Complications and Morbidities of Mini-open Anterior Retroperitoneal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in 179 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study including 179 patients who underwent oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) at one institution. PURPOSE: To report the complications associated with a minimally invasive technique of a retroperitoneal anterolateral approach to the lumbar spine. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Different approaches to the lumbar spine have been proposed, but they are associated with an increased risk of complications and a longer operation. METHODS: A total of 179 patients with previous posterior instrumented fusion undergoing OLIF were included. The technique is described in terms of: the number of levels fused, operative time and blood loss. Persurgical and postsurgical complications were noted. RESULTS: Patients were age 54.1 ± 10.6 with a BMI of 24.8 ± 4.1 kg/m(2). The procedure was performed in the lumbar spine at L1-L2 in 4, L2-L3 in 54, L3-L4 in 120, L4-L5 in 134, and L5-S1 in 6 patients. It was done at 1 level in 56, 2 levels in 107, and 3 levels in 16 patients. Surgery time and blood loss were, respectively, 32.5 ± 13.2 minutes and 57 ± 131 ml per level fused. There were 19 patients with a single complication and one with two complications, including two patients with postoperative radiculopathy after L3-5 OLIF. There was no abdominal weakness or herniation. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive OLIF can be performed easily and safely in the lumbar spine from L2 to L5, and at L1-2 for selected cases. Up to 3 levels can be addressed through a 'sliding window'. It is associated with minimal blood loss and short operations, and with decreased risk of abdominal wall weakness or herniation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".