Single position lateral decubitus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior fusion reduces complications and improves perioperative outcomes compared with traditional anterior-posterior lumbar fusion

Short-Term Comparison Between Unilateral Versus Bilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in Short-Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Prospective Randomized Study

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES

No prospective studies have directly compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of unilateral vs bilateral instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). We compared the short-term radiographic, clinical outcomes, and some complications of the unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) (UPS) vs bilateral PPS (BPS) fixation in short-level spinal fusion with LLIF for LDD.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled study of 33 patients who underwent UPS or BPS fixation after LLIF for LDD; 18 patients were assigned to the UPS group and 15 patients to the BPS group. Clinical outcomes, complication rates, and fusion rates were assessed.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, and level of surgery. Blood loss, length of hospital stay, and numeric rating scale score one year after surgery did not differ between groups. The operative time was longer in the BPS than UPS group (120.2 vs 88.8 min, respectively; P = .029). Both groups showed improvement in disc height and dural sac in the immediate postoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, which did not differ significantly between groups. The subsidence grade and fusion rate did not differ, but cage subsidence was more severe in the UPS than BPS group.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral and bilateral PPS fixation after LLIF yielded similar short-term clinical and radiological outcomes. However, severe cage subsidence was more common in the UPS group, which suggests that BPS fixation after LLIF may be a better choice over the long term.

Advancing Prone-Transpsoas Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review and Evolution of Indications with Representative Cases

The Prone Transpsoas (PTP) approach to lumbar spine surgery, emerging as an evolution of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), offers significant advantages over traditional methods. PTP has demonstrated increased lumbar lordosis gains compared to LLIF, owing to the natural increase in lordosis afforded by prone positioning. Additionally, the prone position offers anatomical advantages, with shifts in the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus, reducing the likelihood of postoperative femoral plexopathy and moving critical peritoneal contents away from the approach. Furthermore, operative efficiency is a notable benefit of PTP. By eliminating the need for intraoperative position changes, PTP reduces surgical time, which in turn decreases the risk of complications and operative costs. Finally, its versatility extends to various lumbar pathologies, including degeneration, adjacent segment disease, and deformities. The growing body of evidence indicates that PTP is at least as safe as traditional approaches, with a potentially better complication profile. In this narrative review, we review the historical evolution of lateral interbody fusion, culminating in the prone transpsoas approach. We also describe several adjuncts of PTP, including robotics and radiation-reduction methods. Finally, we illustrate the versatility of PTP and its uses, ranging from 'simple' degenerative cases to complex deformity surgeries.

Endoscopic Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion (L-ALIF), which employs laparoscopic cameras to facilitate a less invasive approach, originally gained traction during the 1990s but has subsequently fallen out of favor. As the envelope for endoscopic approaches continues to be pushed, a recurrence of interest in laparoscopic and/or endoscopic anterior approaches seems possible. Therefore, evaluating the current evidence base in regard to this approach is of much clinical relevance. To this end, a systematic literature search was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the following keywords: "(laparoscopic OR endoscopic) AND (anterior AND lumbar)." Out of the 441 articles retrieved, 22 were selected for quantitative analysis. The primary outcome of interest was the radiographic fusion rate. The secondary outcome was the incidence of perioperative complications. Meta-analysis was performed using RStudio's "metafor" package. Of the 1,079 included patients (mean age, 41.8±2.9 years), 481 were males (44.6%). The most common indication for L-ALIF surgery was degenerative disk disease (reported by 18 studies, 81.8%). The mean follow-up duration was 18.8±11.2 months (range, 6-43 months). The pooled fusion rate was 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.9-90.4). Complications occurred in 19.2% (95% CI, 13.4-27.4) of L-ALIF cases. Additionally, 7.2% (95% CI, 4.6-11.4) of patients required conversion from L-ALIF to open surgery. Although L-ALIF does not appear to be supported by studies available in the literature, it is important to consider the context from which these results have been obtained. Even if these results are taken at face value, the failure of endoscopy to have a role in the ALIF approach does not mean that it should not be incorporated in posterior approaches.

