Two-year clinical and radiographic success of minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach for the treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions

Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Unilateral, Bilateral, and Lateral Pedicle Screw Implantation in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Study

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) can be combined with different screw instrumentations. The standard screw instrumentation is bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF). However, the operation is time consuming because a lateral recumbent position must be adopted for OLIF during surgery before a prone position is adopted for BPSF. This study aimed to employ a finite element analysis to investigate the biomechanical effects of OLIF combined with BPSF, unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF), or lateral pedicle screw fixation (LPSF). In this study, three lumbar vertebra finite element models for OLIF surgery with three different fixation methods were developed. The finite element models were assigned six loading conditions (flexion, extension, right lateral bending, left lateral bending, right axial rotation, and left axial rotation), and the total deformation and von Mises stress distribution of the finite element models were observed. The study results showed unremarkable differences in total deformation among different groups (the maximum difference range is approximately 0.6248% to 1.3227%), and that flexion has larger total deformation (5.3604 mm to 5.4011 mm). The groups exhibited different endplate stress because of different movements, but these differences were not large (the maximum difference range between each group is approximately 0.455% to 5.0102%). Using UPSF fixation may lead to higher cage stress (411.08 MPa); however, the stress produced on the endplate was comparable to that in the other two groups. Therefore, the length of surgery can be shortened when unilateral back screws are used for UPSF. In addition, the total deformation and endplate stress of UPSF did not differ much from that of BPSF. Hence, combining OLIF with UPSF can save time and enhance stability, which is comparable to a standard BPSF surgery; thus, this method can be considered by spine surgeons.

Unilateral Minimally Invasive Across-Midline Vertebral Column Resection Partially Corrects Thoracolumbar Kyphosis - A Case Series

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to describe the indirect and partial correction of spine kyphotic deformities (secondary to various pathologies) achieved by minimally invasive posterolateral extracavitary approach (MIS PLECA) for corpectomy.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed a consecutive case series of 12 patients undergoing MIS PLECA in a single institution. Perioperative data were collected and follow-up computed tomographies and radiographs were reviewed to assess for interbody arthrodesis.

RESULTS

The mean age was 60.7 ± 20.8 years (58.4% males). The etiologies of deformity included pathological fracture (41.6%), acute trauma (30%), and infection. An expandable cage was used in 66.7% of patients for anterior reconstruction. The mean total estimated blood loss was 764.1 ± 332.9 ml. The mean operative time was 413.3 ± 98.8 minutes. The average length of hospital stay was 5.8 ± 2.5 days. A consistent degree of focal correction of sagittal alignment was seen in all patients with a mean correction of sagittal angle of 7.4 ± 4.3° (P < 0.0001). The mean duration of rehabilitation was 8.5 ± 6.7 days. All patients remained neurologically stable at the last follow-up with a mean follow-up period of 20.1 ± 12.8 months. Successful fusion was achieved in 91.7% at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS PLECA for corpectomy appears to be a feasible, safe, and effective MIS technique for select patients, particularly those who cannot tolerate the traditional open approach. Additionally, a focal sagittal deformity correction can be achieved using MIS corpectomy.

Lumbar lateral interbody fusion: step-by-step surgical technique and clinical experience

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive surgical approach used to treat a variety of degenerative and deformity conditions of the lumbar spine such as advanced degenerative disease, degenerative scoliosis, foraminal and central stenosis. It has emerged as an alternative to the traditional posterior and anterior lumbar approaches with some potential benefits such as lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. In this article, we provide our single institutional surgical experience including main indications and contraindications, a step-by-step surgical technique description, a detailed preoperative imaging assessment with a focus on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) psoas anatomy, operative room (OR) setup and patient positioning. A descriptive surgical technical note of the following steps is provided: positioning and fluoroscopic confirmation, incision and intraoperative level confirmation, discectomy and endplate preparation, implant size selection and insertion and final fluoroscopic control, hemostasis check and wound closure along with an instructional surgical video with tips and pearls, postoperative patient care recommendations, common approach-related complications, along with our historical clinical institutional group experience. Finally, we summarize our research experience in this surgical approach with a focus on LLIF as a standalone procedure. Based on our experience, LLIF can be considered an effective surgical technique to treat degenerative lumbar spine conditions. Proper patient selection is mandatory to achieve good outcomes. Our institutional experience shows higher fusion rates with good clinical outcomes and a relatively low rate of complications.

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.

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.

Clinical outcomes, MRI evaluation and predictive factors of indirect decompression with lateral transpsoas approach for lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter experience

Introduction

Evaluating the effects of indirect decompression obtained through lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) by clinical improvements and radiological parameters on MRI scans. Identifying predictors of better decompression and clinical outcome.

Materials and methods

From 2016 to 2019, patients who underwent single- or double-level indirect decompression LLIF were consecutively reviewed. Radiological signs of indirect decompression were evaluated in preoperative and follow-up MRI studies and were subsequently correlated to clinical data, expressed as axial/radicular pain (VAS back/leg), index of disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and clinical severity of lumbar stenosis (Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire).

Results

72 patients were enrolled. The mean follow-up was 24 months. Differences in vertebral canal area (p &lt; 0.001), height of the foramina (p &lt; 0.001), thickness of the yellow ligament (p = 0.001) and anterior height of the interbody space (p = 0.02) were observed. Older age (p = 0.042), presence of spondylolisthesis (p = 0.042), presence of intra-articular facet effusion (p = 0.003) and posterior height of the implanted cage (p = 0.020) positively affected the increase of the canal area. Change in root canal area (p &lt; 0.001), height of the implanted cage (p = 0.020) and younger age (p = 0.035) were predictive factors of root pain relief, while increased vertebral canal area (p = 0.020) and height of the interbody fusion cage (p = 0.023) positively affected the severity of clinical stenosis.

Conclusions

LLIF indirect decompression showed both clinical and radiological improvements. Presence and degree of spondylolisthesis, presence of intra-articular facet effusion, age of the patient and height of the cage were predictive factors of major clinical improvements.

Biomechanical study of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) augmented with different types of instrumentation: a finite element analysis

Background

To explore the biomechanical differences in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) augmented by different types of instrumentation.

Methods

A three-dimensional nonlinear finite element (FE) model of an intact L3-S1 lumbar spine was built and validated. The intact model was modified to develop five OLIF surgery models (Stand-alone OLIF; OLIF with lateral plate fixation [OLIF + LPF]; OLIF with unilateral pedicle screws fixation [OLIF + UPSF]; OLIF with bilateral pedicle screws fixation [OLIF + BPSF]; OLIF with translaminar facet joint fixation + unilateral pedicle screws fixation [OLIF + TFJF + UPSF]) in which the surgical segment was L4–L5. Under a follower load of 500 N, a 7.5-Nm moment was applied to all lumbar spine models to calculate the range of motion (ROM), equivalent stress peak of fixation instruments (ESPFI), equivalent stress peak of cage (ESPC), equivalent stress peak of cortical endplate (ESPCE), and equivalent stress average value of cancellous bone (ESAVCB).

Results

Compared with the intact model, the ROM of the L4–L5 segment in each OLIF surgery model decreased by > 80%. The ROM values of adjacent segments were not significantly different. The ESPFI, ESPC, and ESPCE values of the OLIF + BPSF model were smaller than those of the other OLIF surgery models. The ESAVCB value of the normal lumbar model was less than the ESAVCB values of all OLIF surgical models. In most postures, the ESPFI, ESPCE, and ESAVCB values of the OLIF + LPF model were the largest. The ESPC was higher in the Stand-alone OLIF model than in the other OLIF models. The stresses of several important components of the OLIF + UPSF and OLIF + TFJF + UPSF models were between those of the OLIF + LPF and OLIF + BPSF models.

