A radiological comparison of anterior fusion rates in anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Primary anterior lumbar interbody fusion, with and without posterior instrumentation: a 1,377-patient cohort from a multicenter spine registry

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar interbody instrumentation techniques are common and effective surgical options for a variety of lumbar degenerative pathologies. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has become a versatile and powerful means of decompression, stabilization, and reconstruction. As an anterior only technique, the integrity of the posterior muscle and ligaments remain intact. Adding posterior instrumentation to ALIF is common and may confer benefits in terms of higher fusion rate but could contribute to adjacent segment degeneration due to additional rigidity. Large clinical studies comparing stand-alone ALIF with and without posterior supplementary fixation (ALIF+PSF) are lacking.

PURPOSE

To compare rates of operative nonunion and adjacent segment disease (ASD) in ALIF with or without posterior instrumentation.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent primary ALIF for lumbar degenerative pathology between levels L4 to S1 over a 12-year period. Exclusion criteria included trauma, cancer, infection, supplemental decompression, noncontiguous fusions, prior lumbar fusions, and other interbody devices.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Reoperation for nonunion and ASD compared between ALIF only and ALIF+PSF.

METHODS

Reoperations were modeled as time-to-events where the follow-up time was defined as the difference between the primary ALIF procedure and the date of the outcome of interest. Crude cumulative reoperation probabilities were reported at 5-years follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate risk of operative nonunion and for ASD adjusting for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

The study consisted of 1,377 cases; 307 ALIF only and 1070 ALIF+PSF. Mean follow-up time was 5.6 years. The 5-year crude nonunion incidence was 2.4% for ALIF only and 0.5% for ALIF+PSF; after adjustment for covariates, a lower operative nonunion risk was observed for ALIF+PSF (HR=0.22, 95% CI=0.06-0.76). Of the patients who are deemed potentially suitable for ALIF alone, one would need to add posterior instrumentation in 53 patients to prevent one case of operative nonunion at a 5-year follow-up (number needed to treat). Five-year operative ASD incidence was 4.3% for ALIF only and 6.2% for ALIF+PSF; with adjustments, no difference was observed between the cohorts (HR=0.96, 95% CI=0.54-1.71).

CONCLUSIONS

While the addition of posterior instrumentation in ALIFs is associated with lower risk of operative nonunion compared with ALIF alone, operative nonunion is rare in both techniques (<5%). Accordingly, surgeons should evaluate the added risks associated with the addition of posterior instrumentation and reserve the supplemental posterior fixation for patients that might be at higher risk for operative nonunion. Rates of operative ASD were not statistically higher with the addition of posterior instrumentation suggesting concern regarding future risk of ASD perhaps should not play a role in considering supplemental posterior instrumentation in ALIF.

Reoperation and Mortality Rates Following Elective 1 to 2 Level Lumbar Fusion: A Large State Database Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

Reoperation to lumbar spinal fusion creates significant burden on patient quality of life and healthcare costs. We assessed rates, etiologies, and risk factors for reoperation following elective 1 to 2 level lumbar fusion.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective 1 to 2 level lumbar fusion were identified using the Health Care Utilization Project (HCUP) state inpatient databases from Florida and California. Patients were tracked for 5 years for any subsequent lumbar fusion. Cox proportional hazard analyses for reoperation were assessed using the following covariates: fusion approach type, age, race, Charlson comormidity index, gender, and length of stay. Distribution of etiologies for reoperation was then assessed.

RESULTS

71, 456 patients receiving elective 1 to 2 level lumbar fusion were included. A 5-year reoperation rate of 13.53% and mortality rate of 2.22% was seen. Combined anterior-posterior approaches (HR = 0.904, p < 0.05) and TLIF (HR = 0.867, p < 0.001) were associated with reduced risk of reoperation compared to stand-alone anterior approaches and non-TLIF posterior approaches. Age, gender, and number of comorbidities were not associated with risk of reoperation. From 1 to 5 years, degenerative disease rose from 43.50% to 50.31% of reoperations; mechanical failure decreased from 37.65% to 29.77%.

CONCLUSIONS

TLIF and combined anterior-posterior approaches for 1 to 2 level lumbar fusion are associated with the lowest rate of reoperation. Number of comorbidities and age are not predictive of reoperation. Primary etiologies leading to reoperation were degenerative disease and mechanical failure. Mortality rate is not increased from baseline following 1 to 2 level lumbar fusion.

