Lumbar Interbody Fusions for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Review of Techniques, Indications, and Outcomes

Patient outcomes: One-stage vs. two-stage lumbar surgery for symptomatic low-grade spondylolisthesis: A quality outcomes database study

OBJECTIVE

Controversy exists regarding treatment of symptomatic low-grade spondylolisthesis (LGS). Both one- and two-stage fusions are commonly performed, but it is unclear if one approach is superior. We aim to compare the satisfaction rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with LGS undergoing one- versus two-stage lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

The Quality Outcomes Database was queried for patients with Grades I and II spondylolisthesis who underwent one- (n = 3223) or two-stage (n = 325), 1-2 level lumbar fusion. Demographics, comorbidities, symptom burden, and PROs were extracted and compared. Outcomes included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), and satisfaction index. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for VAS back pain, VAS leg pain, ODI, and QALY were 1.6, 1.7, 14.3, and 0.2, respectively. Patients with pre-existing scoliosis or kyphosis, missing data, and revision procedures were excluded. Categorical variables were compared with a Chi-square test; continuous variables were assessed for normality with a Shapiro Wilk test and compared with a Mann-Whitney U or Student's t-test.

RESULTS

No significant differences were noted for baseline characteristics, except for a lower mean age, percentage of female patients, and prevalence of osteoporosis in the two-stage cohort (58 ± 12.4 vs 62 ± 11.6 years; 50 % vs 62 %; 3.0 % vs 7.1 %, respectively; p < 0.01). The average surgery length was longer in the two-stage cohort (p < 0.01). A significantly higher percentage of patients returned to baseline activities within 3 months postoperatively following one-stage procedures (43 % vs. 29 %, p < 0.01), irrespective of whether they had Grade 1 or Grade 2 spondylolisthesis. Comparable proportions of patients achieved the MCID for PROs, with no significant differences in satisfaction indices observed at 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively, regardless of preoperative spondylolisthesis grade.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving one and two-stage procedures for symptomatic LGS had similar rates of satisfaction and PROs. More research is necessary to define the benefits of two-stage approaches given their increased time, cost, and risk profile.

What Radiographic and Spinopelvic Parameters do Spine Surgeons Consider in Decision-Making for Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis?

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE

Surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is remarkably varied due to heterogeneity of clinical-radiological presentations. This study aimed to assess which spinopelvic radiological parameters were considered for decision-making.

METHODS

Survey distributed to International AO Spine members to analyze surgeons' considerations for treatment. Data collected includes demographics, training background, years of experience, and treatment decisions based on various radiographical findings, including segmental and global spinopelvic parameters.

RESULTS

From 479 responses, the most frequently radiological parameter considered was slippage on dynamic X-rays (79.1%), followed by disc height (78.9%), global sagittal balance SVA (71.4%), and PI-LL mismatch (69.7%), while the least important was absolute spondylolisthesis on static lateral radiograph (22.8%). Fellowship-trained surgeons were likelier to use SVA (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.02-2.99, P = 0.049), and disc height (2.13, 1.14-3.98, P < 0.05). There was no difference between orthopedics and neurosurgery in applying SVA and PI-LL mismatch. Surgeons from Asia Pacific emphasizes segmental lordosis (2.39, 1.11-5.15, P = 0.026) as from Latin America (2.55, 1.09-5.95, P = 0.030) and Middle East (4.33, 1.66-11.28, P = 0.003). However, surgeons from Latin America and Middle East also significant consider disc height (2.95, 1.07-8.15, P = 0.037) and (3.03, 1.04-8.83, P = 0.043), respectively. Additionally, the surgeons' age was associated with using angular motion on flexion-extension radiographs, and volume of treated cases yearly with consideration for disc height.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis was influenced by slippage on dynamic radiographs, disc height, global alignment, and PI-LL mismatch. Surgeons' age and Region, fellowship-trained, and volume of treated cases were significantly associated to apply these radiological parameters.

