Retrospective analysis of L5-S1 axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF): a comparison with and without the use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2

Risk factors affecting spinal fusion: A meta-analysis of 39 cohort studies

PURPOSE

We performed a meta-analysis to identify risk factors affecting spinal fusion.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to January 6, 2023, for articles that report risk factors affecting spinal fusion. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using fixed-effects models for each factor for which the interstudy heterogeneity I2 was < 50%, while random-effects models were used when the interstudy heterogeneity I2 was ≥ 50%. Using sample size, Egger's P value, and heterogeneity across studies as criteria, we categorized the quality of evidence from observational studies as high-quality (Class I), moderate-quality (Class II or III), or low-quality (Class IV). Furthermore, the trim-and-fill procedure and leave-one-out protocol were conducted to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity and verify result stability.

RESULTS

Of the 1,257 citations screened, 39 unique cohort studies comprising 7,145 patients were included in the data synthesis. High-quality (Class I) evidence showed that patients with a smoking habit (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.21) and without the use of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 3.33 to 5.86) were at higher risk for fusion failure. Moderate-quality (Class II or III) evidence showed that fusion failure was significantly associated with vitamin D deficiency (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.90), diabetes (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.59 to 7.36), allograft (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.11 to 2.96), conventional pedicle screw (CPS) fixation (OR, 4.77; 95% CI, 2.23 to 10.20) and posterolateral fusion (OR, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.25 to 10.49).

CONCLUSIONS

Conspicuous risk factors affecting spinal fusion include three patient-related risk factors (smoking, vitamin D deficiency, and diabetes) and four surgery-related risk factors (without the use of BMP-2, allograft, CPS fixation, and posterolateral fusion). These findings may help clinicians strengthen awareness for early intervention in patients at high risk of developing fusion failure.

Paracoccygeal Transsacral Approach: A Rare Approach for Axial Lumbosacral Interbody Fusion

Lumbosacral interbody fusion is a mainstay of surgical treatment for degenerative spinal pathologies causing chronic pain and functional impairment. However, the optimal technique for this procedure remains controversial. Well-established open approaches, including anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), have historically been the standard of practice. A recent paradigm shift in spinal surgery has led to the investigation of minimally invasive approaches to mitigate tissue damage without compromising outcomes. This extensive review aims to examine current clinical and biomechanical evidence on the paracoccygeal transsacral approach to an axial lumbosacral interbody fusion. Since this technique was first described in 2004, accumulating evidence suggests it results in high fusion rates, consistent improvements in pain and function, reduced perioperative morbidity, and low rates of complication. Although early clinical outcomes have been promising, there is a paucity of comparative data investigating outcomes of the paracoccygeal transsacral approach to traditional alternatives and other minimally invasive techniques. Here, we summarize current evidence and discuss pertinent topics for the spinal surgeon considering this novel approach, including indications, advantages, relevant anatomy, contraindications, and technical considerations.

Transsacral interbody fixation versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the lumbosacral junction for long fusions in primary adult scoliosis

OBJECTIVE

Achieving fusion at the lumbosacral junction poses many technical challenges. No data exist in the literature comparing radiographic or clinical outcomes between the different surgical techniques of transsacral fixation (TSF) with rods and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in conjunction with iliac fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and radiographic fusions of TSF to TLIF in patients with adult spinal deformity undergoing long fusions across the lumbosacral junction.

METHODS

Patients with primary adult spinal deformity who underwent long fusions from the thoracic spine across the lumbosacral junction with different approaches of interbody fusion at the L5-S1 level were reviewed. Patients were subdivided by approach (TSF vs TLIF). Fusion status at L5-S1 was evaluated by multiple radiographs and/or CT scans. Scoliotic curve changes were also evaluated preoperatively and at final follow-up. Clinical outcomes were assessed by Scoliosis Research Society Outcome Instrument 22 and Oswestry Disability Index scores.

