Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

MRI-Based Morphometric Study Regarding Operative Windows of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Indian Population

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The novel Oblique lumbar interbody fusion [OLIF] technique has been proposed as a solution to approach related complications of anterior lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF] and lateral lumbar interbody fusion [LLIF]. There exists no study concerning morphological evaluation of retroperitoneal oblique corridor for the Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) technique in the Indian population. The aim of our study was (a) to measure magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) based anatomic parameters concerning OLIF operative windows from L2–L3 to L4–L5 level (b) to determine the feasibility of this technique following MRI-based morphometric evaluation in the Indian population.

Material and methods

We did retrospective MRI analysis of 307 consecutive patients following our exclusion criteria. Bare window, psoas major window and psoas major width were measured from axial T2 MRI image taken at mid disc level from L2–L3 to L4–L5 levels.

Results

The mean bare window size was largest at L2–L3 (1.39 cm) level followed by L3–L4 and L4–L5 level (1.28 and 0.62 cm respectively), and differences between them were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Females had statistically significant larger bare windows at L2–L3 and L3–L4 level than males (P < 0.001). With increasing age, there was a significant increase in bare window size at each level (P < 0.001). The mean psoas major window (PMO) and mean psoas major width (PMI) were largest at L4–L5 level (PMO = 1.27 cm, PMI = 3.61 cm) followed by L3–L4 and L2–L3 level (L3–L4: PMO = 1.19 cm, PMI = 2.36 cm; L2–L3: PMO = 0.88 cm, PMI = 1.39 cm), and differences among each level concerning both parameters were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Both parameters (PMO, PMI) were significantly larger in males than females at each level (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