Implications of sagittal alignment and complication profile with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior posterior lumbar fusion

Background

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is commonly utilized in lumbar degenerative pathologies. Standalone ALIF (ST-ALIF) systems were developed to avoid added morbidity, surgical time, and cost of anterior and posterior fusion (APF). Controversy exists in the literature about which of these two techniques yields superior clinical and radiographic outcomes, and few studies have directly compared them. This study seeks to compare ST-ALIF and APF in terms of sagittal correction and surgical complications.

Methods

Ninty-two consecutive ALIF cases performed from 2013-2018 were retrospectively reviewed and separated into 2 groups. Radiographic measurements were performed on pre- and post-operative radiographs, including segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL). Surgical complications were determined. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test of homogeneity, Fisher's exact test, and independent sample t-test. Comparisons between groups were deemed statistically significant at the P<0.05 threshold.

Results

Fifty-seven ST-ALIF, 35 APF were identified. There were no differences in age, gender, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), preoperative diagnosis, or surgical level between the 2 cohorts. Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) was utilized in 24.6% of ST-ALIF versus none of APF (P=0.001). No differences were detected in SL, LL, and PI-LL mismatch. ST-ALIF cohort had significantly greater risk of subsidence and revision surgery versus APF (12.3% vs. 0%, RD 95% CI: 3.8-20.8%, P=0.042). Recurrent spondylolisthesis occurred in 5 ST-ALIF cases, 3 cases with implant failure, and 2 nonunions versus none in the APF group.

Conclusions

ST-ALIF was associated with significantly greater subsidence and revision surgery versus APF. Careful patient selection is paramount when considering ST-ALIF. The potential for revision surgery may offset the potential benefit in avoiding posterior fusion. Despite the greater risk of subsidence, sagittal alignment was not significantly affected.

Clinical Outcome After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a New Osteoinductive Bone Substitute Material: A Randomized Clinical Pilot Study

STUDY DESIGN

Pilot, single-center, single-blinded, parallel-group, randomized clinical study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to pilot a randomized clinical study to evaluate whether instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with a new nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite embedded in a silica gel matrix (NH-SiO2) leads to superior radiologic and clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up compared with instrumented ALIF with homologous bone.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ALIF completed with interbody cages is an established technique for performing arthrodesis of the lumbar spine. There is ongoing discussion about which cage-filling material is most appropriate. This is the first study to assess the efficacy of NH-SiO2 in ALIF surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized, clinical, pilot trial included 2 groups of 20 patients with monosegmental or multisegmental degenerative disease of the lumbar spine who were suitable to undergo monosegmental or bisegmental ALIF fusion at the level L4/L5 and L5/S1 with a carbon fiber reinforced polymer ALIF cage filled with either NH-SiO2 or homogenous bone. Primary outcome was postoperative disability as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes were postoperative radiographic outcomes, pain, and quality of life. Patients were followed 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Mean (±SD) 12-month ODI was 24±17 in the NH-SiO2 group and 27±19 in the homologous bone group (P=0.582). Postoperative radiography, functional outcomes, and quality-of-life indices did not differ significantly between groups at any of the regularly scheduled follow-up visits.

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical study showed similar functional, radiologic, and clinical outcomes 12 months postoperatively for instrumented ALIF procedures with the use of NH-SiO2 or homologous bone as cage filling. In the absence of any relevant differences in outcome, we postulate that the pivotal clinical study should be designed as an equivalence trial.

Multilevel Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Posterior Stabilization in Lumbar Disc Disease-Prospective Analysis of Clinical and Functional Outcomes

Objective  This was a prospective controlled study with lumbar degenerative disc disease patients submitted to instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) combined with posterior stabilization.

Methods  A sample with 64 consecutive patients was operated by the same surgeons over 4 years. Half of the ALIFs occurred at 2 levels, 43.8% at 3 levels, and 6.25% at 1 level. Interbody cages with integrated screws, filled with bone matrix and bone morphogenetic protein 2, were used.

Results  Half of the patients had undergone previous lumbar spine surgeries, 75% presented with associated degenerative listhesis, and 62.5% had posterior lumbar compression disease. Approximately 56% of the sample had at least 1 risk factor for nonunion. The Oswestry index changed from 71.81 ± 7.22 at the preoperative assessment to 24.75 ± 7.82 at the final follow-up evaluation, while the visual analogue pain scale changed from 7.88 ± 0.70 to 2.44 ± 0.87 ( p  < 0.001). Clinical and functional improvements increased with the number of operated levels, proving the efficacy of multilevel ALIF, performed in 93.75% of the sample. The global complication rate was of 7.82%, with no major complications. No cases of nonunion were observed.

