolled 260 adults with single-level severe stenosis and instability. In total, 224 patients were randomized to OLIF or TLIF. Prespecified outcomes followed consolidated standards of reporting trials. Primary outcomes were visual analog scale back/leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), with minimal clinically important difference thresholds of ODI &#x2265;12-13 points or &#x2265;30% improvement, and visual analog scale &#x2265;1.5-2.0 points. Radiographic measures included disc height, lumbar and segmental lordosis, and canal cross-sectional area (CSA). Complications were recorded. Ethics approval was obtained from the institutional review board, the trial was registered with ISRCTN.com , and all patients provided written informed consent. RESULTS: In total, 224 patients were randomized, 5 were lost to follow-up (TLIF n = 2, OLIF n = 3). Baseline features were comparable. OLIF was associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss, earlier ambulation, and shorter hospital stay (all P < .05). Both groups achieved significant, clinically meaningful improvements. OLIF showed greater back pain reduction at 3-6 months and 2 years ( P < .05) and superior ODI improvement at 3 and 6 months ( P < .001), although long-term ODI scores were similar. Radiographically, OLIF provided greater restoration of disc height and segmental lordosis (all P < .001) and demonstrated progressive CSA increase (dynamic decompression), whereas TLIF achieved immediate, sustained CSA enlargement. Fusion rates were comparable at 1-2 years. Complication rates were low and similar (7.3% TLIF vs 5.5% OLIF), with most OLIF-specific events transient. CONCLUSION: Both OLIF and TLIF yield improvements in severe lumbar stenosis. OLIF offers perioperative advantages, earlier functional recovery, radiographic restoration, and dynamic canal remodeling, supporting its role as an equivalent alternative for lumbar spinal stenosis with some secondary advantages.

Explore related subjects

HumansSpinal FusionSpinal StenosisFemaleLumbar VertebraeMaleTreatment OutcomeMiddle AgedAgedProspective StudiesBone ScrewsDynamic decompressionOblique lateral interbody fusionOutcomesRandomized controlled trialSevere lumbar spinal stenosisTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusionJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter StudyComparative Study

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Xuefeng Li, Cheng Lin, Tangyiheng Chen, Renjie Li, Dapeng Li, Sheng Song, Huilin Yang, Genlei Chu, Weimin Jiang, Yijie Liu. 2026-01-26. Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion With Lateral Vertebral Screw Fixation Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Severe Lumbar Stenosis: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.. https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000003905