RESULTS

A total of 36 patients were included in the analysis. There were 18 patients in the TSF group and 18 patients in the TLIF group. A mean of 14.00 levels were fused in the TSF group and 10.94 in the TLIF group (p = 0.01). Both groups demonstrated significant postoperative radiographic improvement in coronal parameters. The fusion rates for TSF and TLIF groups were 100% and 88.9%, respectively (p < 0.05). Eight patients in the TSF group had pelvic fixation with unilateral iliac screws, compared to 15 patients in the TLIF group (p = 0.015). No statistical differences in patients' reported outcomes were seen between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar clinical and radiographic outcomes between both groups, TSF required fewer iliac screws to augment stability of the lumbosacral junction while achieving a higher rate of fusion. This study suggests that TSF may decrease potential instrument-related complications requiring revision while decreasing operating room time and implant-related costs.

Clinical and Radiologic Fate of the Lumbosacral Junction After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the Bottom of a Long Construct in CMIS Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity

Introduction:

Surgeons use numerous arthrodesis strategies for fusion of the lumbosacral junction including anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). The optimal L5-S1 fusion strategy remains inconclusive. The purpose of this study is to compare the fate of the lumbosacral junction in ALIF versus AxiaLIF patients in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Methods:

Adult spinal deformity patients, treated with CMIS techniques, with at least 2-year follow-up who underwent AxiaLIF or ALIF at the lumbosacral junction were included. Patients were separated into two groups: AxiaLIF (56 patients) and ALIF (38 patients). Outcome measures included segmental lordosis, sagittal vertical alignment, lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence–LL mismatch, and pseudarthrosis, major complication, and revision surgery rates.

Results:

The ALIF group achieved greater postoperative and delta segmental lordosis, higher delta sagittal vertical alignment, higher delta LL, and lower postoperative pelvic incidence–LL mismatch. The pseudarthrosis, major complication, and revision surgery rates were higher in the AxiaLIF group. Five cases of pseudarthrosis at L5-S1 were seen, all in the AxiaLIF group.

Discussion and Conclusion:

ALIF patients showed more favorable radiographic correction parameters and lower rates of pseudarthrosis, major complications, and revision surgeries. ALIF is the preferred strategy for L5-S1 arthrodesis at a bottom of a long construct.

Bone substitutes and expanders in Spine Surgery: A review of their fusion efficacies

STUDY DESIGN

A narrative review of literature.

OBJECTIVE

This manuscript intends to provide a review of clinically relevant bone substitutes and bone expanders for spinal surgery in terms of efficacy and associated clinical outcomes, as reported in contemporary spine literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Ever since the introduction of allograft as a substitute for autologous bone in spinal surgery, a sea of literature has surfaced, evaluating both established and newly emerging fusion alternatives. An understanding of the available fusion options and an organized evidence-based approach to their use in spine surgery is essential for achieving optimal results.

METHODS

A Medline search of English language literature published through March 2016 discussing bone graft substitutes and fusion extenders was performed. All clinical studies reporting radiological and/or patient outcomes following the use of bone substitutes were reviewed under the broad categories of Allografts, Demineralized Bone Matrices (DBM), Ceramics, Bone Morphogenic proteins (BMPs), Autologous growth factors (AGFs), Stem cell products and Synthetic Peptides. These were further grouped depending on their application in lumbar and cervical spine surgeries, deformity correction or other miscellaneous procedures viz. trauma, infection or tumors; wherever data was forthcoming. Studies in animal populations and experimental in vitro studies were excluded. Primary endpoints were radiological fusion rates and successful clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 181 clinical studies were found suitable to be included in the review. More than a third of the published articles (62 studies, 34.25%) focused on BMP. Ceramics (40 studies) and Allografts (39 studies) were the other two highly published groups of bone substitutes. Highest radiographic fusion rates were observed with BMPs, followed by allograft and DBM. There were no significant differences in the reported clinical outcomes across all classes of bone substitutes.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear publication bias in the literature, mostly favoring BMP. Based on the available data, BMP is however associated with the highest radiographic fusion rate. Allograft is also very well corroborated in the literature. The use of DBM as a bone expander to augment autograft is supported, especially in the lumbar spine. Ceramics are also utilized as bone graft extenders and results are generally supportive, although limited. The use of autologous growth factors is not substantiated at this time. Cell matrix or stem cell-based products and the synthetic peptides have inadequate data. More comparative studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of bone graft substitutes overall.