Conclusions

Our biomechanical FE analysis indicated the greater ability of OLIF + BPSF to retain lumbar stability, resist cage subsidence, and maintain disc height. Therefore, in the augmentation of OLIF, bilateral pedicle screws fixation may be the best approach.

Incidence of major and minor vascular injuries during lateral access lumbar interbody fusion procedures: a retrospective comparative study and systematic literature review

During lateral lumbar fusion, the trajectory of implant insertion approaches the great vessels anteriorly and the segmental arteries posteriorly, which carries the risk of vascular complications. We aimed to analyze vascular injuries for potential differences between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedures at our institution. This was coupled with a systematic literature review of vascular complications associated with lateral lumbar fusions. A retrospective chart review was completed to identify consecutive patients who underwent lateral access fusions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for the systematic review with the search terms "vascular injury" and "lateral lumbar surgery." Of 260 procedures performed at our institution, 211 (81.2%) patients underwent an LLIF and 49 (18.8%) underwent an OLIF. There were no major vascular complications in either group in this comparative study, but there were four (1.5%) minor vascular injuries (2 LLIF, 0.95%; 2 OLIF, 4.1%). Patients who experienced vascular injury experienced a greater amount of blood loss than those who did not (227.5 ± 147.28 vs. 59.32 ± 68.30 ml) (p = 0.11). In our systematic review of 63 articles, major vascular injury occurred in 0-15.4% and minor vascular injury occurred in 0-6% of lateral lumbar fusions. The systematic review and comparative study demonstrate an increased rate of vascular injury in OLIF when compared to LLIF. However, vascular injuries in either procedure are rare, and this study aids previous literature to support the safety of both approaches.

Development of a decision-making pathway for utilizing standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

To develop a decision-making pathway for primary SA-LLIF. Furthermore, we analyzed the agreement of this pathway and compared outcomes of patients undergoing either SA-LLIF or 360-LLIF.

METHOD

A decision-making pathway for SA-LLIF was created based on the results of interviews/surveys of senior spine surgeons with over 10 years of experience. Internal validity was retrospectively evaluated using consecutive patients undergoing either SA-LLIF or 360-LLIF between 01/2018 and 07/2020 with 3D-printed Titanium cages. An outcome assessment looking primarily at revision surgery and secondary at cage subsidence, changes in disk and foraminal height, global and segmental lumbar lordosis, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, and length of stay was carried out.

RESULTS

78 patients with 124 treated levels (37 SA-LLIF, 41 360-LLIF) were retrospectively analyzed. The pathway showed a direct agreement (SA-LLIF) of 100.0% and an indirect agreement (360-LLIF) of 95.1%. Clinical follow-up averaged 13.5 ± 6.5 months including 4 revision surgeries in the 360-LLIF group and none in the SA-LLIF group (p = 0.117). Radiographic follow-up averaged 9.5 ± 4.3 months, with no statistically significant difference in cage subsidence rate between the groups (p = 0.440). Compared to preoperative images, patients in both groups showed statistically significant changes in disk height (p < 0.001), foraminal height (p < 0.001), as well as restoration of segmental lordosis (p < 0.001 and p = 0.018). The SA-LLIF group showed shorter duration of surgery, less estimated blood loss and shorter LOS (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The proposed decision-making pathway provides a guide to adequately select patients for SA-LLIF. Further studies are needed to assess the external applicability and validity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Posterior fixation can further improve the segmental alignment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with oblique lumbar interbody fusion

Background

For patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, whether additional posterior fixation can further improve segmental alignment is unknown, compared with stand-alone cage insertion in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) procedure. The aim of this study was to compare changes of the radiographical segmental alignment following stand-alone cage insertion and additional posterior fixation in the same procedure setting of OLIF for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Methods

A retrospective observational study. Selected consecutive patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis underwent OLIF procedure from July 2017 to August 2019. Five radiographic parameters of disc height (DH), DH-Anterior, DH-Posterior, slip ratio and segmental lordosis (SL) were measured on preoperative CT scans and intraoperative fluoroscopic images. Comparisons of those radiographic parameters prior to cage insertion, following cage insertion and following posterior fixation were performed.

Results

A total of thirty-three patients including six males and twenty-seven females, with an average age of 66.9 ± 8.7 years, were reviewed. Totally thirty-six slipped levels were assessed with thirty levels at L4/5, four at L3/4 and two at L2/3. Intraoperatively, with only anterior cage support, DH was increased from 8.2 ± 1.6 mm to 11.8 ± 1.7 mm (p < 0.001), DH-Anterior was increased from 9.6 ± 2.3 mm to 13.4 ± 2.1 mm (p < 0.001), DH-Posterior was increased from 6.1 ± 1.9 mm to 9.1 ± 2.1 mm (p < 0.001), the slip ratio was reduced from 11.1 ± 4.6% to 8.3 ± 4.4% (p = 0.020) with the slip reduction ratio 25.6 ± 32.3%, and SL was slightly changed from 8.7 ± 3.7° to 8.3 ± 3.0°(p = 1.000). Following posterior fixation, the DH was unchanged (from 11.8 ± 1.7 mm to 11.8 ± 2.3 mm, p = 1.000), DH-Anterior and DH-Posterior were slightly changed from 13.4 ± 2.1 mm and 9.1 ± 2.1 mm to 13.7 ± 2.3 mm and 8.4 ± 1.8 mm respectively (P = 0.861, P = 0.254), the slip ratio was reduced from 8.3 ± 4.4% to 2.1 ± 3.6% (p < 0.001) with the slip reduction ratio 57.9 ± 43.9%, and the SL was increased from 8.3 ± 3.0° to 10.7 ± 3.6° (p = 0.008).

Conclusions

Compared with stand-alone cage insertion, additional posterior fixation provides better segmental alignment improvement in terms of slip reduction and segmental lordosis in OLIF procedures in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Fusion rate for stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is used to treat multiple conditions, including spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disorders, adjacent segment disease, and degenerative scoliosis. Although many advocate for posterior fixation with LLIF, stand-alone LLIF is increasingly being performed. Yet the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF is unknown.

PURPOSE

Determine the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We queried Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for literature on stand-alone LLIF fusion rate with a publication cutoff of April 2020. LLIF surgery was considered stand-alone when not paired with supplemental posterior fixation. Cohort fusion rate differences were calculated and tested for significance (p<0.05). All reported means were pooled.

RESULTS

A total of 2,735 publications were assessed. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria, including 736 patients and 1,103 vertebral levels. Mean age was 61.7 years with BMI 26.5 kg/m². Mean fusion rate was 85.6% (range, 53.0%-100.0%), which did not differ significantly by number of levels fused (1-level, 2-level, and ≥3-level). Use of rhBMP-2 was reported in 39.3% of subjects, with no difference in fusion rates between studies using rhBMP-2 (87.7%) and those in which rhBMP-2 was not used (83.9%, odds ratio=1.37, p=0.448). Fusion rate did not differ with the addition of a lateral plate, or by underlying diagnosis. All-complication rate was 42.2% and mean reoperation rate was 11.1%, with 2.3% reoperation due to pseudarthrosis. Of the studies comparing stand-alone to circumferential fusion, pooled fusion rate was found to be 80.4% versus 91.0% (p=0.637).

