Major complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion access: multicentric study by Italian S.O.L.A.S. group

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion - clinical outcomes, fusion rates and complications with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2

BACKGROUND

The authors report an Australian experience of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with respect to clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complications, with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and other graft materials.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of LLIF patients 2011-2021. LLIFs performed lateral decubitus by four experienced surgeons past their learning curve. Graft materials classified rhBMP-2 or non-rhBMP-2. Patient-reported outcomes assessed by VAS, ODI, and SF-12 preoperatively and postoperatively. Fusion rates assessed by CT postoperatively at 6 and 12 months. Complications classified minor or major. Clinical outcomes and complications analysed and compared between rhBMP-2 and non-rhBMP-2 groups.

RESULTS

A cohort of 343 patients underwent 437 levels of LLIF. Mean age 67 ± 11 years (range 29-89) with a female preponderance (65%). Mean BMI 29kg/m2 (18-56). Most common operated levels L3/4 (36%) and L4/5 (35%). VAS, ODI and SF-12 improved significantly from baseline. Total complication rate 15% (53/343) with minor 11% (39/343) and major 4% (14/343). Ten patients returned to OR (2-wound infection, 8-further instrumentation and decompression). Most patients (264, 77%) received rhBMP-2, the remainder a non-rhBMP-2 graft material. No significant differences between groups at baseline. No increase in minor or major complications in the rhBMP-2 group compared to the non-rhBMP-2 group respectively; (10.6% vs 13.9% [p = 0.42], 2.7% vs 8.9% [p < 0.01]). Fusion rates significantly higher in the rhBMP-2 group at 6 and 12 months (63% vs 40%, [p < 0.01], 92% vs 80%, [p < 0.02]).

CONCLUSION

LLIF is a safe and efficacious procedure. rhBMP-2 in LLIF produced earlier and higher fusion rates compared to available non-rhBMP-2 graft substitutes.

Single-Position Lateral Approach for Revision Thoracolumbar Corpectomy With Delayed Ipsilateral Kidney Atrophy: Technical Note and Discussion of Complications

Improvements in navigation technology have enabled surgeons to safely offer single-position fusion surgeries, demonstrating shorter operating times and reduced length of stay (LOS) as compared to traditional lateral and prone dual-position surgeries. However, no studies to date describe revision thoracolumbar corpectomy with simultaneous posterior rod removal and replacement in the lateral position. Furthermore, this is the first reported complication of delayed ipsilateral kidney atrophy following lateral lumbar surgery. A 56-year-old male patient with history of metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma and complex surgical history for a prior T12 pathologic fracture presented to the clinic for follow-up. Computed tomography (CT) demonstrated bilateral broken rods and subsidence of the T12 interbody cage, for which he underwent revision T12 corpectomy and posterior instrumentation revision via a single-position, left-sided lateral approach. Simultaneous exposure and removal of the broken rods enabled the placement of two short temporary rods between the T11-L1 screws posteriorly, allowing for rod distraction and the placement of the expandable corpectomy cage into the appropriate position. On follow-up cancer surveillance imaging, the left kidney became progressively atrophic within six months after surgery. According to a review of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases, we describe the first reported case of a single-position thoracolumbar revision corpectomy with simultaneous rod replacement. Of particular importance in this technique is the use of temporary rod placement for distraction across the index level to facilitate interbody cage placement. Furthermore, we discussed the first reported complication of delayed ipsilateral kidney atrophy following lateral lumbar fusion.

Effects of the cage height and positioning on clinical and radiographic outcome of lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The proper cage positioning and height in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). This study evaluated their effects on clinical and radiographic outcome measures in patients undergoing LLIF.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study analyzed the characteristics and perioperative data of patients who underwent LLIF between January 2019 and December 2020. Radiographic (lumbar lordosis [LL], foraminal height, disc height [DH], segmental angle [SA], cross-sectional area [CSA] of thecal sac) and clinical (Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale) outcomes were assessed preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the last follow-up. The effects of cage height and positioning on these parameters were also investigated.

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up of 12.8 months, 47 patients with 70 operated level were analyzed. Data demonstrated that postsurgical clinical and radiographic outcome measures were significantly better than before surgery(P < 0.05). Cage height and positioning showed no significant difference with regarding to clinical outcome(P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis of the cage positioning showed that DH and SA were better restored by the final follow-up in patients with anteriorly placed cages than those with posteriorly placed cages (P < 0.05). Cages of posterior position showed significantly upgrading cage subsidence (P = 0.047). Cage height subgroup analysis showed that the preoperative forminal height, DH, and SA in the 11-mm cage group were significantly lower than in the 13-mm cage group; however, these parameters were comparable in the two groups postoperatively and at the final follow-up (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the postoperative and final follow-up degrees of DH, SA, and LL have improved in the 11-mm cage group more than the 13-mm cage group. The preoperative, postoperative, and final follow-up LL values in the 11-mm cage group were lower than in the 13-mm cage group(P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Cage height and positioning did not affect the clinical outcomes in the present study. Cages in anterior position showed better restoration in DH, SA and decreased the incidence of cage subsidence. A comparable radiographic outcome can be achieved by inserting an appropriate cage height based on preoperative radiography.

Complication rates following stand-alone lateral interbody fusion: a single institution series after 10 years of experience

PURPOSE

This retrospective single institution study's goal was to analyze and report the complications from stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIF).