L5/S1 Fusion Rates in Degenerative Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review Comparing ALIF, TLIF, and Axial Interbody Arthrodesis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the fusion rate of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and axial arthrodesis at the lumbosacral junction in adult patients undergoing surgery for 1- and 2-level degenerative spine conditions.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An L5/S1 interbody fusion is a commonly performed procedure for pathology such as spondylolisthesis with stenosis; however, it is unclear if 1 technique leads to superior fusion rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE was conducted for literature published between January 1, 1992 and August 17, 2014. All peer-reviewed articles related to the fusion rate of L5/S1 for an ALIF, TLIF, or axial interbody fusion were included.

RESULTS

In total, 42 articles and 1507 patients were included in this systematic review. A difference in overall fusion rates was identified, with a rate of 99.2% (range, 96.4%-99.8%) for a TLIF, 97.2% (range, 91.0%-99.2%) for an ALIF, and 90.5% (range, 79.0%-97.0%) for an axial interbody fusion (P=0.005). In a paired analysis directly comparing fusion techniques, only the difference between a TLIF and an axial interbody fusion was significant. However, when only cases in which bilateral pedicle screws supported the interbody fusion, no statistical difference (P>0.05) between the 3 techniques was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature available to guide the treatment of L5/S1 pathology is poor, but the available data suggest that a high fusion rate can be expected with the use of an ALIF, TLIF, or axial interbody fusion. Any technique-dependent benefit in fusion rate can be eliminated with common surgical modifications such as the use of bilateral pedicle screws.

Axial interbody arthrodesis of the L5-S1 segment: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECT

The object of this study was to determine the fusion rate and safety profile of an axial interbody arthrodesis of the L5-S1 motion segment.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE was conducted for literature published between January 1, 2000, and August 17, 2014. All peer-reviewed articles related to the fusion rate of L5-S1 and the safety profile of an axial interbody arthrodesis were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy-four articles were identified, but only 15 (13 case series and 2 retrospective cohort studies) met the study inclusion criteria. The overall pseudarthrosis rate at L5-S1 was 6.9%, and the rate of all other complications was 12.9%. A total of 14.4% of patients required additional surgery, and the infection rate was 5.4%. Deformity studies reported a significantly increased rate of complications (46.3%), and prospectively collected data demonstrated significantly higher complication (36.8%) and revision (22.6%) rates. Lastly, studies with a conflict of interest reported lower complication rates (12.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review of the literature indicates that an axial interbody fusion performed at the lumbosacral junction is associated with a high fusion rate (93.15%) and an acceptable complication rate (12.90%). However, these results are based mainly on retrospective case series by authors with a conflict of interest. The limited prospective data available indicate that the actual fusion rate may be lower and the complication rate may be higher than currently reported.

The axial transsacral approach to interbody fusion at L5-S1

Lumbosacral interbody fusion may be indicated to treat degenerative disc disease at L5-S1, instability or spondylolisthesis at that level, and severe neural foraminal stenosis resulting from loss of disc space height. In addition, L5-S1 interbody fusion may provide anterior support to a long posterior fusion construct and help offset the stresses experienced by the distal-most screws. There are 3 well-established techniques for L5-S1 interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Each of these has advantages and pitfalls. A more recently described axial transsacral technique, utilizing the presacral corridor, may represent a minimally invasive approach to obtaining lumbosacral interbody arthrodesis. Biomechanical studies demonstrate that the stiffness of the axial rod is comparable to existing fixation devices, suggesting that, biomechanically, it may be a good implant for obtaining lumbosacral interbody fusion. Clinical studies have demonstrated good early results with the use of the axial transsacral approach in obtaining lumbosacral interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and below long posterior fusion constructs. The technique is exacting and complications can be major, including rectal perforation and fistula, loss of correction, and pseudarthrosis.

