Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Anterolateral Fixation and Cement Augmentation for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases in the Elderly Population: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Objectives: Cage subsidence is a common complication of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), particularly in elderly patients with osteoporosis or osteopenia. While bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPS) is effective in reducing subsidence, it is associated with longer operative times, increased blood loss, and greater tissue trauma. In contrast, anterolateral fixation (AF) is less invasive but linked to higher subsidence rates. Ensuring both minimal invasiveness and adequate stability in OLIF-assisted fixation remains a significant challenge. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of combining AF with cement augmentation (AF + CA) in reducing cage subsidence and improving clinical outcomes compared with AF and BPS.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 138 elderly patients with degenerative lumbar diseases treated with OLIF. Patients were divided into three groups: AF + CA (32 patients), AF (32 patients), and BPS (74 patients). Clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared among the groups, and logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for cage subsidence after OLIF.

Results: At 1 year postoperatively, the disc height of the AF + CA group was significantly greater than that of the AF group. The cage subsidence rate in the AF + CA group was 24.3%, significantly lower than that in the AF group (48.8%, p < 0.05) and comparable to the BPS group (30.4%). Survivorship curve analysis showed better outcomes in reducing cage subsidence in the AF + CA group compared with the AF group, with no significant difference between the AF + CA and BPS groups. Compared with the AF + CA and BPS groups, the AF group had significantly higher grades and severity of cage subsidence. Fusion rates at 1 year were 91.9% in the AF + CA group, 90.2% in the AF group, and 95.1% in the BPS group, with no significant differences. The AF + CA group had significantly shorter operative times, less intraoperative blood loss, lower VAS scores at 3 days and 1 year postoperatively, and lower ODI scores at 3 days and 3 months compared with the BPS group. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that AF was a significant risk factor for cage subsidence, with an odds ratio of 3.399 compared with AF + CA.

Conclusions: AF + CA effectively reduces cage subsidence in OLIF surgeries, offering results comparable to BPS while providing advantages such as shorter surgical time, reduced blood loss, and improved early postoperative outcomes. AF + CA is a viable alternative, especially for elderly patients with comorbidities who may not tolerate the longer operative durations or greater blood loss associated with BPS.

Keywords

bone cement / intervertebral disc disease / spinal fusion / spinal stenosis

References

[1] C. Cheng, K. Wang, C. Zhang, H. Wu, and F. Jian, “Clinical Results and Complications Associated With Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Technique,” Annals of Translational Medicine 9 (2021): 16.

[2] K. Wang, X. Wang, Z. Li, et al., “The Influence of Screw Positioning on Cage Subsidence in Patients With Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Anterolateral Fixation,” Orthopaedic Surgery 15 (2023): 3263–3271.

[3] S. F. Hung, T. T. Tsai, S. F. Wang, M. K. Hsieh, and F. C. Kao, “Additional Cement Augmentation Reduces Cage Subsidence and Improves Clinical Outcomes in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Anterolateral Screw Fixation: A Retrospective Cohort Study,” Current Problems in Surgery 61 (2024): 101441.

[4] L. Zhao, T. Xie, X. Wang, Z. Yang, X. Pu, and J. Zeng, “Whether Anterolateral Single Rod Can Maintain the Surgical Outcomes Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Double-Segment Disc Disease,” Orthopaedic Surgery 14 (2022): 1126–1134.

[5] X. Y. Cai, H. M. Bian, C. Chen, X. L. Ma, and Q. Yang, “Biomechanical Study of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) Augmented With Different Types of Instrumentation: A Finite Element Analysis,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 17 (2022): 269.

[6] Y. Wang, J. Wang, S. Tu, et al., “Biomechanical Evaluation of an Oblique Lateral Locking Plate System for Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis,” World Neurosurgery 160 (2022): e126–e141.

[7] Z. Li, X. Wang, T. Xie, et al., “Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Stress End Plate Augmentation and Anterolateral Screw Fixation for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Osteoporosis: A Matched-Pair Case-Controlled Study,” Spine Journal 23 (2023): 523–532.

[8] J. Liu and H. Feng, “Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) With Supplemental Anterolateral Screw and Rod Instrumentation: A Preliminary Clinical Study,” World Neurosurgery 134 (2020): e944–e950.

[9] Z. Wang, R. Ma, Z. Cai, Z. Wang, S. Yang, and Z. Ge, “Biomechanical Evaluation of Stand-Alone Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Under 3 Different Bone Mineral Density Conditions: A Finite Element Analysis,” World Neurosurgery 155 (2021): e285–e293.

[10] V. Kotheeranurak, K. Jitpakdee, G. X. Lin, et al., “Subsidence of Interbody Cage Following Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: An Analysis and Potential Risk Factors,” Global Spine Journal 13 (2023): 1981–1991.

[11] Z. Song, Q. Zhou, X. Jin, and J. Zhang, “Cement-Augmented Pedicle Screw for Thoracolumbar Degenerative Diseases With Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 18 (2023): 631.

