Anterior lumbar interbody fusions combined with posterior column osteotomy in patients who had sagittal imbalance associated with degenerative lumbar flat-back deformity: a retrospective case series

Fatty Infiltration in Paraspinal Muscles: Predicting the Outcome of Lumbar Surgery and Postoperative Complications

Lumbar spine disorders often cause lower back pain, lower limb radiating pain, restricted movement, and neurological dysfunction, which seriously affect the quality of life of middle-aged and older people. It has been found that pathological changes in the spine often cause changes in the morphology and function of the paraspinal muscles (PSMs). Fatty infiltration (FI) in PSMs is closely associated with disc degeneration and Modic changes. And FI causes inflammatory responses that exacerbate the progression of lumbar spine disease and disrupt postoperative recovery. Magnetic resonance imaging can better distinguish between fat and muscle tissue with the threshold technique. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging multi-echo imaging techniques such as water-fat separation and proton density are currently popular for studying FI. Muscle fat content obtained based on these imaging sequences has greater accuracy, visualization, acquisition speed, and utility. The proton density fat fraction calculated from these techniques has been shown to evaluate more subtle changes in PSMs. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy can accurately reflect the relationship between FI and the degeneration of PSMs by measuring intracellular and extracellular lipid values to quantify muscle fat. We have pooled and analyzed published studies and found that patients with spinal disorders often exhibit FI in PSMs. Some studies suggest an association between FI and adverse surgical outcomes, although conflicting results exist. These suggest that clinicians should consider FI when assessing surgical risks and outcomes. Future studies should focus on understanding the biological mechanisms underlying FI and its predictive value in spinal surgery, providing valuable insights for clinical decision-making.

OLIF versus ALIF: Which is the better surgical approach for degenerative lumbar disease? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes between OLIF and ALIF in treating lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for relevant studies. Changes in disc height (DH), segmental lordosis angle (SLA), lumbar lordosis (LL), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between baseline and final follow-up, along with other important surgical outcomes, were assessed and analysed. Data on the global fusion rate and main complications were collected and compared.

RESULTS

Approximately, 2041 patients from 36 studies were included, consisting of 1057 patients who underwent OLIF and 984 patients who underwent ALIF. The results reveal no significant difference in DH, SLA, VAS score, and ODI between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The operation time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay were also comparable between the two groups. Over 90% of the fusion rate was achieved in both groups. The OLIF group showed a higher complication rate than the ALIF group (OLIF 18.83% vs ALIF 7.32%).

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF leads to a higher complication rate, with the most notable complication being cage subsidence. Both OLIF and ALIF are effective treatments for degenerative lumbar diseases and have similar therapeutic effects. ALIF was expected to be more expensive for patients because of the necessity of involving vascular surgeons.

ALIF in the correction of spinal sagittal misalignment. A systematic review of literature

PURPOSE

We aim at analysing the impact of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in restoring the main spinopelvic parameters, along with its potentials and limitations in correcting sagittal imbalance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 2009 PRISMA flow chart was used to systematically review the literature; 27 papers were eventually selected. The following spinopelvic parameters were observed: pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lumbar lordosis (LLseg) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Papers reporting on hyperlordotic cages (HLC) were analysed separately. The indirect decompression potential of ALIF was also assessed. The clinical outcome was obtained by collecting visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Global fusion rate and main complications were collected.

RESULTS

PT, SS, LL, LLseg and SVA spinopelvic parameters all improved postoperatively by - 4.3 ± 5.2°, 3.9 ± 4.5°, 10.6 ± 12.5°, 6.7 ± 3.5° and 51.1 ± 44.8 mm, respectively. HLC were statistically more effective in restoring LL and LLseg (p < 0.05). Postoperative disc height, anterior disc height, posterior disc height and foraminal height, respectively, increased by 58.5%, 87.2%, 80.9% and 18.1%. Postoperative improvements were observed in VAS back and leg and ODI scores (p < 0.05). The global fusion rate was 94.5 ± 5.5%; the overall complication rate was 13%.

CONCLUSION

When managing sagittal imbalance, ALIF can be considered as a valid technique to achieve the correct spinopelvic parameters based on preoperative planning. This technique permits to obtain an optimal LL distribution and a solid anterior column support, with lower complications and higher fusion rates when compared to posterior osteotomies.