Clinical and radiological outcome of stand-alone percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (SAPF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). A propensity-matched cohort study

In adult patients affected by degenerative disc disease with lumbar instability and chronic low back pain, spine surgery with lumbar fixation aims to reduce segmental instability and pain. Different techniques have been developed, but the optimal surgical technique remains controversial. No studies have compared the clinical and radiological outcomes between stand-alone pedicle screw fixation (SAPF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). This was a retrospective study. All patients who underwent surgery for single-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 lumbar stenosis, associated with minor lumbar instability and treated with SAPF or MI-TLIF techniques were included in the study. Data were collected preoperatively and at 24 monts follow-up. Clinical primary outcomes were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, walking ability and self reported back and leg pain. In addition, perioperative data and complications were recorded. Segmental lordosis (L4-L5 and L5-S1) and overall lumbar lordosis (L1-S1) were measured on lumbar X-Rays preoperatively and at least 24 months postoperatively. 277 patients were firstly identified. Baseline data and a minimum of two-year follow-up were available for 62 patients. After the propensity score matching, 44 patients (22 patients in the SAPF group and 22 patients in the MI-TLIF group) were matched. At 24 months follow-up, no difference between the two groups of patients in NRS (p = 0.11) and ODI scores (p = 0.21) were observed. Patients' satisfaction at follow-up was also not significantly different between the two groups. In both groups, a significant improvement in the walked distance was observed after surgery (p = 0.05) while no difference was observed regarding the type of surgery performed (p = 1.00). No differences were found in the pre- and post-operative median lumbar lordosis (p = 0.91 and p = 0.67) and the same findings were observed for lumbar segmental lordosis (p = 0.65 and p = 0.41 respectively). Significant improvements in ODI and NRS-scores were recorded after 24 months follow-up with both SAPF and MI-TLIF. No significant differences in postoperative PROMs and patients' satisfaction were observed between the groups. The results of our study indicate no superiority of either surgical technique concerning pain and functional outcomes after 24 months.

A comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage material on fusion rates: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

A wide variety of materials are used for lumbar interbody fusion, but there is no unified consensus on the superiority of one material over another. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare and rank the various TLIF interbody materials based on fusion rates.

Methods

We queried PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus from inception until August 2023, in which 2135 studies were identified. Inclusion criteria were applied based on the PRISMA guidelines. The fusion assessment employed the Bridwell's criteria with a length of follow-up of at least 12 months. The NMA was conducted to compare multiple approaches from multiple studies using the frequentist framework with STATA16.

Results

In total, 13 TLIF studies involving 1919 patients with 1981 lumbar interbody levels fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Seven different cage materials were utilized: polyetheretherketone (PEEK, as the reference), allograft, autograft, PEEK with titanium coating (TiPEEK), titanium, carbon/carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and 3D-printed titanium. The average patient age was 60.9 (SD = 7.5) years old. When compared to PEEK, the other six materials did not have a significantly different rate of lumbar fusion. However, the SUCRA number of the 3D-printed titanium, TiPEEK, Ti, allograft, autograft, CFRP, and PEEK were 0.8, 0.6, 0.5, 0.5, 0.4, 0.4, and 0.3 consecutively.

Conclusions

Based on a network meta-analysis within the confines of our clinical study, 3D-printed titanium interbody cage may promote the highest success rate of fusion while PEEK may be the material with the least success rate of fusion in TLIF.

The effect of different fixation systems on oblique lumbar interbody fusion under vibration conditions

Despite the fact that lower back pain caused by degenerative lumbar spine pathologies seriously affects the quality of life, however, there is a paucity of research on the biomechanical properties of different auxiliary fixation systems for its primary treatment (oblique lumbar interbody fusion) under vibratory environments. In order to study the effects of different fixation systems of OLIF surgery on the vibration characteristics of the human lumbar spine under whole-body vibration (WBV), a finite element (FE) model of OLIF surgery with five different fixation systems was established by modifying a previously established model of the normal lumbar spine (L1-S1). In this study, a compressive follower load of 500 N and a sinusoidal axial vertical load of ±40 N at the frequency of 5 Hz with a duration of 0.6 s was applied. The results showed that the bilateral pedicle screw fixation model had the highest resistance to cage subsidence and maintenance of disc height under WBV. In contrast, the lateral plate fixation model exerted very high stresses on important tissues, which would be detrimental to the patient's late recovery and reduction of complications. Therefore, this study suggests that drivers and related practitioners who are often in vibrating environments should have bilateral pedicle screws for OLIF surgery, and side plates are not recommended to be used as a separate immobilization system. Additionally, the lateral plate is not recommended to be used as a separate fixation system.