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Aged subjectComparative Study subjectFemale subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectLumbar Vertebrae subjectMale subjectMiddle Aged subjectMulticenter Study subjectOutcomes subjectRandomized controlled trials study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Comparison of Ketamine and Pregabalin on Postoperative Opioid Usage and Pain Management in Spinal Fusion: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Spinal fusion is associated with substantial early postoperative pain and opioid exposure. Both ketamine and pregabalin are widely incorporated into Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols as opioid-sparing adjuncts. However, their comparative efficacy and safety in this specific setting remain uncertain. Our objective was to compare ketamine and pregabalin indirectly for early postoperative opioid consumption, pain, and adverse events in adults undergoing spinal fusion. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Trials were searched from inception through October 2025. Eligible studies were randomized trials enrolling adults undergoing instrumented spinal fusion, randomized to perioperative ketamine, pregabalin, or control, and reported extractable 24-hour opioid consumption or pain outcomes. Continuous outcomes were pooled as mean differences in MME or VAS units, and adverse events were reported descriptively. A connected treatment network was analyzed using random-effects models. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (n=879) were included: ketamine (n=210), pregabalin (n=271), and control (n=398). Six trials contributed opioid data (3 ketamine, 3 pregabalin). Using pregabalin 150 mg as reference, ketamine was associated with lower 0-24-hour opioid use (MD -56.99 mg MME; 95% CI -99.56 to -14.43). Control (MD +21.31; 95% CI -1.05 to +43.66) and pregabalin 300 mg (MD -13.22; 95% CI -40.41 to +13.96) did not significantly differ from pregabalin 150 mg. Seven trials contributed 24-hour VAS data, with control being associated with higher pain versus pregabalin 150 mg (MD +0.84; 95% CI +0.01 to +1.66), while ketamine and pregabalin 300 mg were not k significantly different. Adverse events were generally infrequent and similar to control. CONCLUSIONS: Both ketamine and pregabalin provide early opioid sparing with comparable 24-hour analgesia. Ketamine showed a larger opioid-sparing point estimate, but indirect comparisons are imprecise. Adequately powered head-to-head trials with standardized protocols and adverse event reporting are needed.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Comparison of posterior cellular bonegraft options for single-level lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Iliac bone autograft (IBG) is osteoinductive/osteogenic/osteoconductive but requires an additional harvesting procedure with known morbidities. Bone morphogenic protein (BMP) is osteoinductive and effective in obtaining fusion but is used off label for posterior fusion, has multiple side effects, and is expensive. Stem cell bone products, both auto- and allograft are attractive osteoinductive alternatives that avoid morbidity related to the graft donor site and may have a better safety profile than BMP. Morcelized allograft bone is osteoconductive but not osteoinductive or osteogenic. PURPOSE: Evaluate and compare the effectiveness of 6 types of viable or osteoinductive bone graft material in obtaining a solid posterior spinal fusion (PSF) for single level anterior/posterior lumbar spinal fusion. The bone grafts were IBG, BMP, autogenous stem cells (MSC) from concentrated bone marrow aspirate (BMA), allograft MSC from bone marrow, adipose tissue, or amniotic fluid, combined with inert cancellous allograft (Allo). STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Prospective, single-blinded randomized study of 6 cohorts and inert historical control. PATIENT SAMPLE: Elective anterior-posterior lumbar spinal fusion of 175 patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessments included pre and postoperative back and leg pain (VAS) scores, pain drawing, disability (ODI) scores, pain medication usage, and 1-year postoperative thin-cut CT scans (read by blinded radiologists). METHODS: Patients who were surgical candidates for a 1-level anterior/posterior lumbar fusion were randomized to 1 of 6 types of posterior bone graft alternatives: IBG, BMP, BMA, allograft MSC derived from bone marrow combined with morcelized Allo (cAlloBone), adipose derived MSC combined with morcelized Allo (cAlloFat), or amnion derived MSC combined with morcelized Allo (cAlloAm). Historical Allo patients served as a negative control group. Each group (n 27) had prospective outcomes and were followed for a minimum of 2 years. Fusion rate and outcomes were compared and referenced to Allo group. RESULTS: All but 5 patients had a solid ASF. The posterior fusion rates were 98% for IBG, 94% for BMP, 85% for BMA, 67% for cAlloBone, 64% for cAlloFat, 62% for cAlloAm, and 50% for Allo. Outcomes were significantly improved for all measures for all groups and there was no difference between groups except cAlloFat had slightly greater improvement in back pain in the 7-12 month follow-up period. BMP was the most expensive graft material; cellular allografts had a high-cost relative to fusion rate. CONCLUSIONS: For single level ASF/PSF, the PSF fusion rate was significantly greater for IBG and BMP followed by BMA. Various allograft MSC bone graft options resulted in lower fusion rates but may be greater than Allo. Outcomes were uniformly improved regardless of the type of graft used or the fusion status of the posterior fusion as long as the interbody fusion was solid. If bone graft cost savings is a consideration for PSF, then IBG has the greatest radiographic value, and Allo the greatest clinical value as long as the anterior interbody fusion is solid.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Liposomal bupivacaine versus ropivacaine for surgical site infiltration in lumbar fusion: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Effective postoperative pain control after lumbar spine surgery remains challenging, and excessive opioid use is associated with adverse outcomes. Evidence comparing liposomal bupivacaine (LB) with conventional long-acting local anesthetics in spine surgery is limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-center, prospective, randomized, patient- and outcome assessor-blinded trial, adult undergoing one- or two-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion were assigned (1:1) to surgical site infiltration with either LB (266&#x2009;mg) plus 25&#x2009;mg plain bupivacaine (LB group) or ropivacaine (R group). The primary outcome was 72&#x2009;h cumulative opioid consumption (morphine milligram equivalents, MME). Secondary outcomes included time-profile opioid consumption, pain scores, rescue analgesia, safety, and functional recovery. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Cumulative MME within 72&#x2009;h was significantly lower in the LB group compared with the R group [43.0 (37.0, 58.0) mg vs. 58.0 (46.0, 73.0) mg], corresponding to a 22% relative reduction (GMR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71-0.85; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001). The reduction was most pronounced during 8-24&#x2009;h and 24-48&#x2009;h postoperatively. Overall pain scores at rest and with movement, as well as 72-h pain AUC, were lower in the LB group. No significant between-group differences were observed in rescue analgesia, adverse events and functional recovery. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing one- or two-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion, surgical site infiltration with an LB-based combined regimen, compared with ropivacaine monotherapy, reduced 72-h opioid consumption and cumulative postoperative pain burden without an observed increase in adverse events or impairment of early functional recovery.

Humans↗