Conclusion  Instrumented ALIF combined with posterior stabilization is a successful option for uni- and multilevel degenerative disc disease of the L3 to S1 segments, even in the significant presence of risk factors for nonunion and of previous lumbar surgeries, assuring very satisfactory clinical-functional and radiographic outcomes with a low medium-term complication rate.

Selective Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Low Back Pain Associated With Degenerative Disc Disease Versus Nonsurgical Management

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the long-term outcomes of selective one- to two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs) in the lower lumbar spine versus continued nonsurgical management.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Low back pain associated with lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration is common with substantial economic impact, yet treatment remains controversial. Surgical fusion has previously provided mixed results with limited durable improvement of pain and function.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients with one or two levels of symptomatic Pfirrmann grades 3 to 5 disc degeneration from L3-S1 were identified. All patients had failed at least 6 months of nonsurgical treatment. Forty-two patients underwent one- or two-level ALIFs; 33 continued multimodal nonsurgical care. Patients were evaluated radiographically and the visual analog pain scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQol five dimensions (EQ-5D), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores for pain interference, pain intensity, and anxiety. As-treated analysis was performed to evaluate outcomes at a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (range: 2.5-12).

RESULTS

There were no differences in pretreatment demographics or nonsurgical therapy utilization between study arms. At final follow-up, the surgical arm demonstrated lower VAS, ODI, EQ-5D, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain intensity scores versus the nonsurgical arm. VAS and ODI scores improved 52.3% and 51.1% in the surgical arm, respectively, versus 15.8% and -0.8% in the nonsurgical arm. Single-level fusions demonstrated improved outcomes versus two-level fusions. The pseudarthrosis rate was 6.5%, with one patient undergoing reoperation. Asymptomatic adjacent segment degeneration was identified in 11.9% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Selective ALIF limited to one or two levels in the lower lumbar spine provided improved pain and function when compared with continued nonsurgical care. ALIF may be a safe and effective treatment for low back pain associated with disc degeneration in select patients who fail nonsurgical management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

ALIF WITH AUTO-LOCKING CAGE WITHOUT SUPPLEMENTATION - TOMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF INTERBODY BONE FUSION

ABSTRACT Objective: The objective of this work is to study the fusion rate and complications of the mini-ALIF with an auto-locking device at the L5-S1 level. Methods: Retrospective and radiological study. The inclusion criteria were mini-ALIF in L5-S1 with auto-locking cage, DDD and/or low grade spondylolisthesis. The exclusion criteria were posterior/anterior supplementation; lack of 12-month follow-up images, and previous surgery at L5-S1 level. The primary endpoint was fusion assessed in CT images and/or lateral lumbar flexion/extension radiographs. The secondary endpoint was the revision surgery due to device movement/migration or pseudoarthrosis. Lumbar TCs and radiographs were analyzed during 12 months of follow-up. Fusion was defined according to Bridwell/Lenke classification. Results: Sixty-one cases were included in this study. Complete or ongoing fusion was found in 57 cases (93%). Forty-two of the 61 levels (65%) were completely fused after 12 months. Fifteen levels (28%) had evident bone growth, two levels (3%) showed lysis lines around the implant, and two levels (3%) presented lysis lines and depression. Reoperation for pedicular screw supplementation was necessary in two cases (3%), one with vertebral sliding progression (12 months), and one with symptomatic micro-movement (six months). No implant has undergone migration or expulsion of the disc space. Conclusions: Mini-ALIF in L5-S1 level using an auto-blocking interbody implant construction in cases of low segmental instability results in good interbody fusion index and low failure rate, even without the need for further supplementation, but should not be applied indiscriminately. Evidence Level: IV. Type of study: Case series.

Mini-open oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) approach for multi-level discectomy and fusion involving L5-S1: Preliminary experience

STUDY DESIGN

Technical description and single institution retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate technical feasibility and evaluate complications of mini-open retroperitoneal oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) at the L5-S1 level.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND

The mini-open retroperitoneal oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) approach was first described in 2012 as a surgical approach to achieve spinal fusion while limiting invasiveness of the exposure to the anterior lumbar spine. Surgeons who use this approach, along with those who described it in cadaveric studies describe it as a feasible approach in targeting the L2 down to the L5 level and recommend alternative approaches to the L5-S1 level due to the vascular challenges and possible complications.