Impact of Obesity on Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of obesity on various outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgeries.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were screened for studies reporting outcomes in obese and nonobese patients undergoing TLIF surgeries. Studies reporting operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, incidence of pseudoarthrosis, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, pain scores (Visual Analog Scale, VAS), and PROMIS PF scores were included. A qualitative and quantitative analysis was performed to calculate mean differences or odds ratios (ORs) using random-effects models.

RESULTS

Fourteen good-quality studies were included in this review, with a combined sample size of 4,889 participants. The analysis revealed that patients with obesity had slightly longer operative times compared to patients with normal weight, with a mean difference of 14.87 minutes, though not significant. Similarly, morbidly obese patients had a mean difference of 21.44 minutes in operative time. Estimated blood loss was comparable in both groups. However, morbidly obese patients had longer hospital stays, with a mean difference of 8.18 days and obese patients have 20% higher odds of experiencing complications compared to nonobese patients. The incidence of pseudoarthrosis, ODI scores, or pain scores (VAS back and leg) were similar in obese and normal weight patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity, particularly morbid obesity, may have an impact on certain outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive TLIF surgeries. Morbidly obese patients tend to have significantly longer operative times with significantly longer hospital stays than nonobese patients.

Biomechanical Comparison of Subsidence Between Patient-Specific and Non-Patient-Specific Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVES

Several strategies to improve the surface of contact between an interbody device and the endplate have been employed to attenuate the risk of cage subsidence. 3D-printed patient-specific cages have been presented as a promising alternative to help mitigate that risk, but there is a lack of biomechanical evidence supporting their use. We aim to evaluate the biomechanical performance of 3D printed patient-specific lumbar interbody fusion cages in relation to commercial cages in preventing subsidence.

METHODS

A cadaveric model is used to investigate the possible advantage of 3D printed patient-specific cages matching the endplate contour using CT-scan imaging in preventing subsidence in relation to commercially available cages (Medtronic Fuse and Capstone). Peak failure force and stiffness were analyzed outcomes for both comparison groups.

RESULTS

PS cages resulted in significantly higher construct stiffness when compared to both commercial cages tested (>59%). PS cage peak failure force was 64% higher when compared to Fuse cage (P < .001) and 18% higher when compared to Capstone cage (P = .086).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-specific cages required higher compression forces to produce failure and increased the cage-endplate construct' stiffness, decreasing subsidence risk.

Management of lumbar spondylolisthesis: A retrospective analysis of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

One of the most frequent etiologies for spinal surgery is unstable lumbar spondylolisthesis (ULS). To decompress affected structures while maintaining or restoring stability through fusion, surgeons utilize a variety of procedures. When paired with interbody fusion, posterior fusion is most applied, resulting in greater fusion rates. The two most popular techniques for implementing spinal fusion are posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). As a result, these two procedures have been assessed formally.

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent interbody fusion for lumbar stenosis through PLIF and minimally invasive (MI)-TLIF was performed. The patients were followed up for 24 months and fusion rates, Visual Analog Score (VAS), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) alongside the MacNab clinical outcome score, were assessed. The Bridwell interbody fusion grading system was used to evaluate fusion rates in computed tomography (CT).

RESULTS

Operations were performed in 60 cases where patients suffered from ULS. PLIF was performed on 33 patients (55%) (14 males and 19 females) and 27 patients (45%) (11 males and 16 females) who underwent MI-TLIF. In 87% of our respective cohort, either the L4-5 or the L5-S1 level was operated on. Overall fusion rates were comparable between the two groups; however, the TLIF group improved more in terms of VAS, ODI, and MacNab scores. On average, MI-TLIF surgery was longer and resulted in reduced blood loss. MI-TLIF patients were more mobile than PLIF patients postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

With well-established adequate results in the literature, TLIF offers benefits over other methods used for interbody lumbar fusion in ULS or other diseases of the spine. However, MI-TLIF may procure more advantageous for patients if MI methods are implemented. In this instance, TLIF outperformed PLIF due to shorter operating times, less blood loss, faster ODI recovery, better MacNab scores, and a greater decline in VAS pain ratings.