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone LLIF yields high fusion rates overall. The wide range of reported fusion rates and lower fusion rates in studies involving subsequent surgical reoperation highlights the importance of proper training in this technique and employing a rigorous algorithm when indicating patients for stand-alone LLIF. Future research should focus on examining risk factors and patient-reported outcomes in stand-alone LLIF.

Impact of Surgical Approaches on Complications, Emergency Room Admissions, and Health Care Utilization in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Fusions for Degenerative Disc Diseases: A MarketScan Database Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify the impact of different surgical approaches for lumbar degenerative disc disease (DDD) on complications, reoperations/readmissions, and health care utilization.

METHODS

We used International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes to extract data from MarketScan. Patients were divided into 6 groups: single-level anterior only (sA), single-level anterior + posterior (sAP), single-level posterior (sP), multilevel anterior (mA), multilevel anterior + posterior (mAP), and multilevel posterior only (mP). Outcomes of interest were cumulative complication rates, reoperation rates, readmission, and health care utilization at 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

Of 148,499 patients, 3% had sA fusion and 54% had mP procedures. Patients in the mAP cohort incurred higher cumulative complication rates (21%) compared with sA (13%), sAP (15%), sP (14%), mA (18%), and mP (18%). Emergency room admissions within 30 days were highest in the mA cohort (14%) followed by mAP (11%) and mP (8%). At 12 and 24 months, patients with mA procedures were most likely to have either new fusion or refusion (8% and 12%) followed by sA (7% and 10%), sAP (4% and 7%), mAP (4% and 8%) mP (4% and 7%), and sP (3% and 7%). Compared with the mP cohort, patients in the mA cohort incurred 1.2 times the overall median payments, whereas mAP and sA incurred 1.1 times the payments at 12 months. This difference was further reduced at 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

mAP procedures are associated with higher cumulative complications and health care utilization compared with other procedures and the difference in health care utilization tends to decrease over 12 and 24 months.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Review of Surgical Technique and Postoperative Multimodality Imaging Findings

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) approach is a minimally invasive surgery that can be used as an alternative to traditional lumbar interbody fusion techniques. LLIF accesses the intervertebral disk through the retroperitoneum and psoas muscle to avoid major vessels and visceral organs. The exposure of retroperitoneal structures during LLIF leads to unique complications compared with other surgical approaches. An understanding of the surgical technique and its associated potential complications is necessary for radiologists who interpret imaging before and after LLIF. Preoperative imaging must carefully assess the location of anatomic structures, including major retroperitoneal vasculature, lumbar nerve roots, lumbosacral plexus, and the genitofemoral nerve, relative to the psoas muscle. Multiple imaging modalities can be used in postoperative assessment including radiographs, CT, CT myelography, and MRI. Of these, CT is the preferred modality, because it can assess a range of complications relating to both the retroperitoneal exposure and the spinal instrumentation, as well as bone integrity and fusion status. This article describes surgical approaches for lumbar interbody fusion, comparing the approaches' indications, contraindications, advantages, and disadvantages; reviews the surgical technique of LLIF and relevant anatomic considerations; and illustrates for interpreting radiologists the normal postoperative findings and potential postsurgical complications of LLIF.

Comparison of extreme lateral approach with posterior approach in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A meta-analysis of clinical and imaging findings

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical and imaging findings between extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) and posterior fusion (PF) via meta-analysis for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

English papers reporting clinical and imaging findings for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases with XLIF and PF published electronically in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from January 2006 to August 2019 were retrieved. Two authors independently extracted data and evaluated the quality of the included literature. Meta-analysis of outcome measures was performed using Stata 14 and RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 744 patients from nine studies, two of which were prospective studies, while the others were retrospective studies. The quality of each study was determined to be high. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences in the operative time, length of hospital stay, clinical effectiveness, and improvement in postoperative global sagittal alignment between two approaches (P > 0.05). However, XLIF was significantly better than PF in reducing intraoperative blood loss and recovery of local sagittal alignment (P < 0.05). Moreover, the high incidence of postoperative complications were detected in XLIF group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both surgical approaches have equally promising clinical effectiveness for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Although XLIF can reduce intraoperative blood loss and obtain better postoperative local sagittal alignment than PF, the high incidence of postoperative complications should prompt us to consider why XLIF procedure is still being offered to our patients and how we can reduce these complications. In addition, any conclusions should be taken with caution because of the mix of prospective and retrospective studies, and the high heterogeneity and bias.

C-Arm-Free Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity: Technical Note

BACKGROUND

Circumferential minimally invasive surgery (cMIS), as a technique for reducing the complications of adult spinal deformity surgery, is receiving considerable attention. Conventional cMIS is performed using intraoperative fluoroscopy. In this work, we describe a new cMIS technique without using C-arm fluoroscopy for correcting adult spinal deformities.

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 70-year-old woman with symptomatic adult spinal deformity was referred to our hospital. The patient's daily life has been affected by severe low back pain for more than 4 years. The surgery was performed without C-arm fluoroscopy. The percutaneous pedicle screws and intervertebral cages were inserted only under navigation guidance. The patient was successfully treated with surgery, and her low back pain was well controlled. Her clinical outcomes were as follows: Oswestry Disability Index improved from 64% to 14% and the low back pain visual analog scale score improved from 75 mm to 24 mm at 1 year of final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

C-arm-free cMIS for adult spinal deformity is a useful technique that reduces percutaneous screw and cage misplacement. With this new technique, the surgeons and the operation room staff can avoid the risk of an adverse event of intraoperative radiation.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: What Is the Evidence of Indirect Neural Decompression? A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has gained in popularity. A proposed advantage is the achievement of indirect neural decompression. However, evidence of the effectiveness of LLIF in neural decompression in lumbar degenerative conditions remains unclear.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We sought to extrapolate clinical and radiological results and consequently the potential benefits and limitations of LLIF in indirect neural decompression in degenerative lumbar diseases.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature in English using the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist. Scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain were extracted, as were data on the following radiological measurements: disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal area (FA), central canal area (CA).

RESULTS

In the 42 articles included, data on 2445 patients (3779 levels treated) with a mean follow-up of 14.8 ± 5.9 months were analyzed. Mean improvements in VAS back, VAS leg, and ODI scale scores were 4.1 ± 2.5, 3.9 ± 2.2, and 21.9 ± 7.2, respectively. Post-operative DH, FH, FA, and CA measurements increased by 68.6%, 21.9%, 37.7%, and 29.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Clinical results indicate LLIF as an efficient technique in indirect neural decompression. Analysis of radiological data demonstrates the effectiveness of symmetrical foraminal decompression. Data regarding indirect decompression of central canal and lateral recess are inconclusive and contradictory. Bony stenosis appears as an absolute contraindication. The role of facet joint degeneration is unclear. This systematic review provides a reference for surgeons to define the potential and limitations of LLIF in indirect neural elements decompression.