Endoscopic trans-iliac approach to L5-S1 disc and foramen - a report on clinical experience

BACKGROUND

The lumbosacral junction is a difficult area for spine surgery because of the complex anatomy. In the era of minimally invasive spine surgery, the presence of the iliac wing has, at the level of lumbosacral junction, created a major obstacle in the paths of two of the major approaches, namely, the direct lateral and percutaneous posterolateral endoscopic approaches. A trans-iliac cadaver study published by the senior author and co-workers in 1997, suggested the possibility of an alternative approach to the lumbosacral junction.

PURPOSE

To determine the feasibility of percutaneous, endoscopic trans-iliac approach to the L5-S1 disc and foramen.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective case series study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

15 consecutive patients undergoing the transiliac approach to L5-S1 disc and foramen were included in the study. Pre- and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS); Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); and intra-operative blood loss and operative time, were obtained for the study. Preoperative MRI or CT scan was used to determine the need for trans-iliac access. The procedure was performed with the patient in prone position and under monitored sedation for decompression. Endotracheal anesthesia was used for fusion cases. The transiliac access was established with a cannulated drill or core drill through the iliac wing. Once the trans-iliac window had been created, the rest of the procedure proceeded as for percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal decompression and fusion.

RESULTS

15 patients (9 male and 6 female) participated in the study. The VAS for back and leg pain significantly improved in all patients. The ODI dropped by more than 50%. There was minimal blood loss, and transient post-operative dysesthesia in 2 cases which resolved after 3 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic trans-iliac approach to the L5-S1 disc and foramen is feasible and safe. Decompression can be performed safely via trans-iliac access with minimal blood loss, and in a short operative time.

Segmental and global lordosis changes with two-level axial lumbar interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation

Background

Loss of lumbar lordosis has been reported after lumbar interbody fusion surgery and may portend poor clinical and radiographic outcome. The objective of this research was to measure changes in segmental and global lumbar lordosis in patients treated with presacral axial L4-S1 interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation and to determine if these changes influenced patient outcomes.

Methods

We performed a retrospective, multi-center review of prospectively collected data in 58 consecutive patients with disabling lumbar pain and radiculopathy unresponsive to nonsurgical treatment who underwent L4-S1 interbody fusion with the AxiaLIF two-level system (Baxano Surgical, Raleigh NC). Main outcomes included back pain severity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Odom's outcome criteria, and fusion status using flexion and extension radiographs and computed tomography scans. Segmental (L4-S1) and global (L1-S1) lumbar lordosis measurements were made using standing lateral radiographs. All patients were followed for at least 24 months (mean: 29 months, range 24-56 months).

Results

There was no bowel injury, vascular injury, deep infection, neurologic complication or implant failure. Mean back pain severity improved from 7.8±1.7 at baseline to 3.3±2.6 at 2 years (p < 0.001). Mean ODI scores improved from 60±15% at baseline to 34±27% at 2 years (p < 0.001). At final follow-up, 83% of patients were rated as good or excellent using Odom's criteria. Interbody fusion was observed in 111 (96%) of 116 treated interspaces. Maintenance of lordosis, defined as a change in Cobb angle ≤ 5°, was identified in 84% of patients at L4-S1 and 81% of patients at L1-S1. Patients with loss or gain in segmental or global lordosis experienced similar 2-year outcomes versus those with less than a 5° change.

Conclusions/Clinical Relevance

Two-level axial interbody fusion supplemented with posterior fixation does not alter segmental or global lordosis in most patients. Patients with postoperative change in lordosis greater than 5° have similarly favorable long-term clinical outcomes and fusion rates compared to patients with less than 5° lordosis change.

