Supine anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus lateral position oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1: A comparison of two approaches to the lumbosacral junction

Incidence of intraoperative morbidities in anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF): a comprehensive study of 5,299 levels

CONTEXT

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) is performed via an abdominal approach to remove the intervertebral disc. Although academic reports suggest low intraoperative complication rates, the available data show significant variability. There is a lack of large-scale, robust studies that consistently evaluate the morbidity rates associated with this procedure.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the operative parameters of this procedure based on a substantial number of cases.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective case series.

METHODS

Patient data were retrospectively collected from the database of the Instituto de Acessos à coluna Aécio Dias (IAAD). All patients aged 18 years or older who underwent ALIF surgery were included in the study. Patients who underwent other surgical approaches were excluded. Data on intraoperative morbidity (vascular injuries, injuries to intra- and extraperitoneal organs, dural sac injuries, and nerve root injuries), operative time, and blood loss were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 3,438 patients were evaluated. 1,671 (48.6%) were male, and 1,767 (51.4%) were female. The mean age was 47.87 ± 12.10 years, ranging from 18 to 88 years. The reported incidence of complications was as follows: vascular injuries (3.25%), nerve root injuries (0.09%), dural sac injuries (0.06%), and injuries to intra- and extraperitoneal organs (0.03%).

CONCLUSIONS

ALIF surgery demonstrated safety and low morbidity. A multidisciplinary team, including access surgeons, played a pivotal role in reducing vascular complications, optimizing surgical times, and minimizing blood loss, aligning with the standards reported in the literature.

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.

Anterior Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5-S1 in Hybrid Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Radiographic Results, Mechanical Complications, and Clinical Outcomes

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the radiographic results, mechanical complications, and clinical outcomes between anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1 (ALIF51 and PLIF51 groups, respectively) using a matched cohort of patients undergoing long fusion for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Methods: Patients who underwent hybrid surgery of ≥5-level fusion to the pelvis with a minimum follow-up duration of 2 years were included. The baseline characteristics of the groups were controlled using a propensity score matching analysis. The radiographic results, mechanical complications such as proximal junctional kyphosis/failure and metal failure, and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Results: In total, 79 patients were assigned to each group with comparable baseline data, except for a higher frequency of anterior column realignment procedures in the PLIF51 group than in the ALIF51 group (49.4% vs. 31.6%). At the last follow-up, L5-S1 segmental lordosis (SL) was significantly greater in the ALIF51 group than in the PLIF51 group (12.1° vs. 7.3°, p < 0.001). The final C7-sagittal vertical axis (SVA) was significantly smaller in the ALIF51 group than in the PLIF51 group (25.4 mm vs. 35.5 mm, p = 0.032). However, other global sagittal parameters were comparable between the groups. The mechanical complication rates, including metal failure at L5-S1, and the final clinical outcomes were comparable between the groups. Conclusions: ALIF51 has modest advantages over PLIF51 in terms of better restoring L5-S1 SL and C7-SVA with avoiding more invasive procedures above the L5-S1 levels. Other sagittal parameters, mechanical complication rates, and clinical outcomes did not differ between the groups.

The risk factors for low back pain following oblique lateral interbody fusion: focus on sarcopenia

BACKGROUND

Sarcopenia had been identified as a factor influencing the postoperative outcomes of lumbar surgery. The effect of sarcopenia on the surgical outcomes in patients who underwent oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) had not yet been examined.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to investigate the association between sarcopenia and postoperative low back pain (LBP) in patients following OLIF and provide recommendations for surgical strategy.

METHODS

116 patients who underwent OLIF were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into sarcopenia group (Group SP) and non-sarcopenia group (Group NSP). According to whether instruments was performed, Group SP was further divided into OLIF stand-alone group (Group SP-SA) and OLIF with instruments group (Group SP-IN). The patient characteristics, surgical data and questionnaire scores were collected. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score was used to evaluate lumbar function and pain intensity. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors for postoperative LBP.