Fusion rate and influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody arthrodesis for degenerative spine diseases: a meta-analysis and systematic review

The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to summarize and critically analyze the influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spine diseases. A systematic review of the literature was carried out with a primary search being performed on Medline through PubMed. The 2009 PRISMA flowchart and checklist were taken into account. Sixty-seven articles were included in the analysis: 48 studies were level IV of evidence, whereas 19 were level III. All interbody fusion techniques analyzed have proved to reach a good fusion rate. An overall mean fusion rate of 93% (95% CI 92-95%, p < 0.001) was estimated pooling the selected studies. The influence of sagittal parameters and cages features in fusion rate was not clear. Autograft is considered the gold standard material. The use of synthetic bone substitutes and biological factors alone or combined with bone graft have shown conflicting results. Low level of evidence studies and high heterogeneity (χ² = 271.4, df = 72, p < 0.001; I² = 73.5%, τ² = 0.05) in data analysis could result in the risk of bias. Further high-quality studies would better clarify these results in the future.

Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis

Background

In the current surgical therapeutic regimen for the degenerative lumbar disease, both oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are gradually accepted. Thus, the objective of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease.

Methods

We conducted an exhaustive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to find the relevant studies about OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease. Random-effects model was performed to pool the outcomes about disc height (DH), fusion, operative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stays, complications, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI).

Results

56 studies were included in this study. The two groups of patients had similar changes in terms of DH, operative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay and the fusion rate (over 90%). The OLIF group showed slightly better VAS and ODI scores improvement. The incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF was 26.7 and 27.8% respectively. Higher rates of nerve injury and psoas weakness (21.2%) were reported for LLIF, while higher rates of cage subsidence (5.1%), endplate damage (5.2%) and vascular injury (1.7%) were reported for OLIF.

Conclusions

The two groups are similar in terms of radiographic outcomes, operative blood loss, operative time and the length of hospital stay. The OLIF group shows advantages in VAS and ODI scores improvement. Though the incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF is similar, the incidence of main complications is significantly different.

Efficacy and radiographic analysis of oblique lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Background

To compare the clinical efficacy and radiographic analysis of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and traditional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

Methods

Grade I DLS patients admitted to the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University were retrospectively reviewed. In sum, 78 patients that underwent OLIF (n = 31) and PLIF (n = 47) treatment of DLS were recruited. Clinical data including clinical and radiological evaluations were collected pre-operatively and at each follow-up. Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), lumbar lordosis (LL), disc height (DH), and fusion rates were compared between the OLIF and PLIF groups.

Results

The operation time for both groups was 131.3 ± 14.6 min in the OLIF group and 156.9 ± 37.4 min in the PLIF group (P < 0.001). The intraoperative blood loss was 163.6 ± 63.9 ml in the OLIF group and 496.8 ± 122.6 ml in the PLIF group (P < 0.001). The length of the surgical incision was 4.63 ± 0.57 cm in the OLIF group and 11.83 ± 1.37 cm in the PLIF group (P < 0.001). The number of intraoperative and post-operative complications for both groups was 10 in the OLIF group and 20 in the PLIF group. Significant clinical improvement (P < 0.05) was observed in JOA scores and ODI when comparing pre-operative evaluation and final follow-up. After statistical analysis, there was no significant difference in the preoperative JOA scores between the two groups. There was no significant difference when comparing pre-operative LL and DH for either group. Post-operative reexamination was improved as compared to pre-operative exams. And the improvement of DH was better in the OLIF group as compared to the PLIF group.

Conclusions

For DLS patients, both OLIF and PLIF can achieve good results. Furthermore, OLIF displays marked advantages including smaller surgical incisions, shorter anesthesia times, decreased intraoperative blood loss, and post-operative pain better relieved.

The impact of adding posterior instrumentation to transpsoas lateral fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVETranspsoas lateral interbody fusion is one of the lateral minimally invasive approaches for lumbar spine surgery. Most surgeons insert the interbody cage laterally and then insert pedicle or cortical screw and rod instrumentation posteriorly. However, standalone cages have also been used to avoid posterior instrumentation. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the literature on comparison of the two approaches is sparse.METHODSThe authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature on transpsoas lateral interbody fusion by an electronic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases using PRISMA guidelines. They compared patients undergoing transpsoas standalone fusion (TP) with those undergoing transpsoas fusion with posterior instrumentation (TPP).RESULTSA total of 28 studies with 1462 patients were included. Three hundred and seventy-four patients underwent TPP, and 956 patients underwent TP. The mean patient age ranged from 45.7 to 68 years in the TP group, and 50 to 67.7 years in the TPP group. The incidence of reoperation was found to be higher for TP (0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.11) compared to TPP (0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06; p = 0.057). Similarly, the incidence of cage movement was found to be greater in TP (0.18, 95% CI 0.10-0.26) compared to TPP (0.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.05; p < 0.001). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores and postoperative transient deficits were found to be comparable between the two groups.CONCLUSIONSThese results appear to suggest that addition of posterior instrumentation to transpsoas fusion is associated with decreased reoperations and cage movements. The results of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be reevaluated in light of these results, which seem to suggest that higher reoperation and subsidence rates may be due to the use of the standalone technique.

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Multilevel Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospective data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe the clinical, radiographic, and complication-related outcomes through ≥1-year of 27 patients who underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior instrumentation to treat ≥3 contiguous levels of degenerative lumbar scoliosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Multilevel disease has traditionally been treated with open posterior fusion. Literature on multilevel LLIF is limited. We present our experience with utilizing LLIF to treat multilevel degenerative scoliosis.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes were evaluated using VAS, SF-12, and ODI. Radiographic outcomes included pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch, Cobb angle, and cage subsidence. Perioperative and long-term complications through the ≥1-year final-postoperative visit were reviewed; transient neurological disturbances were assessed independently. Demographic, comorbidity, operative, and recovery variables, including opioid use, were explored for association with primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Mean time to final-postoperative visit was 22.5 months; levels treated with LLIF per patient, 3.7; age, 66 years; and lateral operative time, 203 minutes. EBL was ≤100 mL in 74% of cases. Clinical outcomes remained significantly improved at ≥1-year. Cobb angle was corrected from 21.1 to 7.9 degrees (P<0.001), lordosis from 47.3 to 52.6 degrees (P<0.001), and mismatch from 11.4 to 6.4 degrees (P=0.003). High-grade subsidence occurred in 3 patients. Subsidence did not significantly impact primary outcomes. In total, 11.1% returned to the operating room for complication-related intervention over nearly 2-years; 37% experienced complications. Experiencing a complication was associated with having an open-posterior portion (P=0.048), but not with number of LLIF levels treated, or with clinical or radiographic outcomes. No patients experienced protracted neurological deficits; psoas weakness was associated with increased lateral operative time (P=0.049) and decreased surgeon experience (P=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent multilevel LLIF with adjunctive posterior surgery had significant clinical and radiographic improvements. Complication rates were similar compared to literature on single-level LLIF. LLIF is a viable treatment for multilevel degenerative scoliosis.