Supplementary posterior fusion in patients operated on employing TLIF may decrease the instrumentation failure rate

BACKGROUND

It is supposed that additional posterior fusion may provide additional stability of the pedicle screw; however, the clinical impact of additional posterior fusion in patients treated with TLIF remains uncertain. The objective of this study is to assess the clinical efficacy of circumferential fusion in patients treated with TLIF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective evaluation of consecutive 179 patients with degenerative lumbar stenosis and instability of spinal segments. Patients with axial pain and neurogenic claudication or radiculopathy associated with spinal stenosis were enrolled during the period from 2012 to 2018. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with a single cage was used to treat patients. In 118 cases a supplementary posterior fusion was made. The duration of follow-up accounted for 24 months, logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors that influence the complication rate.

RESULTS

The rate of pedicle screw loosening was growing with radiodensity getting decreased and was more frequent in patients with two level fusion. An increase in pedicle screw loosening rate correlated with anterior nonunion Tan 2 and 3 grade while both posterior complete and incomplete fusion resulted in a decline in the complication rate. Lumbosacral fusion, bilateral facet joints` resection and laminectomy turned out to be insignificant factors. The overall goodness of fit of the estimated general multivariate model was χ2 = 87.2230; P < 0.0001. To confirm clinical relevance of those findings, a univariate logistic regression was performed to assess the association between clinically significant pedicle screw instability and posterior fusion in patients operated on employing TLIF. The results of logistic regression analysis demonstrate that additional posterior fusion may decrease the rate of instrumentation failure that requires revision surgery in patients treated with TLIF [B0 = 1.314321; B1 = -3.218279; p = 0.0023; OR = 24.98507; 95% CI (3.209265; 194.5162), the overall goodness of fit of the estimated regression was χ2 = 22.29538, p = <0.0001].

CONCLUSION

Circumferential fusion in patients operated on employing TLIF is associated with a decline in the rate of pedicle screw loosening detected by CT imaging and clinically significant instrumentation failure.

Stand-alone ALIF versus TLIF in patients with low back pain - A propensity-matched cohort study with two-year follow-up

Introduction

Instrumented lumbar fusion by either the anterior or transforaminal approach has different advantages and disadvantages. Few studies have compared PatientReported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) between stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (SA-ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

Research question

This is a register-based dual-center study on patients with severe disc degeneration (DD) and low back pain (LBP) undergoing single-level SA-ALIF or TLIF. Comparing PROMs, including disability, quality of life, back- and leg-pain and patient satisfaction two years after SA-ALIF or TLIF, respectively.

Material and methods

Data were collected preoperatively and at one and two-year follow-up. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, walking ability, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and quality of life (QoL) measured by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index score. To reduce baseline differences between groups, propensity-score matching was employed in a 1:1 fashion.

Results

92 patients were matched, 46 S A-ALIF and 46 TLIF. They were comparable preoperatively, with no significant difference in demographic data or PROMs (P > 0.10). Both groups obtained statistically significant improvement in the ODI, QoL and VAS-score (P < 0.01), but no significant difference was observed (P = 0.14). No statistically significant differences in EQ-5D index scores (P = 0.25), VAS score for leg pain (P = 0.88) and back pain (P = 0.37) at two years follow-up.

Conclusion

Significant improvements in ODI, VAS-scores for back and leg pain, and EQ-5D index score were registered after two-year follow-up with both SA-ALIF and TLIF. No significant differences in improvement.

Comparison of C-Arm-Free Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion L5-S1 (OLIF51) with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion L5-S1 (TLIF51) for Adult Spinal Deformity