RESULTS

There were 38 patients in Group SP and 78 patients in Group NSP. The incident rare of osteoporosis in Group SP was higher than that in Group NSP (P = 0.012). In Group SP, last follow-up intervertebral height (IH) was lower (P = 0.045) and incident rate of cage subsidence was higher ((P = 0.044). No significant difference (P = 0.229) showed in preoperative ODI scores, however, last follow-up ODI scores in Group SP was significantly higher (P = 0.017) than that in Group NSP. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that sarcopenia (P = 0.004), osteoporosis (P = 0.012) and cage subsidence (P = 0.002) were identified as risk factors for postoperative LBP. In Group SP-IN, last follow-up ODI score (P = 0.024) and incident rate of cage subsidence (P = 0.027) were significantly lower Compared to Group SP-SA.

CONCLUSIONS

LBP was a common complication following OLIF with the incidence rate of 18.1%. Sarcopenia, osteoporosis and cage subsidence were risk factors for LBP following OLIF. Instruments effectively reduced the incidence and degree of postoperative LBP in patients with sarcopenia following OLIF. Consequently, we suggest incorporating supplementary instruments for patients with sarcopenia in surgical strategy.

Analysis of the Frequency of Intraoperative Complications in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the frequency of intraoperative complication rates related to access surgery, operating time, and intraoperative bleeding rates described in the literature for patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) to evaluate the adverse effects and, thus, help in therapeutic decision making and contribute to future clinical trials.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted of MEDLINE and Embase databases in March 2023. The main inclusion criteria were adult patients aged >18 years, with no maximum age limit; the use of ALIF; the presence of quantitative data on intraoperative complications; and randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Vascular and peritoneal injuries were considered primary endpoints. The operative time and intraoperative bleeding rate were secondary endpoints. Reports and case series, case-control series, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included with a total of 2395 patients. We found important quantitative data for future randomized clinical studies involving ALIF surgery, including the rate of vascular lesions (2.79%) and peritoneal lesions (0.37%). In addition to these factors, only 4 of the 8 studies addressed the average surgery time, with a total average of 145.61 minutes. Furthermore, 6 of the 8 articles reported the mean rate of intraoperative bleeding, with a total mean blood loss of 272.75 mL.

CONCLUSIONS

ALIF is a lumbar spine access technique with low intraoperative complications. Patients with contraindications have a higher risk of complications. Randomized clinical trials are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of the procedure.

How to Choose Surgical Corridor in Left Oblique Approach Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the L5-S1 Segment: A Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

There are 2 surgical corridors to L5-S1 lumbar interbody fusion via the left oblique approach: anterior to psoas-oblique lateral interbody fusion (ATP-OLIF) and oblique-anterior lumbar interbody fusion (O-ALIF). The aim of this study was to evaluate criteria to guide the selection of surgical corridors for L5-S1 lumbar interbody fusion via the left oblique approach.

METHODS

According to the structure of L5-S1 segment left common iliac vein (LCIV) in axial magnetic resonance image, the LCIV was divided into 6 types. O-ALIF was performed for type I and type II. ATP-OLIF was performed for type A and type B. For sexually active men, ATP-OLIF was chosen. Between April 2020 and April 2022, 22 patients were assigned to ATP-OLIF or O-ALIF based on the type of LCIV. Clinical outcomes and radiographic outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

There were 11 cases in O-ALIF group (type I, n = 10; type II, n = 1) and 11 cases in ATP-OLIF group (type A, n = 8; type B, n = 3). No differences were observed in clinical outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index, VAS, and complication rate); radiographic outcomes (mean disk height and segmental lordosis angle); length of hospital stay; operation time; and blood loss. No vascular injury occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

This may be an appropriate criterion to guide the selection of surgical corridor for L5-S1 lumbar interbody fusion through the left oblique approach. O-ALIF was performed for type I and type II. ATP-OLIF was performed for type A and type B. For sexually active men, ATP-OLIF was chosen. According to this standard, the operation can be performed safely and with good clinical results.