Single-position Minimally Invasive Surgery for Correction of Adult Spinal Deformity

Minimally invasive adult spinal deformity (MIS ASD) surgery may offer benefits over conventional techniques in select circumstances. The success of the procedure is based on proper patient selection, restoring adequate alignment, and optimizing fusion. In the past, MIS techniques were limited because of the need to reposition the patient-a source of increased surgical time and potentially patient risk. New developments now allow for single-position, MIS correction of adult deformity. Additional research will be needed to determine the ideal patient for minimally invasive adult spinal deformity surgery and whether prone or lateral single-position confers the best outcomes.

Percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) and mini-incision L5/S1 OLIF with a self-lock cage for the surgical treatment of L5 spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVES

We reported thirteen cases of percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic surgery (PTES) under local anesthesia and mini-incision L5/S1 OLIF (OLIF51) with a self-lock cage for the treatment of L5 spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

From Jan 2019 to Feb 2020, the patients with L5 spondylolisthesis with nerve root symptoms undergoing PTES and OLIF51 were included in this study. PTES under local anesthesia was performed in a prone position, and OLIF51 with a self-lock cage and allograft was then undertaken through a left abdominal mini-incision and oblique retroperitoneal approach between bilateral iliac vessels with the external oblique, internal oblique and transverse abdominal muscles bluntly separated in turn for L5/S1 in a right oblique position under general anesthesia. Back and leg pain were preoperatively and postoperatively evaluated using the VAS, and the clinical outcomes were evaluated with the ODI before surgery and at the 2-year follow-up. The anterior and posterior intervertebral space height (AISH, PISH), lumbar lordotic, and surgical segmental lordotic angle (SLA) were measured on lumbar spine X-rays preoperatively and postoperatively. The fusion status was assessed according to Bridwell's fusion grades.

RESULTS

Thirteen cases of L5 spondylolisthesis were included. The operation duration was 49.1 ± 5.6 min for PTES and 73.6 ± 8.2 min for OLIF. There was blood loss of 25 (15-45) ml. The incision length was 7.5 ± 1.1 mm for PTES and 46.8 ± 3.8 mm for OLIF. The hospital stay was 5 (4-6) days, and the follow-up duration was 29 (24-37) months. For the clinical evaluation, the VAS of back and leg pain significantly dropped after surgery (p < 0.001), and the ODI significantly decreased from 64.7 ± 7.8% to 12.9 ± 4.3% 2 years after surgery (p < 0.001). AISH, PISH and SLA significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.05). Fusion grades based on the Bridwell grading system at the 2-year follow-up were grade I in 9 segments (69.2%) and grade II in 4 segments (30.8%). No patients had any form of permanent iatrogenic nerve damage or major complications. No failure of instruments was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

PTES and mini-incision OLIF51 with a self-lock cage is a viable option of minimally invasive surgery for L5 spondylolisthesis, which can achieve direct neurologic decompression, satisfactory fusion and hardly destroys the rectus abdominis and its sheath, paraspinal muscles and bone structures.

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

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

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

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Characterizing and Improving Nomenclature for Reporting Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques have seen impressive innovation in recent years, leading to an expansion of the LIF lexicon. This study systematically analyzes LIF nomenclature in contemporary literature and proposes a standardized classification system for reporting LIF terminology.

METHODS

A search query was conducted through the PubMed database using "lumbar fusion OR lumbar interbody fusion." A total of 1455 articles were identified, and 605 references to LIF were recorded. Following a systematic review of the terminology, we developed a LIF reporting guidelines that capture the existing LIF nomenclature while avoiding redundant or ambiguous terminology.