Outcome After Extreme Lateral Transpsoas Approach: Corpectomies Versus Interbody Fusion

INTRODUCTION

The lateral transpsoas approach (LTPA) has gained popularity in thoracolumbar spine surgery procedures; however, there is an insufficient amount of data pertaining to motor and sensory complications that arise when a corpectomy is performed through the LTPA approach.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a corpectomy through a LTPA at a single institution between 2006 and 2016 were analyzed. Demographics, neurological outcomes, and complications were recorded. The minimum follow-up was 6 months. Univariate analysis was performed to compare demographics, surgical characteristics, complications, and outcome scores. To compare categorical variables, the χ² test was used. For continuous outcomes, simple linear regression was used. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients were included. The patients were divided into 2 groups; LTPA without corpectomy (n = 112) versus LTPA with corpectomy (n = 54). Patients without corpectomy showed a significantly lower rate of postoperative infections compared with patients with corpectomy (3.6% vs. 22.2%; P < 0.000). A higher percentage of postoperative complications was found in patients with corpectomy (31.5% vs. 13.4%; P = 0.006). The rate of neurologic complications at the 6-month follow-up and the reoperation rate (22.7% vs. 32.4%; P = 0.256) were higher in the corpectomy group (8.9% vs. 7.4%; P = 0.741), no significant difference was found between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent an LTPA corpectomy have a higher risk to suffer from postoperative complications. The results at the 6-month follow-up did not significantly differ between the groups.

L5-S1 SURVIVAL AFTER INTERBODY FUSION BY LATERAL APPROACH UNTIL L5 IN DEGENERATIVE DISEASE

ABSTRACT Objectives: Whether or not to include L5-S1 in multiple level lumbar fusions is not yet a consensus in the literature. The option to preserve L5-S1 maintains the mobile segment and the possibility of a natural fit to the sagittal alignment of the lumbar spine. However, a long fusion above L5-S1 may accelerate the degenerative process and an extension to the sacrum may be necessary in the future. In this study, we evaluated the survival of the L5-S1 level after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) of 3-4 levels up to L5 and attempted to identify risk factors that could guide the selection of cases. Methods: Retrospective study in a single center. Inclusion: Patients that submitted to interbody fusion (LLIF) from 3-4 levels to L5 due to degenerative spine disease with at least 5 years of follow-up. Exclusion: L5 sacralization or L5-S1 disc ankylosis. We evaluated the reoperation rate including L5-S1 disc. We reviewed the preoperative images regarding coronal Cobb angle, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence; distal fractional curve; radiographic classification of DDD (modified by Weiner and Pfirrmann), as well as demographics parameters. These parameters were compared between the case group (reoperated) and the control group. Results: Forty-seven patients were included achieving a success rate of inclusion of 81%; the mean age was 69.1 years, 83% were women, and the mean of operated levels was 3.2. The survival rate of L5-S1 level was 89.6% at 5-year follow-up. No differences were found between the groups regarding the parameter evaluated. Conclusions: The L5-S1 survival rate was 896% after LLIF of 3-4 levels up to L5 at 5-year follow-up. Statistically no risk factors were found to warrant preoperative inclusion of L5-S1. Level of Evidence III; Retrospective Study.

Decreased estimated blood loss in lateral trans-psoas versus anterior approach to lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis

Background

The goal of the current study was to compare the perioperative and post-operative outcomes of eXtreme lateral trans-psoas approach (XLIF) versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for single level degenerative spondylolisthesis. The ideal approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis remains controversial.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing single level XLIF (n=21) or ALIF (n=54) for L4-5 degenerative spondylolisthesis between 2008-2012 from a single academic center were retrospectively reviewed. Groups were compared for peri-operative data (estimated blood loss, operative time, adjunct procedures or additional implants), radiographic measurements (L1-S1 cobb angle, disc height, fusion grade, subsidence), 30-day complications (infection, DVT/PE, weakness/paresthesia, etc.), and patient reported outcomes (leg and back Numerical Rating Scale, and Oswestry Disability Index).

Results

Estimated blood loss was significantly lower for XLIF [median 100; interquartile range (IQR), 50-100 mL] than for ALIF (median 250; IQR, 150-400 mL; P<0.001), including after adjusting for significantly higher rates of posterior decompression in the ALIF group. There were no significant differences in rates of complications within 30 days, radiographic outcomes, or in re-operation rates. Both groups experienced significant pain relief post-operatively.

Conclusions

The lateral trans-psoas approach is associated with diminished blood loss compared to the anterior approach in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. We were unable to detect differences in radiographic outcomes, complication rates, or patient reported outcomes. Continued efforts to directly compare approaches for specific indications will minimize complications and improve outcomes. Further studies will continue to define indications for lateral versus anterior approach to lumbar spine for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Complications for minimally invasive lateral interbody arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing prepsoas and transpsoas approaches

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive anterolateral retroperitoneal approaches for lumbar interbody arthrodesis have distinct advantages attractive to spine surgeons. Prepsoas or transpsoas trajectories can be employed with differing complication profiles because of the inherent anatomical differences encountered in each approach. The evidence comparing them remains limited because of poor quality data. Here, the authors sought to systematically review the available literature and perform a meta-analysis comparing the two techniques.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A database search was used to identify eligible studies. Prepsoas and transpsoas studies were compiled, and each study was assessed for inclusion criteria. Complication rates were recorded and compared between approach groups. Studies incorporating an analysis of postoperative subsidence and pseudarthrosis rates were also assessed and compared.

RESULTS

For the prepsoas studies, 20 studies for the complications analysis and 8 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the transpsoas studies, 39 studies for the complications analysis and 19 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the complications analysis, 1874 patients treated via the prepsoas approach and 4607 treated with the transpsoas approach were included. In the transpsoas group, there was a higher rate of transient sensory symptoms (21.7% vs 8.7%, p = 0.002), transient hip flexor weakness (19.7% vs 5.7%, p < 0.001), and permanent neurological weakness (2.8% vs 1.0%, p = 0.005). A higher rate of sympathetic nerve injury was seen in the prepsoas group (5.4% vs 0.0%, p = 0.03). Of the nonneurological complications, major vascular injury was significantly higher in the prepsoas approach (1.8% vs 0.4%, p = 0.01). There was no difference in urological or peritoneal/bowel injury, postoperative ileus, or hematomas (all p > 0.05). A higher infection rate was noted for the transpsoas group (3.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.01). With regard to postoperative fusion outcomes, similar rates of subsidence (12.2% prepsoas vs 13.8% transpsoas, p = 0.78) and pseudarthrosis (9.9% vs 7.5%, respectively, p = 0.57) were seen between the groups at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates vary for the prepsoas and transpsoas approaches owing to the variable retroperitoneal anatomy encountered during surgical dissection. While the risks of a lasting motor deficit and transient sensory disturbances are higher for the transpsoas approach, there is a reciprocal reduction in the risks of major vascular injury and sympathetic nerve injury. These results can facilitate informed decision-making and tailored surgical planning regarding the choice of minimally invasive anterolateral access to the spine.

Morphometric MRI Imaging Study of the Corridor for the Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Technique at L1-L5

BACKGROUND

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion are associated with approach-related disadvantages. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is the proposed solution, especially for upper lumbar levels. We analyzed the size and regional anatomy of the corridor used in the OLIF technique between levels L1 and L5.

METHODS

This is a morphometric study of 200 randomly selected magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies with features of lumbar degenerative disease. On MRI, the oblique corridor was defined as the smallest distance between the psoas major muscle and aorta or inferior vena cava (or common iliac artery) and measured at the L1/L2, L2/L3, L3/L4, and L4/L5 disc levels on both the left and right on the axial images at the mid-disc level.