[12] Y. Wang, C. Zhou, H. Yin, and D. Song, “Comparison of Cement-Augmented Pedicle Screw and Conventional Pedicle Screw for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Patients With Osteoporosis,” European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology 34 (2024): 1609–1617.

[13] H. W. Chung, H. D. Lee, C. H. Jeon, and N. S. Chung, “Comparison of Surgical Outcomes Between Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF),” Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 209 (2021): 106901.

[14] W. He, D. He, Y. Sun, et al., “Standalone Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion vs. Combined With Percutaneous Pedicle Screw in Spondylolisthesis,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 21 (2020): 184.

[15] D. F. Kader, D. Wardlaw, and F. W. Smith, “Correlation Between the MRI Changes in the Lumbar Multifidus Muscles and Leg Pain,” Clinical Radiology 55 (2000): 145–149.

[16] T. S. Shafshak and R. Elnemr, “The Visual Analogue Scale Versus Numerical Rating Scale in Measuring Pain Severity and Predicting Disability in Low Back Pain,” Journal of Clinical Rheumatology 27 (2021): 282–285.

[17] V. E. Arpinar, J. A. Gliedt, J. A. King, D. J. Maiman, and L. T. Muftuler, “Oswestry Disability Index Scores Correlate With MRI Measurements in Degenerating Intervertebral Discs and Endplates,” European Journal of Pain 24 (2020): 346–353.

[18] Z. Hu, D. He, J. Gao, et al., “The Influence of Endplate Morphology on Cage Subsidence in Patients With Stand-Alone Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF),” Global Spine Journal 13 (2023): 97–103.

[19] X. Ma, L. Lin, J. Wang, L. Meng, X. Zhang, and J. Miao, “Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined With Unilateral Versus Bilateral Posterior Fixation in Patients With Osteoporosis,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 18 (2023): 776.

[20] L. Marchi, N. Abdala, L. Oliveira, R. Amaral, E. Coutinho, and L. Pimenta, “Radiographic and Clinical Evaluation of Cage Subsidence After Stand-Alone Lateral Interbody Fusion,” Journal of Neurosurgery Spine 19 (2013): 110–118.

[21] N. S. Chung, H. D. Lee, and C. H. Jeon, “The Impact of Vertebral End Plate Lesions on the Radiological Outcome in Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion,” Global Spine Journal 11 (2021): 1176–1182.

[22] M. K. Park, K. T. Kim, W. S. Bang, et al., “Risk Factors for Cage Migration and Cage Retropulsion Following Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Spine Journal 19 (2019): 437–447.

[23] T. Xie, L. Pu, L. Zhao, et al., “Influence of Coronal-Morphology of Endplate and Intervertebral Space to Cage Subsidence and Fusion Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 23 (2022): 633.

[24] X. Peng, X. Wang, Z. Li, et al., “Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Anterolateral Screw Fixation and Stress Endplate Augmentation for Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis With Osteoporosis,” European Spine Journal 33 (2024): 3467–3475.

[25] X. Zhang, Y. Wang, W. Zhang, et al., “Perioperative Clinical Features and Long-Term Prognosis After Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF), OLIF With Anterolateral Screw Fixation, or OLIF With Percutaneous Pedicle Fixation: A Comprehensive Treatment Strategy for Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Disease,” Neurospine 20 (2023): 536–549.

[26] Z. Xu, Q. Zheng, L. Zhang, R. Chen, Z. Li, and W. Xu, “Biomechanical Evaluation of Different Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Constructs: A Finite Element Analysis,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 25 (2024): 97.

[27] S. Shen, X. You, Y. Ren, and S. Ye, “Risk Factors of Cage Subsidence Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review,” World Neurosurgery 183 (2024): 180–186.

[28] T. Ge, Z. Xu, J. Wu, and Y. Sun, “Pear-Shaped Disk as a Risk Factor for Intraoperative End Plate Injury in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” World Neurosurgery 165 (2022): e43–e50.

[29] P. G. Campbell, D. A. Cavanaugh, P. Nunley, et al., “PEEK Versus Titanium Cages in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparative Analysis of Subsidence,” Neurosurgical Focus 49 (2020): E10.

[30] L. Zhao, T. Xie, X. Wang, et al., “Clinical and Radiological Evaluation of Cage Subsidence Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Anterolateral Fixation,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 23 (2022): 214.

[31] X. Liu, F. Chen, L. Liu, and Q. Zhang, “Prevalence of Osteoporosis in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies,” BMC Endocrine Disorders 23 (2023): 1.

[32] M. Tanios, B. Brickman, E. Cage, et al., “Diabetes and Impaired Fracture Healing: A Narrative Review of Recent Literature,” Current Osteoporosis Reports 20 (2022): 229–239.

[33] R. J. Fajardo, “Is Diabetic Skeletal Fragility Associated With Microvascular Complications in Bone?,” Current Osteoporosis Reports 15 (2017): 1–8.

[34] S. Sharif, Y. Van der Graaf, M. J. Cramer, et al., “Low-Grade Inflammation as a Risk Factor for Cardiovascular Events and All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes,” Cardiovascular Diabetology 20 (2021): 220.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2024 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.