RESULTS

The most referenced anatomical approaches were transforaminal (43.0%), followed by posterior (25.0%), lateral (19.7%), and anterior (10.9%). Overall, there were 72 unique ways to describe LIF. Unique prefixes were recorded by approach (posterior: 26; lateral: 13; anterior: 3). Forty unique prefixes/suffixes overlapped in their usage. "MI" (14.4%), "MIS" (38.1%), and "MISS" (0.6%) all referenced a minimally invasive approach. "O" (12.5%), "CO" (1.3%), and "TO" (1.3%) all described open techniques. "Endo" (0.6%), "Endoscopic-assisted" (1.3%), and "PE" (1.9%) all referenced endoscopic-assisted procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The current LIF nomenclature contains many unique LIF terms that were found to be inconsistently defined, redundant, or ambiguous. We propose the standardization of a 4-part naming system which highlights the crucial parts of LIF: (1) intraoperative repositioning, (2) patient position, (3) anatomical approach, and (4) orientation of the surgical corridor to the psoas muscles.

Simultaneous Anterior Posterior Approach for Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Robotic Assistance: Technical Guidelines and Early Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) is traditionally performed in 2 stages: placing the interbody cage in the lateral decubitus position, then placing the percutaneous pedicle screw in the prone position. Performing interbody fusion and posterior fixation simultaneously could improve operative efficiency and clinical outcomes associated with longer operative times. We describe the operative steps and report clinical and radiographic outcomes associated with a simultaneous anterior and posterior approach (SAPA) for LLIF.

METHODS

Patients who underwent SAPA LLIF performed by a single surgeon over 1 year were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic data were analyzed, an operative guideline was created, and a learning curve was constructed using operative times.

RESULTS

SAPA LLIF was performed in 11 patients. Three patients experienced transient postoperative femoral nerve plexopathy with symptoms of ipsilateral hip flexion weakness and/or anterior thigh numbness; there were no other complications in the cohort. Radiographically, patients achieved significant increases in disc height (8.3 mm vs. 13.5 mm, P = 0.002) and foraminal height (20.2 mm vs. 25.3 mm, P = 0.0001). Patients showed significant improvements in Oswestry Disability Index (52 vs. 27.8, P = 0.002) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function (32.6 vs. 39, P = 0.048) and Pain Interference (64.9 vs. 59.6, P = 0.001) at 3 months. A downward trend in operative time was observed for 1-level SAPA LLIF.

CONCLUSIONS

SAPA LLIF is a safe approach for LLIF that results in favorable clinical outcomes. This technique can potentially improve operative efficiency further along the course of a surgeon's learning curve.

The Prone Lateral Approach for Lumbar Fusion-A Review of the Literature and Case Series

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion is an evolving procedure in spine surgery allowing for the placement of large interbody devices to achieve indirect decompression of segmental stenosis, deformity correction and high fusion rates through a minimally invasive approach. Traditionally, this technique has been performed in the lateral decubitus position. Many surgeons have adopted simultaneous posterior instrumentation in the lateral position to avoid patient repositioning; however, this technique presents several challenges and limitations. Recently, lateral interbody fusion in the prone position has been gaining in popularity due to the surgeon's ability to perform simultaneous posterior instrumentation as well as decompression procedures and corrective osteotomies. Furthermore, the prone position allows improved correction of sagittal plane imbalance due to increased lumbar lordosis when prone on most operative tables used for spinal surgery. In this paper, we describe the evolution of the prone lateral approach for interbody fusion and present our experience with this technique. Case examples are included for illustration.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior posterior surgery improves operative efficiency, improves perioperative outcomes, and maintains radiological outcomes comparable with traditional anterior posterior fusion at minimum 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The advantages of Lateral Single Position surgery (LSPS) in the perioperative period has previously been demonstrated, however 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively.

PURPOSE

Evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSPS versus gold-standard FLIP STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multi-center retrospective cohort review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Four hundred forty- two patients undergoing lumbar fusion via LSPS or FLIP OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, and reasons for reoperation at 30-days, 90-days, 1-year, and 2-years. Radiographic outcomes included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch, and segmental lumbar lordosis.