RESULTS

Mean distances of the oblique corridor on the left side were L1/L2 = 18.90 mm, L2/L3 = 15.50 mm; L3/L4 = 12.75 mm, and L4/L5 = 8.92 mm; on the right side, they were L1/L2 = 14.80 mm, L2/L3 = 5.50 mm, L3/L4 = 3.00 mm, and L4/L5 = 1.46 mm. For both sides, the corridor size was not significantly affected by sex, and it increased with age and decreased at the inferior lumbar disc levels. The L1/L2 and L2/L3 levels may be obstructed by the ipsilateral kidney and renal vasculature on both sides and the liver on the right side.

CONCLUSIONS

A left-sided OLIF approach is viable for both sexes. Oblique access to the L1/L2 and L2/L3 disc levels is feasible regardless of age, whereas the L3/L4 and L4/L5 levels may be more suitable in older patients, especially for male patients. The right-sided approach is less likely to be performed effectively.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of complication rates

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a frequently used technique for the treatment of lumbar pathology. Despite its overall success, LLIF has been associated with a unique set of complications. However, there has been inconsistent evidence regarding the complication rate of this approach.

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review analyzing the rates of medical and surgical complications associated with LLIF.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

6,819 patients who underwent LLIF reported in clinical studies through June 2016.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency of complications within cardiac, vascular, pulmonary, urologic, gastrointestinal, transient neurologic, persistent neurologic, and spine (MSK) categories.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies that identified rates of any complication following LLIF procedures were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. Articles were excluded if they did not report complications, presented mixed complication data from other procedures, or were characterized as single case reports, reviews, or case series containing less than 10 patients. The primary outcome was frequency of complications within cardiac, vascular, pulmonary, urologic, gastrointestinal, transient neurologic, persistent neurologic, and MSK categories. All rates of complications were based on the sample sizes of studies that mentioned the respective complications. The authors report no conflicts of interest directly or indirectly related to this work, and have not received any funds in support of this work.

RESULTS

A total of 2,232 articles were identified. Following screening of title, abstract, and full-text availability, 63 articles were included in the review. A total of 6,819 patients had 11,325 levels fused. The rate of complications for the categories included were as follows: wound (1.38%; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.00%-1.85%), cardiac (1.86%; CI=1.33%-2.52%), vascular (0.81%; CI=0.44%-1.36%), pulmonary (1.47; CI=0.95%-2.16%), gastrointestinal (1.38%; CI=1.00%-1.87%), urologic (0.93%; CI=0.55%-1.47%), transient neurologic (36.07%; CI=34.74%-37.41%), persistent neurologic (3.98%; CI=3.42%-4.60%), and MSK or spine (9.22%; CI=8.28%-10.23%).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study is the first to comprehensively analyze the complication profile for LLIFs. The most significant reported complications were transient neurologic in nature. However, persistent neurologic complications occurred at a much lower rate, bringing into question the significance of transient symptoms beyond the immediate postoperative period. Through this analysis of complication profiles, surgeons can better understand the risks to and expectations for patients following LLIF procedures.

Biomechanical comparison of multilevel lateral interbody fusion with and without supplementary instrumentation: a three-dimensional finite element study

Background

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a popular, minimally invasive technique that is used to address challenging multilevel degenerative spinal diseases. It remains controversial whether supplemental instrumentation should be added for multilevel LLIF. In this study, we compared the kinematic stability afforded by stand-alone lateral cages with those supplemented by bilateral pedicle screws and rods (PSR), unilateral PSR, or lateral plate (LP) fixation using a finite-element (FE) model of a multi-level LLIF construct with simulated osteoporosis. Additionally, to evaluate the prospect of cage subsidence, the stress change characteristics were surveyed at cage-endplate interfaces.

Methods

A nonlinear 3-dimensional FE model of the lumbar spine (L2 to sacrum) was used. After validation, four patterns of instrumented 3-level LLIF (L2-L5) were constructed for this analysis: (a) 3 stand-alone lateral cages (SLC), (b) 3 lateral cages with lateral plate and two screws (parallel to endplate) fixated separately (LPC), (c) 3 lateral cages with bilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation (LC + BPSR), and (d) 3 lateral cages with unilateral pedicle and rod fixation (LC + UPSR). The segmental and overall range of motion (ROM) of each implanted condition were investigated and compared with the intact model. The peak von Mises stresses upon each (superior) endplate and the stress distribution were used for analysis.

Results

BPSR provided the maximum reduction of ROM among the configurations at every plane of motion (66.7–90.9% of intact spine). UPSR also provided significant segmental ROM reduction (45.0–88.3%). SLC provided a minimal restriction of ROM (10.0–75.1%), and LPC was found to be less stable than both posterior fixation (23.9–86.2%) constructs. The construct with stand-alone lateral cages generated greater endplate stresses than did any of the other multilevel LLIF models. For the L3, L4 and L5 endplates, peak endplate stresses caused by the SLC construct exceeded the BPSR group by 52.7, 63.8, and 54.2% in flexion, 22.3, 40.1, and 31.4% in extension, 170.2, 175.1, and 134.0% in lateral bending, and 90.7, 45.5, and 30.0% in axial rotation, respectively. The stresses tended to be more concentrated at the periphery of the endplates.

Conclusions

SLC and LPC provided inadequate ROM restriction for the multilevel LLIF constructs, whereas lateral cages with BPSR or UPSR fixation provided favorable biomechanical stability. Moreover, SLC generated significantly higher endplate stress compared with supplemental instrumentation, which may have increased the risk of cage subsidence. Further biomechanical and clinical studies are required to validate our FEA findings.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1387-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The surgical procedures used for arthrodesis in the lumbar spine for degenerative lumbar diseases remain controversial. This systematic review aims to assess and compare clinical outcomes along with the complications and fusion of each technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) or minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF)) for treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to July 19, 2016 that reported Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), back and leg pain visual analog score (VAS), postoperative complications, and fusion of either technique. Fifty-eight studies were included for the analysis of MIS-TLIF; 40 studies were included for analysis of LLIF, and 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was included for comparison of MIS-TLIF to LLIF. Overall, there were 9506 patients (5728 in the MIS-TLIF group and 3778 in the LLIF group). Indirect meta-analysis, MIS-TLIF provided better postoperative back and leg pain (VAS), disabilities (ODI), and risk of having complications when compared to LLIF technique, but the fusion rate was not significantly different between the two techniques. However, direct meta-analysis between RCT study and pooled indirect meta-analysis of MIS-TLIF have better pain, disabilities, and complication but no statistically significant difference when compared to LLIF. In LLIF, the pooled mean ODI and VAS back pain were 2.91 (95% CI 2.49, 3.33) and 23.24 (95% CI 18.96, 27.51) in MIS approach whereas 3.14 (95% CI 2.29, 4.04) and 28.29 (95% CI 21.92, 34.67) in traditional approach. In terms of complications and fusion rate, there was no difference in both groups. In lumbar interbody fusion, MIS-TLIF had better ODI, VAS pain, and complication rate when compared to LLIF with direct and indirect meta-analysis methods. However, in terms of fusion rates, there were no differences between the two techniques.

Extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Surgical technique, outcomes and complications after a minimum of one year follow-up

«Minimally invasive» techniques have been recently been developed in order to achieve good clinical results with a low incidence of complications. The extralateral interbody fusion or direct transpsoas is a minimally invasive anterior arthrodesis. A total of 97 patients with 138 segments received surgery between May 2012 and May 2015. The follow-up was from 12-44 months. The mean age was 68 years (41-86). The most common cause of intervention was the adjacent segment (30%), deformity (22%), and lumbar disc disease (21%). The interbody cage was implanted as: Single (stand-alone) in 33%, and additional fixation was used in the others: Screws, percutaneous unilateral (11%), bilateral (27%), or with a lateral plate (62%). The mean stay was 3.2 days (2-6). The score on a lumbar visual analogue scale decreased from 9 to 4.1, and dropped to 3 after one year. The improvement in disc height was from 8.4mm to 13.8mm, and a larger increase in the foramen diameter from 10.5 to 13.1mm, which were statistically significant. The early major complications recorded were, three motor femoral nerve injuries and retroperitoneal haematoma (4%), and the early minor were: two fractures (2%). As major late complications there was an abdominal hernia, a mobilization of 10mm and three radiculopathy (5%), and as minor late, three fracture, two mobilisations greater than 10mm, four mobilisations of less than 10mm, and one mobilisation of a screw plate (10%). The extralateral interbody fusion technique is a safe and reliable when performing a lumbar fusion by an alternative minimally invasive route.

Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Aspects, Operative Outcomes, and Complications

OBJECTIVE

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are commonly used approaches for lumbar spine fusion surgery, each with their own unique advantages and disadvantages. ALIF requires mobilization of the great vessels and peritoneum, and dissection of the psoas muscle in the LLIF technique is associated with postoperative neurologic complications in the proximal lower limb. The anterior-to-psoas (ATP) or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) technique is the proposed solution to accessing the L1-L5 levels without the issues encountered with ALIF and LLIF. In this review, the technical nuances, operative outcomes, and complications with the ATP/OLIF technique in the current literature are summarized.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Data collected included operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and complications, which were then pooled together.

RESULTS

From the 16 studies selected, the mean blood loss was 109.9 mL, average operating time was 95.2 minutes, and mean postoperative hospital stay was 6.3 days. Fusion was achieved in 93% of levels operated. Incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications was 1.5% and 9.9%, respectively. Transient thigh pain and/or numbness and hip flexion weakness occurred in 3.0% and 1.2% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Early results on the ATP/OLIF technique are promising and warrant further investigation with well-designed prospective randomized studies to provide high-level evidence of the potential advantages over the ALIF and LLIF approaches.

Biomechanical evaluation of lateral lumbar interbody fusion with secondary augmentation

OBJECTIVE Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has emerged as a popular method for lumbar fusion. In this study the authors aimed to quantify the biomechanical stability of an interbody implant inserted using the LLIF approach with and without various supplemental fixation methods, including an interspinous plate (IP). METHODS Seven human cadaveric L2-5 specimens were tested intact and in 6 instrumented conditions. The interbody implant was intended to be used with supplemental fixation. In this study, however, the interbody was also tested without supplemental fixation for a relative comparison of these conditions. The instrumented conditions were as follows: 1) interbody implant without supplemental fixation (LLIF construct); and interbody implant with supplemental fixation performed using 2) unilateral pedicle screws (UPS) and rod (LLIF + UPS construct); 3) bilateral pedicle screws (BPS) and rods (LLIF + BPS construct); 4) lateral screws and lateral plate (LP) (LLIF + LP construct); 5) interbody LP and IP (LLIF + LP + IP construct); and 6) IP (LLIF + IP construct). Nondestructive, nonconstraining torque (7.5 Nm maximum) induced flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation, whereas 3D specimen range of motion (ROM) was determined optoelectronically. RESULTS The LLIF construct reduced ROM by 67% in flexion, 52% in extension, 51% in lateral bending, and 44% in axial rotation relative to intact specimens (p < 0.001). Adding BPS to the LLIF construct caused ROM to decrease by 91% in flexion, 82% in extension and lateral bending, and 74% in axial rotation compared with intact specimens (p < 0.001), providing the greatest stability among the constructs. Adding UPS to the LLIF construct imparted approximately one-half the stability provided by LLIF + BPS constructs, demonstrating significantly smaller ROM than the LLIF construct in all directions (flexion, p = 0.037; extension, p < 0.001; lateral bending, p = 0.012) except axial rotation (p = 0.07). Compared with the LLIF construct, the LLIF + LP had a significant reduction in lateral bending (p = 0.012), a moderate reduction in axial rotation (p = 0.18), and almost no benefit to stability in flexion-extension (p = 0.86). The LLIF + LP + IP construct provided stability comparable to that of the LLIF + BPS. The LLIF + IP construct provided a significant decrease in ROM compared with that of the LLIF construct alone in flexion and extension (p = 0.002), but not in lateral bending (p = 0.80) and axial rotation (p = 0.24). No significant difference was seen in flexion, extension, or axial rotation between LLIF + BPS and LLIF + IP constructs. CONCLUSIONS The LLIF construct that was tested significantly decreased ROM in all directions of loading, which indicated a measure of inherent stability. The LP significantly improved the stability of the LLIF construct in lateral bending only. Adding an IP device to the LLIF construct significantly improves stability in sagittal plane rotation. The LLIF + LP + IP construct demonstrated stability comparable to that of the gold standard 360° fixation (LLIF + BPS).

Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECT Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are 2 currently popular techniques for lumbar arthrodesis. The authors compare the total risk of each procedure, along with other important complication outcomes. METHODS This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies (up to May 2015) that reported complications of either MI-TLIF or LLIF were identified from a search in the PubMed database. The primary outcome was overall risk of complication per patient. Secondary outcomes included risks of sensory deficits, temporary neurological deficit, permanent neurological deficit, intraoperative complications, medical complications, wound complications, hardware failure, subsidence, and reoperation. RESULTS Fifty-four studies were included for analysis of MI-TLIF, and 42 studies were included for analysis of LLIF. Overall, there were 9714 patients (5454 in the MI-TLIF group and 4260 in the LLIF group) with 13,230 levels fused (6040 in the MI-TLIF group and 7190 in the LLIF group). A total of 1045 complications in the MI-TLIF group and 1339 complications in the LLIF group were reported. The total complication rate per patient was 19.2% in the MI-TLIF group and 31.4% in the LLIF group (p < 0.0001). The rate of sensory deficits and temporary neurological deficits, and permanent neurological deficits was 20.16%, 2.22%, and 1.01% for MI-TLIF versus 27.08%, 9.40%, and 2.46% for LLIF, respectively (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p = 0.002, respectively). Rates of intraoperative and wound complications were 3.57% and 1.63% for MI-TLIF compared with 1.93% and 0.80% for LLIF, respectively (p = 0.0003 and p = 0.034, respectively). No significant differences were noted for medical complications or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS While there was a higher overall complication rate with LLIF, MI-TLIF and LLIF both have acceptable complication profiles. LLIF had higher rates of sensory as well as temporary and permanent neurological symptoms, although rates of intraoperative and wound complications were less than MI-TLIF. Larger, prospective comparative studies are needed to confirm these findings as the current literature is of relative poor quality.

A new extensile anterolateral retroperitoneal approach for lumbar interbody fusion from L1 to S1: a prospective series with clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

A variety of surgical approaches have been used for cage insertion in lumbar interbody fusion surgery. The direct anterior approach requires mobilization of the great vessels to access the intervertebral disc spaces cranial to L5/S1. With the lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach, it is difficult to access the L4/L5 intervertebral disc space due to the lumbar plexus and iliac crest, and L5/S1 is inaccessible. We describe a new anterolateral retroperitoneal approach, which is safe and reproducible to access the disc spaces from L1 to S1 inclusive, obviating the need for a separate direct anterior approach to access L5/S1.