The OLIF technique is well suited for lumbar interbody fusion at L2 -L3 and L3–L4 level in the Indian population irrespective of age and sex. At L4–L5 level, overall 17.9 percent of the study population were unsuitable for this technique due to inaccessible bare window. In our opinion, this level may be better suited for OLIF approach in the elderly Indian population, especially for surgeons who are beginning to attempt this technique in their surgical practice. Preoperative MRI evaluation for the OLIF is important to assess its feasibility, as there exists significant age and gender differences in the Indian population for anatomic parameters concerning OLIF operative windows from L2–L3 to L4–L5 levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mobbs, R. J., Phan, K., Malham, G., Seex, K., & Rao, P. J. (2015). Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP LLIF and ALIF. Journal of Spine Surgery, 1(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Xu, D. S., Walker, C. T., Godzik, J., Turner, J. D., Smith, W., & Uribe, J. S. (2018). Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Annals of Translational Medicine, 6(6), 104. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.03.24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hah, R., & Kang, P. (2019). Lateral and oblique lumbar interbody fusion—current concepts and a review of recent literature. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 12, 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-019-09562-6.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Mayer, H. M. (1997). A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 22, 691–699. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199703150-00023.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Silvestre, C., Mac-Thiong, J. M., Hilmi, R., & Roussouly, P. (2012). Complications and morbidities of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 179 patients. Asian Spine Journal, 6(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2012.6.2.89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Phan, K., Maharaj, M., Aseem, Y., & Mobbs, R. J. (2016). Review of early clinical results and complications associated with oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 31, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2016.02.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen, X., Chen, J., & Zhang, F. (2019). Imaging anatomic research of oblique lumbar interbody fusion in a Chinese population based on magnetic resonance. World Neurosurgery, 128, e51–e58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis, T. T., Hynes, R. A., Fung, D. A., Spann, S. W., MacMillan, M., & Kwon, B. (2014). Retroperitoneal oblique corridor to the L2–S1 intervertebral discs in the lateral position: an anatomic study. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 21, 785–793. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.7.SPINE13564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Liu, L., Liang, Y., Zhang, H., Wang, H., Guo, C., Pu, X., et al. (2016). Imaging anatomical research on the operative windows of oblique lumbar interbody fusion. PLoS ONE, 11(9), e0163452. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163452.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Molinares, D. M., Davis, T. T., & Fung, D. A. (2016). Retroperitoneal oblique corridor to the L2–S1 intervertebral discs: an MRI study. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 24(2), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.3.SPINE13976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Li, J. X. L., Mobbs, R. J., & Phan, K. (2018). Morphometric MRI imaging study of the corridor for the oblique lumbar interbody fusion technique at L1–L5. World Neurosurgery, 111, e678–e685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boghani, Z., Steele, W., III., Barber, S. M., Lee, J. L., Sokunbi, O., Blacklock, J. B., et al. (2020). Variability in the size of the retroperitoneal oblique corridor: a magnetic resonance imaging-based analysis. Surgical Neurology International, 28(11), 54. https://doi.org/10.25259/SNI_438_2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Li, R., Li, X., Zhou, H., & Jiang, W. (2020). Development and application of oblique lumbar interbody fusion. Orthopaedic Surgery, 12(2), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12625.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Olvera, J. Q., Lin, G. X., Jo, H. J., & Kim, J. S. (2018). Complications on minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L2–L5 levels: a review of the literature and surgical strategies. Annals of Translational Medicine, 6(6), 101. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.01.22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Acharya, S., Dorje, T., & Srivastava, A. (2010). Lower dorsal and lumbar pedicle morphometry in indian population: a study of four hundred fifty vertebrae. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 35(10), E378–E384. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cb7f2b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Srivastava, A., Nanda, G., Mahajan, R., Nanda, A., Batra, S., Mishra, N., et al. (2019). Feasibility of sub-axial cervical laminar screws, including C7, in the Indian population: a study on 50 patients using computed tomography-based morphometry measurements. Asian Spine Journal, 13(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.0110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang, F., Xu, H., Yin, B., Tao, H., Yang, S., Sun, C., et al. (2017). Does right lateral decubitus position change retroperitoneal oblique corridor? A radiographic evaluation from L1 to L5. European Spine Journal, 26(3), 646–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4645-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ng, J. P. H., Perumal, A. K. K., Tandon, A. A., & Oh, J. Y. L. (2020). The oblique corridor at L4–L5: a radiographic-anatomical study into the feasibility for lateral interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 45(10), E552–E559. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000003346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Louie, P. K., Narain, A. S., Hijji, F. Y., Yacob, A., Yom, K. A., Phillips, F. M., et al. (2017). radiographic analysis of psoas morphology and its association with neurovascular structures at L4–5 with reference to lateral approaches. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 42(24), E1386–E1392. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang, Z., Liu, L., Xu, X. H., Cao, M. D., Lu, H., & Zhang, K. B. (2020). The OLIF working corridor based on magnetic resonance imaging: a retrospective research. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 15(1), 141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-01654-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Moro, T., Kikuchi, S., Konno, S., & Yaginuma, H. (2003). An anatomic study of the lumbar plexus with respect to retroperitoneal endoscopic surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 28(5), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000049226.87064.3B.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr Preethi Selvaraj, MD, for her assistance with the statistical analysis of our data.

Funding

Nil.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, School of Medical Sciences and Research, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Rahul Kaul, Madhan Jeyaraman, Bharat Goswami, Milind Chandra Choudhary & Sudhir Kumar

  2. Department of Radio-Diagnosis, School of Medical Sciences and Research, Sharda University, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Khemendra Kumar

  3. Department of Spine Services, Indian Spinal Injuries Centre, New Delhi, India

    H. S. Chhabra

Authors
  1. Rahul Kaul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Khemendra Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Madhan Jeyaraman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bharat Goswami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Milind Chandra Choudhary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H. S. Chhabra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sudhir Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Khemendra Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Approval of ethical committee at our institute was obtained prior to the study [Approval number: SU/SMS&R/76-A/2020/16].

Informed consent

As it was a retrospective study, it was not possible to obtain informed consent. Image data which was used for the publication was anonymized. Hence the waiver for informed consent concerning the present retrospective study was taken from our institute ethical committee.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 31 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaul, R., Kumar, K., Jeyaraman, M. et al. MRI-Based Morphometric Study Regarding Operative Windows of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Indian Population. JOIO 55 (Suppl 2), 366–373 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-021-00393-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-021-00393-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation