Clinical and Radiographic Comparisons among Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison with Three-Way Matching
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 5, 2025
Clinical Application of Microscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Published on: June 16, 2023
Wicharn Yingsakmongkol1,2, Khanathip Jitpakdee3, Panapol Varakornpipat1
1Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand.
Study Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Purpose:
To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes among minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF), and oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) techniques.
Overview Of Literature:
To date, there are many reports comparing outcomes between MIS-TLIF and XLIF, MIS-TLIF and OLIF, or XLIF and OLIF procedures. However, there are no previous studies comparing clinical and radiographic outcomes among all these three techniques.
Methods:
Data from patients who underwent minimally invasive (MI) fusion surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases at L4-L5 level was analyzed. Thirty patients each from MIS-TLIF, XLIF, and OLIF groups were recruited for propensity score matching. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) of the back and legs and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Radiographic outcomes were also compared. The fusion rate was evaluated at 1 year after surgeries.
Results:
The clinical outcomes were significantly improved in all groups. The disk height was significantly restored in all groups postoperatively, which was significantly more improved in XLIF and OLIF than MIS-TLIF group (p<0.001). The axial canal area was significantly increased more in MIS-TLIF versus XLIF and OLIF (p<0.001). The correction of lumbar lordotic angle and segmental sagittal angle were similar among these techniques. OLIF and XLIF groups showed less blood loss and shorter hospital stays than MIS-TLIF group (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in fusion rate among all groups.
Conclusions:
MIS-TLIF, XLIF, and OLIF facilitated safe and effective MI procedures for treating lumbar degenerative diseases. XLIF and OLIF can achieve clinical outcomes equivalent to MIS-TLIF by indirect decompression. XLIF and OLIF showed less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and better disk and foraminal height restorations. In single-level L4-5, the restoration of sagittal alignment was similar between these three techniques.