PURPOSE

This paper had the following objectives: first, to report a reproducible novel single-incision, muscle-splitting, anterolateral pre-psoas surgical approach to the lumbar spine from L1 to S1; second, to highlight the technical challenges of this approach and highlight approach-related complications; and third, to evaluate clinical outcomes using this surgical technique in a prospective series of L1 to S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs) performed as part of a 360-degree fusion for adult spinal deformity correction.

STUDY DESIGN

This report used a prospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A prospective series of patients (n=64) having ALIF using porous tantalum cages as part of a two-stage complex spinal reconstruction from L1 to S1 were studied.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Data collected included blood loss, operative time, incision size, technical challenges, perioperative complications, and secondary procedures. Clinical outcome measures used included visual analogue scale (VAS) Back Pain, VAS Leg Pain, EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), EQ-5D VAS, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22).

METHODS

Pre- and postoperative radiographic parameters and clinical outcome measures were assessed. Mean follow-up time was 1.8 years.

RESULTS

Mean blood loss was 68±9.6 mL. The mean VAS Back Pain score improved from 7.5±1.25 preoperatively to 2.5±1.7 at 3 months (p=.02), 1.2±0.5 at 6 months (p=.01), and 1.4±0.6 at 1 year (p=.02). The mean ODI improved from 64.3±31.8 preoperatively to 16.6±14.7 at 3 months (p>.05), 10.7±6.0 at 6 months (p=.02), and 6.7±6.1 at 1 year (p=.01). There were no permanent neurologic, vascular, or visceral injuries. One revision anterior procedure was required on a patient with rheumatoid arthritis and advanced systemic disease that sustained a sacral fracture and required revision ALIF at L5/S1.

CONCLUSIONS

The technique described is a safe, new, muscle-splitting, psoas-preserving, one-incision approach to provide access from L1 to S1 for multilevel anterior or oblique lumbar interbody fusion surgery.

Comparison of ALIF vs. XLIF for L4/5 interbody fusion: pros, cons, and literature review

The incidence of lumbar fusion for the treatment of various degenerative lumbar spine diseases has increased dramatically over the last twenty years. Many lumbar fusion techniques have been developed and popularized, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) initially introduced in the 1930's, has become a common and widely accepted technique for lumbar fusions over the last decade offering several advantages over standard posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). More recently, the lateral trans-psoas approach termed extreme, direct or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF, DLIF, LLIF) is gaining widespread popularity. The aim of this paper is to compare the approaches, advantages and disadvantages of ALIF and XLIF for L4/5 interbody fusion based on relevant literature.

Is the lateral jack-knife position responsible for cases of transient neurapraxia?

OBJECT

The lateral jack-knife position is often used during transpsoas surgery to improve access to the spine. Postoperative neurological signs and symptoms are very common after such procedures, and the mechanism is not adequately understood. The objective of this study is to assess if the lateral jack-knife position alone can cause neurapraxia. This study compares neurological status at baseline and after positioning in the 25° right lateral jack-knife (RLJK) and the right lateral decubitus (RLD) position.

METHODS

Fifty healthy volunteers, ages 21 to 35, were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: Group A (RLD) and Group B (RLJK). Motor and sensory testing was performed prior to positioning. Subjects were placed in the RLD or RLJK position, according to group assignment, for 60 minutes. Motor testing was performed immediately after this 60-minute period and again 60 minutes thereafter. Sensory testing was performed immediately after the 60-minute period and every 15 minutes thereafter, for a total of 5 times. Motor testing was performed by a physical therapist who was blinded to group assignment. A follow-up call was made 7 days after the positioning sessions.

RESULTS

Motor deficits were observed in the nondependent lower limb in 100% of the subjects in Group B, and no motor deficits were seen in Group A. Statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between the 2 groups with respect to the performance on the 10-repetition maximum test immediately immediately and 60 minutes after positioning. Subjects in Group B had a 10%–70% (average 34.8%) decrease in knee extension strength and 20%–80% (average 43%) decrease in hip flexion strength in the nondependent limb.

Sensory abnormalities were observed in the nondependent lower limb in 98% of the subjects in Group B. Thirty-six percent of the Group B subjects still exhibited sensory deficits after the 60-minute recovery period. No symptoms were reported by any subject during the follow-up calls 7 days after positioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-five degrees of right lateral jack-knife positioning for 60 minutes results in neurapraxia of the nondependent lower extremity. Our results support the hypothesis that jack-knife positioning alone can cause postoperative neurological symptoms.

Systematic Review of Thigh Symptoms after Lateral Transpsoas Interbody Fusion for Adult Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease

BACKGROUND

Lateral transpsoas interbody fusion (LTIF) is a minimally invasive technique for achieving lumbar spinal fusion. While it has many advantages over open techniques it carries with it a distinct set of risks, most commonly post-operative ipsilateral thigh pain, weakness and sensory disturbances. It is vital for both the surgeon and patient to understand the risks for and outcomes of injury associated with this procedure. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the incidence, risks, and long-term clinical outcomes of post-operative thigh symptoms in patients treated with LTIF.

METHODS

We conducted a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Collaboration Library, using keywords and MeSH terms, for English-language literature published through September 2014, as well as reference lists from key articles. Studies were then manually filtered to retrieve articles that met inclusion criteria. We were interested in studies that reported postoperative lower extremity symptoms after LTIF, such as pain, weakness and changes in sensation. The strength of evidence was determined based on precepts outlined by the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE).

RESULTS

A total of 392 articles were initially retrieved, with 24 ultimately meeting criteria for inclusion. The incidence of any post-operative thigh symptom varied, ranging as high as 60.7%, with 9.3% of patients experiencing a motor deficit related to direct nerve injury. Several studies reported cases of persistent symptoms at 6 months follow up. Additionally, inclusion of the L4-5 disc space and a longer duration of surgery were both identified as risks for developing postoperative thigh symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The risk of postoperative thigh symptoms after LTIF is high. Thigh pain, paresthesias and weakness were the most commonly reported symptoms. While most patients' symptoms resolved by 6 months follow up, several studies reported patients with symptoms persistent as far as 12 months removed from surgery. Surgery at the L4-5 disc space and longer surgical duration place the patient at greater risk for developing postoperative and long-term thigh symptoms.

Comparison of the different surgical approaches for lumbar interbody fusion

This review will outline the history of spinal fusion. It will compare the different approaches currently in use for interbody fusion. A comparison of the techniques, including minimally invasive surgery and graft options will be included. Lumbar interbody fusion is a commonly performed surgical procedure for a variety of spinal disorders, especially degenerative disease. Currently this procedure is performed using anterior, lateral, transforaminal and posterior approaches. Minimally invasive techniques have been increasing in popularity in recent years. A posterior approach is frequently used and has good fusion rates and low complication rates but is limited by the thecal and nerve root retraction. The transforaminal interbody fusion avoids some of these complications and is therefore preferable in some situations, especially revision surgery. An anterior approach avoids the spinal cord and cauda equina all together, but has issues with visceral exposure complications. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion has a risk of lumbar plexus injury with dissection through the psoas muscle. Studies show less intraoperative blood loss for minimally invasive techniques, but there is no long-term data. Iliac crest is the gold standard for bone graft, although adjuncts such as bone morphogenetic proteins are being used more frequently, despite their controversial history. More high-level studies are needed to make generalisations regarding the outcomes of one technique compared with another.