Antepsoas Approaches to the Lumbar Spine

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a well-established approach in treating spinal deformity and degenerative conditions of the spine. Since its inception in the 20th century, LIF has continued to evolve, allowing for minimally invasive approaches, high fusion rates, and improving disability scores with favorable complication rates. The anterior to the psoas (ATP) approach utilizes a retroperitoneal pathway medial to the psoas muscle to access the L1-S1intervertebral disc spaces. In contrast to the transpsoas arppoach, its primary advantage is avoiding transgressing the psoas muscle and the contained lumbar plexus, which potentially decreases the risk of injury to the lumbar plexus. Avoiding transgression of the psoas may minimize the risk of transient or permanent neurological deficits secondary to lumbar plexus injury. Indications for ATP approaches may expand as it is shown to be a safe and effective method of achieving spinal arthrodesis.

Midline Lumbar Fusion Versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Involving L5-S1 For Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

A retrospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of midline lumbar fusion (MIDLF) for lumbosacral fusion compared to posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

METHODS

Patients who had undergone posterior lumbosacral fusion surgery were divided into a MIDLF group (n = 37) and a PLIF group (n = 42). The follow-up time was at least 12 months. The operation data, recovery condition, complications, clinical outcomes, and status of implants and fusion were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The MIDLF group experienced significantly less blood loss, lower postoperative creatine kinase levels and total drainage volume, earlier time to ambulation, and less hospital stay times after surgery compared to the PLIF group (P < 0.05). The mean postoperative back pain visual analog scale scores in the MIDLF group were significantly lower than the PLIF group (P < 0.05). The improvement in Oswestry Disability Index scores during 3-month follow-up displayed a significant difference between the 2 groups (P < 0.05). The fusion rate tended to be higher in the MIDLF group; however, the difference was not significant (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in respect to screw loosening and cage subsidence rate. There were 2 cases of complications both occurring in the PLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

MIDLF is safe and effective for lumbosacral fusion and in line with the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery.

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.

OLIF versus MI-TLIF for patients with degenerative lumbar disease: Is one procedure superior to the other? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar disease.

METHODS

We searched relevant studies in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases comprehensively from inception to March 2022. The data were extracted from included studies, including operation indications, radiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes. Random or fixed-effects models were used in all meta-analyses according to the between-study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 30 studies, including 2,125 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Our study found similar disk height, length of hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index(ODI) between the two groups. However, the OLIF showed an advantage in restoring lumbar lordotic angle compared with MI-TLIF, with the pooled mean change of 17.73° and 2.61°, respectively. Additionally, the operative time and blood loss in the OLIF group appeared to be less compared with the MI-TLIF group. Regarding complications, the rates of the two groups were similar (OLIF 14.0% vs. MI-TLIF 10.0%), but the major complications that occurred in these two procedures differed significantly.

CONCLUSION

The results of disk height, length of hospital stay, VAS, and ODI between the OLIF and MI-TLIF groups were similar. And the OLIF was superior in restoring lumbar lordotic angle, operative time, and blood loss. However, the OLIF group's complication rate was higher, although not significantly, than that in the MI-TLIF group.

Utilization of lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion for revision of failed prior TLIF: illustrative case

BACKGROUND

The use of the lateral decubitus approach for L5–S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (LALIF) is a recent advancement capable of facilitating single-position surgery, revision operations, and anterior column reconstruction. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first description of the use of LALIF at L5–S1 for failed prior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior column reconstruction. Using an illustrative case, the authors discuss their experience using LALIF at L5–S1 for the revision of pseudoarthrosis and TLIF failure.

OBSERVATIONS

The patient had prior attempted L2 to S1 fusion with TLIF but suffered from hardware failure and pseudoarthrosis at the L5–S1 level. LALIF was used to facilitate same-position revision at L5–S1 in addition to further anterior column revision and reconstruction by lateral lumbar interbody fusion at the L1–2 level. Robotic posterior T10–S2 fusion was then added to provide stability to the construct and address the patient’s scoliotic deformity. No complications were noted, and the patient was followed until 1 year after the operation with a favorable clinical and radiological result.

LESSONS

Revision of a prior failed L5–S1 TLIF with an LALIF approach has technical challenges but may be advantageous for single position anterior column reconstruction under certain conditions.