Background and Objectives: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, L5-S1 lordosis is very important factor. The main objective of the research is to retrospectively compare symptomatic presentation and radiological presentation in the sequelae of oblique lumbar inter-body spinal fusion at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for ASD. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 54 patients who underwent corrective spinal fusion for ASD between October 2019 and January 2021. Thirteen patients underwent OLIF51 (average 74.6 years old, group O) and 41 patients underwent TLIF51 (average 70.5 years old, group T). Mean follow-up period was 23.9 months for group O and 28.9 months for group T, ranging from 12 to 43 months. Clinical and radiographic outcomes are assessed using values including visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Radiographic evaluation was also collected preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Results: Surgical time in group O was less than that in group T (356 min vs. 492 min, p = 0.003). However, intraoperative blood loss of both groups were not significantly different (1016 mL vs. 1252 mL, p = 0.274). Changes in VAS and ODI were similar in both groups. L5-S1 angle gain and L5-S1 height gain in group O were significantly better than those of group T (9.4° vs. 1.6°, p = 0.0001, 4.2 mm vs. 0.8 mm, p = 0.0002). Conclusions: Clinical outcomes were not significantly different in both groups, but surgical time in OLIF51 was significantly less than that in TLIF51. The radiographic outcomes showed that OLIF51 created more L5-S1 lordosis and L5-S1 disc height compared with TLIF 51.

Can oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) create more lumbosacral lordosis in lumbar spine surgery than minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF)?

Objective

To compare the differences in the correction effect for lumbosacral lordosis and clinical outcomes between OLIF with/without posterior pedicle screw fixation (PSF) and MIS-TLIF through a retrospective cohort study.

Method

There were 98 consecutive patients originally enrolled for the study, but 15 patients were excluded due to intraoperative endplate injury or osteotomy performed for severe spinal deformity. Thus, 83 patients included in this study (36 males and 47 females, mean age 65.8 years) underwent single to three-segment OLIF (including OLIF + PSF and OLIF Standalone) or MIS-TLIF surgery from 2016 to 2018. The operation time, bleeding and blood transfusion, fusion rate, complication, pre-and postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were evaluated. In addition, radiological parameters including lumbosacral lordosis (LL), fused segment lordosis (FSL), anterior disc height (ADH) and posterior disc height (PDH) were measured. The clinical outcomes, LL, FSL, ADH and PDH restored and were compared between the OLIF group, OLIF subgroups and MIS-TLIF group.

Results

The average operation time and intraoperative bleeding were significantly less in the OLIF group than in the MIS-TLIF group (163 ± 68 vs. 233 ± 79 min, 116 ± 148 vs. 434 ± 201 ml, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the OLIF group and the MIS-TLIF group in VAS and ODI improvements, fusion rate, complication, LL and FSL correction (P > 0.05). The ADH and PDH increases in the OLIF group were more than that in MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.001). The correction of LL was significantly more in the OLIF + PSF group than in the MIS-TLIF group (9.9 ± 11.1 vs. 4.2 ± 6.1deg, P = 0.034).

Conclusion

OLIF and MIS-TLIF are both safe and effective procedures, capable of restoring lumbosacral lordosis and disc height partly. Combined with PSF, OLIF can achieve a better correction effect of lumbosacral lordosis than MIS-TLIF.

Multilevel tandem spondylolisthesis associated with a reduced "safe zone" for a transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) on psoas anatomy and the L4-5 safe zone during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

In this retrospective, single-institution analysis, patients managed for low-back pain between 2016 and 2021 were identified. Inclusion criteria were adequate lumbar MR images and radiographs. Exclusion criteria were spine trauma, infection, metastases, transitional anatomy, or prior surgery. There were three age and sex propensity-matched cohorts: 1) controls without DS; 2) patients with single-level DS (SLDS); and 3) patients with multilevel, tandem DS (TDS). Axial T2-weighted MRI was used to measure the apical (ventral) and central positions of the psoas relative to the posterior tangent line at the L4-5 disc. Lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and PI-LL mismatch were measured on lumbar radiographs. The primary outcomes were apical and central psoas positions at L4-5, which were calculated using stepwise multivariate linear regression including demographics, spinopelvic parameters, and degree of DS. Secondary outcomes were associations between single- and multilevel DS and spinopelvic parameters, which were calculated using one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction for between-group comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 230 patients (92 without DS, 92 with SLDS, and 46 with TDS) were included. The mean age was 68.0 ± 8.9 years, and 185 patients (80.4%) were female. The mean BMI was 31.0 ± 7.1, and the mean age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (aCCI) was 4.2 ± 1.8. Age, BMI, sex, and aCCI were similar between the groups. Each increased grade of DS (no DS to SLDS to TDS) was associated with significantly increased PI (p < 0.05 for all relationships). PT, PI-LL mismatch, center psoas, and apical position were all significantly greater in the TDS group than in the no-DS and SLDS groups (p < 0.05). DS severity was independently associated with 2.4-mm (95% CI 1.1-3.8 mm) center and 2.6-mm (95% CI 1.2-3.9 mm) apical psoas anterior displacement per increased grade (increasing from no DS to SLDS to TDS).

CONCLUSIONS

TDS represents more severe sagittal malalignment (PI-LL mismatch), pelvic compensation (PT), and changes in the psoas major muscle compared with no DS, and SLDS and is a risk factor for lumbar plexus injury during L4-5 LLIF due to a smaller safe zone.

Evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3D printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage

Biomechanical study. To evaluate the performance of the contact surface for 3D printed patient-specific cages using CT-scan 3D endplate reconstructions in comparison to the contact surface of commercial cages. Previous strategies to improve the surface of contact between the device and the endplate have been employed to attenuate the risk of cage subsidence. Patient-specific cages have been used to help, but only finite-element studies have evaluated the effectiveness of this approach. There is a possible mismatch between the CT-scan endplate image used to generate the cage and the real bony endplate anatomy that could limit the performance of the cages. A cadaveric model is used to investigate the possible mismatch between 3D printed patient-specific cages and the endplate and compare them to commercially available cages (Medtronic Fuse and Capstone). Contact area and contact stress were used as outcomes. When PS cage was compared to the Capstone cage, the mean contact area obtained was 100 ± 23.6 mm² and 57.5 ± 13.7 mm², respectively (p < 0.001). When compared to the Fuse cage, the mean contact area was 104.8 ± 39.6 mm² and 55.2 ± 35.1 mm², respectively(p < 0.001). Patient-specific cages improve the contact area between the implant and the endplate surface, reducing the contact stress and the risk of implant subsidence during LIF surgeries.

Characteristics and hotspots of the 50 most cited articles in the field of pre-psoas oblique lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

In the past decade, the field of pre-psoas oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has developed rapidly, and with it, the literature on OLIF has grown considerably. This study was designed to analyze the top 50 articles in terms of the number of citations through bibliometric research to demonstrate the research characteristics and hotspots of OLIF.

METHOD

Searching the Web of Science database yielded the 50 most cited publications in the OLIF field as of July 10, 2022. The publications were ranked according to the number of citations. The following sources were evaluated: the year of publications, the number of citations, authors, countries, institutions, journals, research topics, and keyword hotspots.

RESULTS

The most productive period was from 2017 to 2020, with 41 articles. The number of citations varied from 10 to 140, with an average of 35.52, and 1,776 citations were found. World Neurosurgery published the most articles (12), China produced the most articles (16), and the Catholic University of Korea produced the most studies (6). The corresponding author who produced the most articles was J.S. Kim (5), and the first author who produced the most publications was S. Orita (3). The main research topics were anatomical morphology, surgical techniques, indications, outcomes, and complications. The top 10 most cited keywords were "complications," "decompression," "spine," "surgery," "outcomes," "transpsoas approach," "spondylolisthesis," "anterior," "disease," and "injury."

CONCLUSIONS

Certain articles can be distinguished from others using citation analysis as an accurate representation of their impact due to their long-term effectiveness and peer recognition. With these publications, researchers are provided with research priorities and hotspots through influential literature in the field of OLIF.

Lumbar dynamic pedicle-based stabilization versus fusion in degenerative disease: a multicenter, double-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Fusion is the standard of treatment for degenerative lumbar symptomatic instabilities. Dynamic stabilization is a potential alternative, with the aim of reducing pathological motion. Potential advantages are a reduction of surgical complexity and morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess whether dynamic stabilization is associated with a higher degree of functional improvement while reducing surgical complexity and thereby surgical duration and perioperative complications in comparison with lumbar fusion.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, double-blind, prospective, randomized, 2-arm superiority trial. Patients with symptomatic mono- or bisegmental lumbar degenerative disease with or without stenosis and instability were randomized 1:1 to instrumented fusion or pedicle-based dynamic stabilization. Patients underwent either rigid internal fixation and interbody fusion or pedicle-based dynamic stabilization. The primary endpoint was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, and secondary endpoints were pain, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction at 24 months.

