Need of vascular surgeon and comparison of value for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in lateral decubitus: Delphi consensus

An Update in Complication Rates Associated With Anterior Lumbar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with different anterior fusion techniques/approaches and adjuvant resources (i.e., computed tomography angiography (CTA), rhBMP-2, and access surgeons).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted from 1/1/2014-4/1/2024 for studies evaluating the incidence of complications associated with anterior lumbar procedures. Comparisons of complications were made between surgical approach, use of CTA, rhBMP-2, and access surgeons. Meta-analyses were conducted using a generalized linear mixed model.

RESULTS

54 studies were included in the final analysis with 8066 patients and an average follow-up of 31.2 months. The overall complication rate associated with anterior lumbar surgery was 13.1%, including an intraoperative complication rate of 3.8%, postoperative complication rate of 7.4%, infection rate of 1.5%, and reoperation rate of 1.7%. Forest plot analysis showed no significant difference in overall complication rates between open and mini-open techniques, although mini-open techniques were associated with lower overall reoperation rates. The use of CTA was associated with an increase in intraoperative and overall complications, and the use of an access surgeon was associated with a decreased risk of reoperation. The use of rhBMP-2 was not associated with overall complication risk.

CONCLUSIONS

While anterior lumbar surgery provides numerous benefits, surgeons and patients alike should be aware of the complication and safety profile prior to surgery. High quality studies are warranted to help elucidate the true benefit of certain techniques and adjuvant resources in reducing complications.

Single Position Lateral Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5/S1

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is an established surgical approach for spinal fusion, offering distinct advantages in restoring lumbar lordosis, indirectly decompressing neural elements, and facilitating high fusion rates because of the increase in the fusion surface area. Traditionally, ALIF is performed with the patient in a supine position, necessitating repositioning for additional posterior interventions, which increases operative time, anesthetic time, and complexity. The recent development of single position lateral ALIF (SPL-ALIF) enables anterior and posterior access without repositioning, enables gravity facilitated retroperitoneal access, and optimizes surgical efficiency, particularly in cases necessitating multilevel anterior column fusion. The current review comprehensively examines SPL-ALIF at the L5-S1 level, presenting technical considerations and comparative benefits over traditional techniques. The approach has demonstrated significant reductions in operative time, blood loss, and postoperative ileus, with equivalent radiographic outcomes compared with supine ALIF. Furthermore, SPL-ALIF has been evidenced to have a similar safety profile to supine ALIF with equivalent vascular, abdominal, and neurological complications, as well as comparable revision rates between the two procedures. However, SPL-ALIF is not without limitations. The technique may be less effective in cases requiring direct decompression or in patients with complex vascular anatomy or extensive retroperitoneal scarring. These challenges necessitate careful patient selection to optimize outcomes and minimize intraoperative risks. Future studies are warranted to validate the clinical benefits of SPL-ALIF, particularly concerning fusion rates, patient-reported outcomes, and complication profiles, thereby solidifying its role in the evolving landscape of minimally invasive spine surgery.

The anatomical feasibility of anterior intra- and extra-bifurcation approaches to L5-S1: an anatomic study based on lumbar MRI

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The anterior approach at L5-S1 has many advantages, however, vascular complications are challenging for spinal surgeons who may not be familiar with the variability of vascular anatomy. There are three different anterior approaches (intra-bifurcation approach and extra-bifurcation: left-, and right-sided prepsoas approaches) described in previous studies to respond to the variability of anterior vascular anatomy for reduction in vascular injury, while no guidance for the choice of approach preoperatively.

PURPOSE

To analyze the anatomical feasibility of three anterior approaches to access the L5-S1 disc space according to a practical framework.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from patients who visited our outpatient clinic were reviewed, with 150 cases meeting the inclusion criteria.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The following radiographic parameters were measured on axial T2-weighted MRI at the lower endplate of L5 and the upper endplate of S1: width of the vascular corridor, position of the left and right common iliac vein (CIV), and presence of perivascular adipose tissue (PAT). Moreover, we designed a safe line to evaluate the feasibility of left- and right-sided prepsoas approaches. Cases of lumbosacral transitional vertebrae were identified.

METHODS

The feasibility of the intra-bifurcation approach was determined by the width of the vascular corridor, presence of PAT, and the position of the CIV. The feasibility of the prepsoas approach was determined by the relative position of the CIV to the safe line, presence of PAT, and the intersection point of the CIV and vertebral body.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight percent, 64.7%, and 75.3% cases allowed the intra-bifurcation, left-, and right-sided prepsoas approach to L5-S1, respectively. The cases in this study had at least one of three anterior approaches to access L5-S1 disc space, and 74% of cases had more than one anatomical feasibility of anterior approach. The right-sided prepsoas approach was feasible in the majority of cases because of the vertical course of the right CIV with a significantly higher proportion of presence of PAT. Patients with lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (24 cases) may prefer the prepsoas approaches, and only six cases (25.0%) were determined to be feasible for the intra-bifurcation approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study proposes a practical framework to determine whether the three different anterior approaches are feasible access at L5-S1. According to the framework, all cases had the anatomical feasibility of using an anterior approach to access L5-S1, and three-fourths of cases had a replaceable anterior approach when encountering intraoperative difficulties.

Lateral approach to the lumbar spine: The utility of an access surgeon

Background

Lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIFs) utilize a retroperitoneal approach that avoids the intraperitoneal organs and manipulation of the anterior vasculature encountered in anterior approaches to the lumbar spine. The approach was championed by spinal surgeons; however, general/vasculature surgeons may be more comfortable with the approach.

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare short-term outcomes following LLIF procedures based on whether a spine surgeon or access surgeon performed the approach.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively identified all one- to two-level LLIFs at a tertiary care center from 2011 to 2021 for degenerative spine disease. Patients were divided into groups based on whether a spine surgeon or general surgeon performed the surgical approach. The electronic medical record was reviewed for hospital readmissions and complication rates.

Results

We identified 239 patients; of which 177 had approaches performed by spine surgeons and 62 by general surgeons. The spine surgeon group had fewer levels with posterior instrumentation (1.40 vs. 2.00; P < 0.001) and decompressed (0.94 vs. 1.25, P = 0.046); however, the two groups had a similar amount of two-level LLIFs (29.9% vs. 27.4%, P = 0.831). This spine surgeon approach group was found to have shorter surgeries (281 vs. 328 min, P = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays Length of Stay (LOS) (3.1 vs. 3.6 days, P = 0.019); however, these differences were largely attributed to the shorter posterior fusion construct. On regression analysis, there was no statistical difference in postoperative complication rates whether or not an access surgeon was utilized (P = 0.226).

Conclusion

Similar outcomes may be seen regardless of whether a spine or access surgeon performs the approach for an LLIF.