METHODS

Technical description and single institution case series of patients treated with the OLIF between 2013 and 2015 at the L5-S1 level. The previously described surgical approach was modified by identifying and ligating the iliolumbar vein before retracting the iliac artery and vein anteriorly instead of passing between the vessels.

RESULTS

Six patients (3 males, 3 females, mean age 62 years) were operated between 2013 and 2015. There were no vascular injuries or peripheral nerve trauma associated with the surgical procedure. Complications associated with the procedure included: cage displacement immediately postoperative requiring re-operation in one patient, transient psoas weakness in one patient, extended hospital stay for pain control in one patient, and transfusion was required in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-open retroperitoneal oblique lumbar interbody fusion is feasible at the L5-S1 level with limited vascular complications through a technical modification for safe mobilization of the iliac vessels by first ligating the iliolumbar vein.

Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion: indications, techniques, surgical outcomes and complications

INTRODUCTION

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established technique to achieve lumbar spine fusion with various indications including degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, recurrent disk herniation, adjacent level disease, pseudoarthrosis, as well as being used as part of the overall strategy to restore sagittal balance. ALIF can be an extremely useful tool in any spine surgeon's armamentarium. However, like any surgical procedure, proper patient selection is key to success. A solid understanding of the biomechanics, careful surgical planning, along with clear knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of stand-alone ALIF will ensure optimal clinical outcome. Stand-alone ALIF may be a suitable surgical option in carefully selected patients that can provide good clinical results and adequate fusion rates without the need for posterior instrumentation. Areas covered: A brief overview of the indications, techniques, biomechanics, surgical outcome and complications of stand-alone ALIF is provided in this article with a review of the pertinent literature. Expert commentary: In this review we discuss the clinical evidence of using a stand-alone ALIF compared to other fusion techniques of the lumbar spine. The development of interbody cages with integrated screws has increased the arthrodesis rate and improved clinical outcomes while decreasing morbidity and operative time.

A Biomechanical Comparison of Shape Design and Positioning of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric biomechanical analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare three interbody cage shapes and their position within the interbody space with regards to construct stability for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

Twenty L2-L3 and L4-L5 lumbar motion segments from fresh cadavers were potted in polymethyl methacrylate and subjected to testing with a materials testing machine before and after unilateral facetectomy, diskectomy, and interbody cage insertion. The three cage types were kidney-shaped, articulated, and straight bullet-shaped. Each cage type was placed in a common anatomic area within the interbody space before testing: kidney, center; kidney, anterior; articulated, center; articulated, anterior; bullet, center; bullet, lateral. Load-deformation curves were generated for axial compression, flexion, extension, right bending, left bending, right torsion, and left torsion. Finally, load to failure was tested.

RESULTS

For all applied loads, there was a statistically significant decrease in the slope of the load-displacement curves for instrumented specimens compared with the intact state (p < 0.05) with the exception of right axial torsion (p = 0.062). Among all instrumented groups, there was no statistically significant difference in stiffness for any of the loading conditions or load to failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results failed to show a clearly superior cage shape design or location within the interbody space for use in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with integrated fixation and adjunctive posterior stabilization: A comparative biomechanical analysis

BACKGROUND

Interbody fusion cages with integrated fixation components have become of interest due to their ability to provide enhanced post-operative stability and mitigate device migration. A recently approved anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with integrated fixation anchors has yet to be compared in vitro to a standard polyetheretherketone cage when used in combination with an interspinous process clamp.

METHODS

Twelve human cadaveric lumbar segments were implanted at L4-L5 with a Solus interbody cage (n=6) or standard polyetheretherketone cage (n=6) following Intact testing and discectomy. Each cage was subsequently evaluated in all primary modes of loading after supplementation with the following posterior constructs: interspinous process clamp, bilateral transfacet screws, unilateral transfacet screw with contralateral pedicle screws, and bilateral pedicle screws. Range of motion results were normalized to Intact, and a two-way mixed analysis of variance was utilized to detect statistical differences.

FINDINGS

The Solus cage in combination with all posterior constructs provided significant fixation compared to Intact in all loading conditions. The polyetheretherketone cage also provided significant fixation when combined with all screw based treatments, however when used with the interspinous process clamp a significant reduction was not observed in lateral bending or axial torsion.

INTERPRETATION

Interbody cages with integrated fixation components enhance post-operative stability within the intervertebral space, thus affording clinicians the potential to utilize less invasive methods of posterior stabilization when seeking circumferential fusion. Interspinous process clamps, in particular, may reduce peri-operative and post-operative comorbidities compared to screw based constructs. Further study is necessary to corroborate their effectiveness in vivo.