Pearls and Pitfalls of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Lumbar degenerative disease is a common problem in an aging society. Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique that utilizes a retroperitoneal antepsoas corridor to treat lumbar degenerative disease. OLIF has theoretical advantages over other lumbar fusion techniques, such as a lower risk of lumbar plexus injury than direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF). Previous studies have reported favorable clinical and radiological outcomes of OLIF in various lumbar degenerative diseases. The use of OLIF is increasing, and evidence on OLIF is growing in the literature. The indications for OLIF are also expanding with the help of recent technical developments, including stereotactic navigation systems and robotics. In this review, we present current evidence on OLIF for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease, focusing on the expansion of surgical indications and recent advancements in the OLIF procedure.

A Crucial But Neglected Anatomical Factor Underneath Psoas Muscle and Its Clinical Value in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-The Cleft of Psoas Major (CPM)

Objective

To describe the anatomical feature positioned beneath the psoas muscle at the lateral aspect of the lower lumbar, and to create a new location system to identify the risk factors of lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Methods

Six cadavers were dissected and analyzed. The anatomy and neurovascular distribution beneath the psoas major from L₃ to S₁ was observed and recorded, with particular focus on the L_4/5 disc and below. The psoas major surface was divided homogeneously into four parts, from the anterior border of psoas major to the transverse process. The cranial‐to‐caudal division was from the lower edge of the psoas muscle attachment on the L₄ vertebrae to the upper part of the S₁ vertebrae, and was divided into five segments. Then a grid system was used to create 20 grids on the psoas major surface, from the anterior border of the muscle to the transverse process and from L₄ to superior S₁, which was used to determine the anatomical structures' distribution and relationship beneath the psoas major.

Results

A cleft was identified beneath the psoas major, from the level of L_4/5 downwards. It was filled with loose connective tissue and neurovascular structures. We termed it the cleft of psoas major (CPM). The sympathetic trunk, ascending lumbar vein, iliolumbar vessels, obturator nerve, femoral nerve and occasionally the great vessels are contained within the CPM, although there is significant interpersonal variation. The grid system on the psoas major surface helped to identify the anatomical structures in CPM. There was a considerably lower frequency of occurrence of neurovascular structures in the grids of I/II at the L_4/5 level where can be considered the “safe zones” for the lateral lumbar interbody fusion. In contrast, the distribution of neurovascular structures at the L₅S₁ level is dense, where the operation risk is high.

Conclusion

The CPM exists lateral to the vertebral surface from L₄ and below. Although the occurrence and distribution of neurovascular structures within the CPM is complex and varies greatly, it can provide a potential cavity for visualization during lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Using psoas major as a reference, this novel grid system can be used to identify the risk factors in CPM and thus identify a safe entry point for surgery.

Is there a variance in complication types associated with ALIF approaches? A systematic review

Purpose

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established alternative to posterior-based interbody fusion techniques, with approach variations, such as retroperitoneal, transperitoneal, open, and laparoscopic well described. Variable rates of complications for each approach have been enumerated in the literature. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the comparative rates of complications across approach type.

Methods

A systematic review of search databases PubMed, Google Scholar, and OVID Medline was made to identify studies related to complication-associated ALIF. PRISMA guidelines were utilised for this review. Meta-analysis was used to compare intraoperative and postoperative complications with ALIF for each approach.

Results

A total of 4575 studies were identified, with 5728 patients across 31 studies included for review following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis demonstrated the transperitoneal approach resulted in higher rates of retrograde ejaculation (RE) (p < 0.001; CI = 0.05–0.21) and overall rates of complications (p = 0.05; CI = 0.00–0.23). Rates of RE were higher at the L5/S1 intervertebral level. Rates of vessel injury were not significantly higher in either approach method (p = 0.89; CI =  − 0.04–0.07). Rates of visceral injury did not appear to be related to approach method. Laparoscopic approaches resulted in shorter inpatient stays (p = 0.01).

Conclusion

Despite the transperitoneal approach being comparatively underpowered, its use appears to result in a significantly higher rate of intraoperative and postoperative complications, although confounders including use of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) and spinal level should be considered. Laparoscopic approaches resulted in shorter hospital stays; however, its steep learning curve and longer operative time have deterred surgeons from its widespread adaptation.