METHODS

This research was approved by the institutional review board (STUDY2021000113). We retrospectively reviewed the database of patients with adult degenerative spine deformity treated via LLIF at our institution between January 2016 and December 2020.

RESULTS

Stand-alone LLIF was performed in 158 patients (145 XLIF, 13 OLIF; mean age 65 y.; 88 f., 70 m.). Mean surgical time was 85 min (± 24 min). Mean follow-up was 14 months (± 5 m). Surgical blood loss averaged 120 mL (± 187 mL) and the mean number of fused levels was 1.2 (± 0.4 levels). Overall complication rate was 19.6% (31 total; 23 approach-related, 8 secondary complications).

CONCLUSION

Lateral interbody fusion appears to be a safe surgical intervention with relatively low complication- and revision rates.

Rapidly destructive osteoarthritis of the spine: lessons learned from the first reported case

BACKGROUND

Rapidly Destructive Osteoarthritis (RDOA) has been described for the hip and shoulder joints and is characterized by a quickly developing bone edema followed by extensive remodeling and joint destruction. Confronted with a similarly evolving case of endplate edema and destruction of the disk space, we offer the first described case of spinal RDOA and illustrate the challenges it presented, along with the strategies we put in place to overcome them.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a case of spinal RDOA that, also due to the delay in the diagnoses, underwent multiple revisions for implant failure with consequent coronal and sagittal imbalance. A 37-years-old, otherwise healthy female presented with atraumatic low back pain: after initial conservative treatment, subsequent imaging showed rapidly progressive endplate erosion and a scoliotic deformity. After surgical treatment, the patient underwent numerous revisions for pseudoarthrosis, coronal and sagittal imbalance and junctional failure despite initially showing a correct alignement after each surgery. As a mechanic overload from insufficient correction of the alignement of the spine was ruled out, we believe that the multiple complications were caused by an impairment in the bone structure and thus, reviewing old imaging, diagnosed the patient with spinal RDOA. In case of spinal RDOA, particular care should be placed in the choice of extent and type of instrumentation in order to prevent re-intervention.

CONCLUSION

Spinal RDOA is characterized by a quickly developing edema of the vertebral endplates followed by a destruction of the disk space within months from the first diagnosis. The disease progresses in the involved segment and to the adjacent disks despite surgical therapy. The surgical planning should take the impaired bone structure account and the use of large interbody cages or 4-rod constructs should be considered to obtain a stable construct.

Postoperative spinal alignment comparison of lateral versus supine patient position L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

Over the past decade, alternative patient positions for the treatment of the anterior lumbar spine have been explored in an effort to maximize the benefits of direct anterior column access while minimizing the inefficiencies of single or multiple intraoperative patient repositionings. The lateral technique allows for access from L1 to L5 through a retroperitoneal, muscle-splitting, transpsoas approach with placement of a large intervertebral spacer than can reliably improve segmental lordosis, though its inability to be used at L5-S1 limits its overall adoption, as L5-S1 is one of the most common levels treated and where high levels of lordosis are optimal. Recent developments in instrumentation and techniques for lateral-position treatment of the L5-S1 level with a modified anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) approach have expanded the lateral position to L5-S1, though the positional effect on L5-S1 lordosis is heretofore unreported. The purpose of this study was to compare local and regional alignment differences between ALIFs performed with the patient in the lateral (L-ALIF) versus supine position (S-ALIF).

METHODS

Retrospective, multi-center data and radiographs were collected from 476 consecutive patients who underwent L5-S1 L-ALIF (n = 316) or S-ALIF (n = 160) for degenerative lumbar conditions. Patients treated at L4-5 and above with other single-position interbody fusion and posterior fixation techniques were included in the analysis. Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the groups, though L-ALIF patients were slightly older (58 vs. 54 years), with a greater preoperative mean L5-S1 disk height (7.8 vs. 5.8 mm), and with less preoperative slip (6.6 vs. 8.5 mm), respectively. 262 patients were treated with only L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 while the remaining 214 patients were treated with either L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 along with fusions at other thoracolumbar levels. Lumbar lordosis (LL), L5-S1 segmental lordosis, L5-S1 disk space height, and slip reduction in L5-S1 spondylolisthesis were measured on preoperative and postoperative lateral X-ray images. LL was only compared between single-level ALIFs, given the variability of other procedures performed at the levels above L5-S1.

RESULTS

Mean pre- to postoperative L5-S1 segmental lordosis improved 39% (6.6°) and 31% (4.9°) in the L-ALIF and S-ALIF groups, respectively (p = 0.063). Mean L5-S1 disk height increased by 6.5 mm (89%) in the L-ALIF and 6.4 mm (110%) in the S-ALIF cohorts, (p = 0.650). Spondylolisthesis, in those patients with a preoperative slip, average reduction in the L-ALIF group was 1.5 mm and 2.2 mm in the S-ALIF group (p = 0.175). In patients treated only at L5-S1 with ALIF, mean segmental alignment improved significantly more in the L-ALIF compared to the S-ALIF cohort (7.8 vs. 5.4°, p = 0.035), while lumbar lordosis increased 4.1° and 3.6° in the respective groups (p = 0.648).

CONCLUSION

Use of the lateral patient position for L5-S1 ALIF, compared to traditional supine L5-S1 ALIF, resulted in at least equivalent alignment and radiographic outcomes, with significantly greater improvement in segmental lordosis in patients treated only at L5-S1. These data, from the largest lateral ALIF dataset reported to date, suggest that-radiographically-the lateral patient position can be considered as an alternative to traditional ALIF positional techniques.