RESULTS

Of 293 patients randomized to fusion or dynamic stabilization, 269 were available for analysis. The duration of surgery was significantly shorter for dynamic stabilization versus fusion, and the blood loss was significantly less for dynamic stabilization (380 ml vs 506 ml). Assessment of primary and secondary outcome parameters revealed no significant differences between groups. There were no differences in the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Dynamic pedicle-based stabilization can achieve similar clinical outcome as fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative instabilities. Secondary failures are not different between groups. However, dynamic stabilization is less complex than fusion and is a feasible alternative.

Circumferential Fusion Employing Transforaminal vs. Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion—A Potential Impact on Implants Stability

Background

Different fusion techniques were introduced in clinical practice in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease, however, no evidence has been provided on the advantages of one technique over another.

The Objective of This Study

Is to assess the potential impact of circumferential fusion employing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) vs. direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) on pedicle screw stability.

Materials and Methods

This is a single-center prospective evaluation of consecutive 138 patients with degenerative instability of lumbar spinal segments. Either conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with posterior fusion or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) using cages of standard dimensions, were applied. The conventional open technique was used to supplement TLIF with pedicle screws while percutaneous screw placement was used in patients treated with DLIF. The duration of the follow-up accounted for 24 months. Signs of pedicle screws loosening (PSL) and bone union after fusion were assessed by the results of CT imaging. Fisher‘s exact test was used to assess the differences in the rate of CT loosening and revision surgery because of implant instability. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between potential factors and complication rate.

Results

The rate of PSL detected by CT and relevant revision surgery in groups treated with TLIF and DLIF accounted for 25 (32.9%) vs. 2 (3.2%), respectively, for the former and 9 (12.0%) vs. 0 (0%) for the latter (p &lt; 0.0001 and p = 0.0043) respectively. According to the results of logistic regression, a decrease in radiodensity values and a greater number of levels fused were associated with a rise in PSL rate. DLIF application in patients with radiodensity below 140 HU was associated with a considerable decrease in complication rate. Unipolar or bipolar pseudoarthrosis in patients operated on with TLIF was associated with a rise in PSL rate while patients treated with DLIF tolerate delayed interbody fusion formation. In patients treated with TLIF supplementary total or partial posterior fusion resulted in a decline in PSL rate.

Conclusion

Even though the supplementary posterior fusion may considerably reduce the rate of PSL in patients treated with TLIF, the application of DLIF provide greater stability resulting in a substantial decline in PSL rate and relevant revision surgery.

Biomechanical Evaluation and Preliminary Clinical Results of Anterolateral Screw Fixation for Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery

BACKGROUND

The most common complication of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is endplate fracture/subsidence. The aim of this study was to evaluate biomechanical stability in patients undergoing OLIF surgery with anterolateral screw fixation (ASF).

METHODS

Based on a previously validated model technique, L4-L5 functional surgical models corresponding to the ASF and bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) methods were created. Finite element models were developed to compare the biomechanics of the ASF and BPSF groups. We retrospectively analyzed 18 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases who underwent OLIF with ASF in Shenzhen Hospital of Southern Medical University from April 2020 to April 2021. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed.

RESULTS

Compared with the BPSF model, the maximum stresses of the L4 inferior endplate and L5 superior endplate were greatly increased in the ASF model. The contact surface between the vertebrae and screw (CSVS) in the ASF model produced nearly 100% more stress than the BPSF model at all moments. In clinical practice, after a 12-month follow-up, 7 adverse events were observed, including 3 cases of left thigh pain/numbness, 3 cases of cage subsidence, and 1 case of screw loosening.

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF surgery with ASF could not reduce the maximum stresses on the endplate and CSVS, which may be a potential risk factor for cage subsidence and screw loosening.

Does the Position of Cage Affect the Clinical Outcome of Lateral Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify the ideal cage position in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and to investigate if the posterior instrumentation would affect the indirect decompression.

METHODS

Patients underwent 2-stage surgeries: stage I was LLIF and stage II was percutaneous pedicle screws fixation after 1 week. Anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), left and right foraminal height (FH), and segmental angle (SA) were measured on lateral computed tomography reconstructions. The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac (CSA) was determined by the outlined area of the thecal sac on a T2-weighted axial magnetic resonance imaging. The patients were subgroups according to the cage position: the anterior (cage located at the anterior 1/3 of disc space) and posterior groups (cage located at the posterior 2/3 of disc space). P values <.05 were considered significant.