Does minimally invasive transsacral fixation provide anterior column support in adult scoliosis?

BACKGROUND

Spinal fusion to the sacrum, especially in the setting of deformity and long constructs, is associated with high complication and pseudarthrosis rates. Transsacral discectomy, fusion, and fixation is a minimally invasive spine surgery technique that provides very rigid fixation. To date, this has been minimally studied in the setting of spinal deformity correction.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We determined (1) the fusion rate of long-segment arthrodeses, (2) heath-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes (VAS pain score, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], SF-36), and (3) the common complications and their frequency in adult patients with scoliosis undergoing transsacral fixation without supplemental pelvic fixation.

METHODS

Between April 2007 and May 2011, 92 patients had fusion of three or more segments extending to the sacrum for spinal deformity. Transsacral L5-S1 fusion without supplemental pelvic fixation was performed in 56 patients. Of these, 46 with complete data points and a minimum of 2 years of followup (mean, 48 months; range, 24-72 months; 18% of patients lost to followup) were included in this study. Nineteen of the 46 (41%) had fusions extending above the thoracolumbar junction, with one patient having fusion into the proximal thoracic spine (T3-S1). General indications for the use of transsacral fixation were situations where the fusion needed to be extended to the sacrum, such as spondylolisthesis, prior laminectomy, stenosis, oblique take-off, and disc degeneration at L5-S1. Contraindications included anatomic variations in the sacrum, vascular anomalies, prior intrapelvic surgery, and rectal fistulas or abscesses. Fusion rates were assessed by full-length radiographs and CT scanning. HRQOL data, including VAS pain score, ODI, and SF-36 scores, were assessed at all pre- and postoperative visits. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were noted.

RESULTS

Forty-one of 46 patients (89%) developed a solid fusion at L5-S1. There were significant improvements in all HRQOL parameters. Eight patients had complications related to the transsacral fusion, including five pseudarthroses and three superficial wound dehiscences. Three patients underwent revision surgery with iliac fixation. There were no bowel injuries, sacral hematomas, or sacral fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Transsacral fixation/fusion may allow for safe lumbosacral fusion without iliac fixation in the setting of long-segment constructs in carefully selected patients. This study was retrospective and suffered from some loss to followup; future prospective trials are called for to compare this technique to other, more established approaches.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes with L4-S1 axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) and posterior instrumentation: a multicenter study

Introduction

Previous studies have confirmed the benefits and limitations of the presacral retroperitoneal approach for L5–S1 interbody fusion. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of the minimally invasive axial lumbar interbody approach (AxiaLIF) for L4–S1 fusion.

Methods

In this retrospective series, 52 patients from four clinical sites underwent L4–S1 interbody fusion with the AxiaLIF two-level system with minimum 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up (range: 24–51 months). Outcomes included back pain severity (on a 10-point scale), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Odom’s criteria. Flexion and extension radiographs, as well as computed tomography scans, were evaluated to determine fusion status. Longitudinal outcomes were assessed with repeated measures analysis of variance.

Results

Mean subject age was 52 ± 11 years and the male:female ratio was 1:1. Patients sustained no intraoperative bowel or vascular injury, deep infection, or neurologic complication. Median procedural blood loss was 220 cc and median length of hospital stay was 3 days. At 2-year follow-up, mean back pain had improved 56%, from 7.7 ± 1.6 at baseline to 3.4 ± 2.7 (P < 0.001). Back pain clinical success (ie, ≥30% improvement from baseline) was achieved in 39 (75%) patients at 2 years. Mean ODI scores improved 42%, from 60% ± 16% at baseline to 35% ± 27% at 2 years (P < 0.001). ODI clinical success (ie, ≥30% improvement from baseline) was achieved in 26 (50%) patients. At final follow-up, 45 (87%) patients were rated as good or excellent, five as fair, and two as poor by Odom’s criteria. Interbody fusion observed on imaging was achieved in 97 (93%) of 104 treated interspaces. During follow-up, five patients underwent reoperation on the lumbar spine, including facet screw removal (two), laminectomy (two), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (one).