METHODS

Patients were grouped as LSPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure under the same anesthetic. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2-years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<.05.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty- two pts met inclusion, including 352 LSPS and 90 FLIP pts. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs 56.9; p≤.001) and smoking status (7% vs 16%; p=.023) between the LSPS and FLIP groups. LSPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p<.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p<.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p<.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs 3.61 days; p<.001) compared to FLIP. LSPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9%vs 34.4%; p=.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p<.001). No differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%LSPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=.125), 90-day (5.1%LSPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.441). LSPS group had a significantly lower preoperative PI-LL (4.1° LSPS vs 8.6°FLIP, p=.018), and a significantly greater postoperative LL (56.6° vs 51.8°, p = .006). No significant differences were noted in rates of fusion (94.3% LSPS vs 97.8% FLIP; p=.266) or subsidence (6.9% LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.260).

CONCLUSIONS

LSPS and circumferential fusions have similar outcomes at 2-years post-operatively, while reducing perioperative complications, improving perioperative efficiency and safety.

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

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Anterior lumbar approaches are recommended for clinical conditions that require interbody stability, spinal deformity corrections or a large fusion area. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in lateral decubitus position (LatALIF) has gained progressive interest in the last years. The study aims to describe the current habit, the perception of safety and the perceptions of need of vascular surgeons according to experienced spine surgeons by comparing LatALIF to the standard L5-S1 supine ALIF (SupALIF).

METHODS

A two-round Delphi method study was conducted to assess the consensus, within expert spine surgeons, regarding the perception of safety, the preoperative planning, the complications management and the need for vascular surgeons by performing anterior approaches (SupALIF vs LatALIF).

RESULTS

A total of 14 experts voluntary were involved in the survey. From 82 sentences voted in the first round, a consensus was reached for 38 items. This included the feasibility of safe LatALIF without systematic involvement of vascular surgeon for routine cases (while for revision cases the involvement of the vascular surgeon is an appropriate option) and the appropriateness of standard MRI to evaluate the accessibility of the vascular window. Thirteen sentences reached the final consensus in the second round, whereas no consensus was reached for the remaining 20 statements.

CONCLUSIONS

The Delphi study collected the consensus on several points, such as the consolidated required experience on anterior approaches, the accurate study of vascular anatomy with MRI, the management of complications and the significant reduction of the surgical times of the LatALIF if compared to SupALIF in combined procedures. Furthermore, the study group agrees that LatALIF can be performed without the need for a vascular surgeon in routine cases.

Perioperative and Radiographic Outcomes Between Single-Position Surgery (Lateral Decubitus) and Dual-Position Surgery for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation: Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and percutaneous posterior screw fixation (PPSF) techniques is used to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies. Dual-position (DP) lumbar surgery involves repositioning the patient from the supine or lateral decubitus position to prone for posterior fixation. Single-position (SP) lumbar surgery is commonly performed nowadays, a minimally invasive alternative performed entirely from the lateral decubitus position. However, controversy still exists. This meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between SP lumbar surgery and DP lumbar surgery for LLIF and PPSF.

METHODS

We conducted this meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched Medline and Scopus from inception to November 11, 2021, for relevant studies.

RESULTS

Six studies were identified, which contained totals of 502 and 447 patients in the SP and DP groups, respectively. The unstandardized mean difference in operative time, length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, radiation doses, lumbar lordosis, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch were -86.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] -149.2 to -23.1) minutes, -1.6 (95% CI -2.4 to -0.9) days, -55.6 (95% CI -127.5 to 16.2) mL, -30.3 (95% CI -80.5 to 19.8) mGy, 1.34 (95% CI -1.17 to 3.86) degrees, and -4.06 (95% CI -5.65 to -2.47) lower in SP when compared with DP. The chances of having complications and reoperations in SP were 0.75 (95% CI 0.49-1.14) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.44-1.36) times, respectively, compared with the DP group. No significant differences were found for intraoperative blood loss, radiation dose, lumbar lordosis, complications, and reoperations between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found that SP have lower operative time and length of hospital stay compared with DP LLIF and PPSF. However, no differences in intraoperative blood loss, radiation dose, radiographic change, complications, and reoperation rates were found.

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.