ObjectiveTo summarize the guiding role of imaging evaluation of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) in recent years.MethodsThe reports of OLIF surgical imaging research at home and abroad in recent years were extensively reviewed and analyzed.ResultsPreoperative imaging evaluation plays an important role in guiding the operation of OLIF, the placement of fusion Cage, the selection of indications, and the reduction of complications.ConclusionDetailed preoperative imaging evaluation can correctly estimate the indications of OLIF, and avoid the nerve, blood vessel, and muscle injuries.
ObjectiveTo summarize the research progress of ureteral injury in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF).MethodsThe literature about incidence, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment of ureteral injury complications in OLIF was reviewed.ResultsOLIF surgery poses a risk of ureteral injury because its surgical approach is anatomically adjacent to the left ureter. Ureteral injuries in OLIF are often insidious and have no specific clinical manifestations. CT urography is a common diagnostic method. The treatment of ureteral injury depends on a variety of factors such as the time of diagnosis, the location and degree of injury, and the treatment methods range from endoscopic treatment to replacement reconstruction.ConclusionSurgeons should pay attention not to damage the ureter and find the abnormality in time during OLIF. High vigilance of abnormalities is conducive to the early diagnosis of ureteral injury. Furthermore, it is important to be familiar with ureter anatomy and gentle operation to prevent ureteral injury.
ObjectiveTo study the anatomical characteristics of blood vessels in the lateral segment of the vertebral body through the surgical approach of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) using MRI imaging, and evaluate its potential vascular safety zone. Methods The lumbar MRI data of 107 patients with low back and leg pain who met the selection criteria between October 2019 and November 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The vascular emanation angles, vascular travel angles, and the length of vessels in the lateral segments of the left vertebral body of L1-L5, as well as the distance between the segmental vessels in different Moro junctions of the vertebral body and their distances from the edges of the vertebrae in the same sequence (bottom marked as I, top as S) were measured. The gap between the large abdominal vessels and the lateral vessels of the vertebral body was set as the lateral vascular safe zones of the lumbar spine, and the extent of the safe zones (namely the area between the vessels) was measured. The anterior 1/3 of the lumbar intervertebral disc was taken as the simulated puncture center, and the area with a diameter of 22 mm around it as the simulated channel area. The proportion of vessels in the channel was further counted. In addition, the proportions of segmental vessels at L5 without a clear travel and with an emanation angel less than 90° were calculated. Results Except for the differences in the vascular emanation angles between L4 and L5, the vascular travel angles between L1, L2 and L4, L5, and the length of vessels in the lateral segments of the vertebral body among L1-L4 were not significant (P>0.05), the differences in the vascular emanation angles, vascular travel angles, and the length of vessels between the rest segments were all significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the distance between vessels of L1, L2 and L2, L3 at Moro Ⅰ-Ⅳ junctions (P>0.05), in L3, L4 and L4, L5 at Ⅱ and Ⅲ junction (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the vascular distance of L2, L3 between Ⅱ, Ⅲ junction and Ⅲ, Ⅳ junction, and the vascular distance of L3, L4 between Ⅰ, Ⅱ junction and Ⅲ, Ⅳ junction (P>0.05). The vascular distance of the other adjacent vertebral bodies was significant different between different Moro junctions (P<0.05). Except that there was no significant difference in the distance between L2I and L3S at Ⅰ, Ⅱ junction, L3I and L4S at Ⅱ, Ⅲ junction, and L2I and L3S at Ⅲ, Ⅳ junction (P>0.05), there was significant difference of the vascular distance between the bottom of one segment and the top of the next in the other segments (P<0.05). Comparison between junctions: Except for the L3S between Ⅰ, Ⅱ junction and Ⅱ, Ⅲ junction, and L5S between Ⅰ, Ⅱ junction and Ⅱ, Ⅲ and Ⅲ, Ⅳ junctions had no significant difference (P>0.05), there were significant differences in the distance between the other segmental vessels and the vertebral edge of the same sequence in different Moro junctions (P<0.05). The overall proportion of vessels in the simulated channels was 40.19% (43/107), and the proportion of vessels in L1 (41.12%, 44/107) and L5 (18.69%, 20/107) was higher than that in the other segments. The proportion of vessels in the channel of Moro zone Ⅰ (46.73%, 50/107) and zone Ⅱ (32.71%, 35/107) was higher than that in the zone Ⅲ, while no segmental vessels in L1 and L2 were found in the channel of zone Ⅲ (χ2=74.950, P<0.001). Moreover, 26.17% (28/107) of the segmental vessels of lateral L5 showed no movement, and 27.10% (29/107) vascular emanation angles of lateral L5 were less than 90°. Conclusion L1 and L5 segmental vessels are most likely to be injured in Moro zones Ⅰ and Ⅱ, and the placement of OLIF channels in L4, 5 at Ⅲ, Ⅳ junction should be avoided. It is usually safe to place fixation pins at the vertebral body edge on the cephalic side of the intervertebral space, but it is safer to place them on the caudal side in L1, 2 (Ⅰ, Ⅱ junction), L3, 4 (Ⅲ, Ⅳ junction), and L4, 5 (Ⅱ, Ⅲ, Ⅳ junctions).