Conclusion

The AxiaLIF two-level device is a safe, effective treatment adjunct for patients with L4–S1 disc pathology resistant to conservative treatments.

Radiographic and clinical outcome after 1- and 2-level transsacral axial interbody fusion

Object

The paracoccygeal approach allows for instrumentation of L5/S1 and L4/5 by using a transsacral rod (AxiaLIF; TransS1, Inc.). The authors analyzed clinical and radiographic outcomes of 1- or 2-level AxiaLIF procedures with focus on durability of the construct.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of 38 consecutive patients who underwent either 1-level (32 patients) or 2-level (6 patients) AxiaLIF procedures at the authors' institution. The Oswestry Disability Index (minimum clinically important difference [MCID] ≥ 12) and visual analog scale ([VAS]; MCID ≥ 3) scores were collected. Disc height and Cobb angles were measured on pre- and postoperative radiographs. Bony fusion was determined on CT scans or flexion/extension radiographs.

Results

Implantation of a transsacral rod allowed for intraoperative distraction of the L5/S1 intervertebral space and resulted in increased segmental lordosis postoperatively. At a mean follow-up time of 26.2 ± 2.4 months, however, graft subsidence (1.9 mm) abolished partial correction of segmental lordosis. Moreover, subsidence of the construct reduced L5/S1 lordosis in patients with 1-level AxiaLIF by 3.2° and L4–S1 lordosis in patients with 2-level procedures by 10.1° compared with preoperative values (p < 0.01). Loss of segmental lordosis predicted failure to improve VAS scores for back pain in the patient cohort (p < 0.05). Overall, surgical intervention led to modest symptomatic improvement; only 26.3% of patients achieved an MCID of the Oswestry Disability Index and 50% of patients an MCID of the VAS score for back pain. At last follow-up, 71.9% of L5/S1 levels demonstrated bony fusion (1-level AxiaLIF 80.8%, 2-level AxiaLIF 33.3%; p < 0.05), whereas none of the L4/5 levels in 2-level AxiaLIF fused. Five constructs developed pseudarthrosis and required surgical revision.

Conclusions

The AxiaLIF procedure constitutes a minimally invasive technique for L5/S1 instrumentation, with low perioperative morbidity. However, the axial rod provides inadequate long-term anterior column support, which leads to subsidence and loss of segmental lordosis. Modification of the transsacral technique to allow for placement of a solid interposition graft may counteract subsidence of the construct.

Axial lumbar interbody fusion: a 6-year single-center experience

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) approach for adult scoliosis

BACKGROUND

AxiaLIF was initially advocated as a minimally invasive, presacral lumbar fusion approach. Its use has expanded in to adult scoliosis surgeries.

METHODS

Current literature about AxiaLIF for degenerative lumbar surgery and adult scoliosis surgery were reviewed. Anatomy, biomechanical properties, clinical results, and complications were summarized.

RESULTS

Anatomically, AxiaLIF is relatively safe even though traversing blood vessels, and the pelvic splanchnic nerve can be at risk. AxiaLIF can provide significant stiffness compared to the intact spine, but posterior supplementation is recommended. AxiaLIF in the long construct for adult scoliosis surgeries can protect the S1 screw as effectively as pelvic fixation. Successful clinical outcomes after AxiaLIF were reported in the degenerative lumbar spine, adult scoliosis, and spondylolisthesis. It can facilitate a high fusion rate up to 96 % without BMP. Complications include pseudarthrosis, rectal injury, transient nerve irritation, and intrapelvic hematoma.

CONCLUSION

AxiaLIF is a relatively safe procedure, and it provides good clinical results in both short constructs and long constructs for adult scoliosis surgery. For a safer procedure, surgeons should seek out prior colorectal surgical history and review preoperative imaging studies carefully.