RESULTS

This study included 46 patients and 71 surgical levels. After stage I LLIF, significant increase in ADH, PDH, bilateral FH was found in both 2 subgroups, as well as the CSA (all Ps < .01). SA increased 2.84° ± 3.2° in the anterior group after stage I LLIF and increased 0.81° ± 3.1° in the posterior group (P = .013). After stage II surgery, SA was similar between the anterior and posterior groups (P = .20).

CONCLUSION

The anteriorly placed cage may provide better improvement of anterior disc height and segmental angle after stand-alone LLIF surgery. After the second stage posterior instrumentation, the cage position would not affect the segmental angle or foraminal height.

Analysis of lumbar lateral instability on upright left and right bending radiographs in symptomatic patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis

Background

To evaluate lumbar mobility in various positions using upright left and right bending radiographs in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS), as well as to assess the impact of lateral instability on patient-reported outcomes.

Methods

This study retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients with DLS between January 2019 and October 2020. The enrolled patients were divided into two groups: the lateral instability group (group L) and non-lateral instability group (group NL). Translational and angular motion in both sagittal and coronal planes and patient-reported outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

There were 104 (59.8%) patients in group L and 70 (40.2%) patients in group NL, with an average age of 60.6 ± 7.8 years. Patients with a right bending posture in group L had a higher slip percentage (14.2 ± 7.4% vs 9.2 ± 3.2%, p = 0.01) and slip angle (6.3 ± 1.5° vs 2.2 ± 0.8°, p = 0.021). Compared with group NL, group L demonstrated significantly larger angular motion in the coronal plane (2.4 ± 1.3° vs 1.0 ± 0.7°, p = 0.008). Patients with lateral instability had worse preoperative back pain (6.1 ± 1.6 vs 2.7 ± 1.9, p = 0.01) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores (37.7 ± 5.5 vs 25.6 ± 2.6, p = 0.002). In terms of pain characteristics, group L was characterized by pain when getting out of a car, when rising from a chair, and when climbing stairs (all p values < 0.05).

Conclusion

Lumbar lateral instability, that is, increased mobility in the coronal plane on lateral bending radiographs, translational and/or angular, correlates to more pronounced patient related symptoms in degenerative L4–5 spondylolisthesis. The existence of lumbar lateral instability leads to worse impacts on patient-reported outcomes when patients change their positions including getting out of a car, rising from a chair, and climbing stairs.

[Biomechanical study of different approach for lumbar interbody fusion surgeries under vibration load]

The human spine injury and various lumbar spine diseases caused by vibration have attracted extensive attention at home and abroad. To explore the biomechanical characteristics of different approaches for lumbar interbody fusion surgery combined with an interspinous internal fixator, device for intervertebral assisted motion (DIAM), finite element models of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are created by simulating clinical operation based on a three-dimensional finite element model of normal human whole lumbar spine. The fusion level is at L4-L5, and the DIAM is implanted between spinous process of L4 and L5. Transient dynamic analysis is conducted on the ALIF, TLIF and LLIF models, respectively, to compute and compare their stress responses to an axial cyclic load. The results show that compared with those in ALIF and TILF models, contact forces between endplate and cage are higher in LLIF model, where the von-Mises stress in endplate and DIAM is lower. This implies that the LLIF have a better biomechanical performance under vibration. After bony fusion between vertebrae, the endplate and DIAM stresses for all the three surgical models are decreased. It is expected that this study can provide references for selection of surgical approaches in the fusion surgery and vibration protection for the postsurgical lumbar spine.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of these two procedures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed, and the quality of retrieved studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.

RESULTS

Seven qualified studies were included. Clinically, OLIF resulted in less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time than MIS-TLIF. Improvement of VAS for leg pain was more obvious in the OLIF group (P < 0.0001), whereas improvement of VAS for back pain (P = 0.08) and ODI (P = 0.98) as well as JOABPEQ effectiveness rate (P = 0.18) were similar in the two groups. Radiographically, OLIF was more effective in restoring disc height (P = 0.01) and equivalent in improving the disc angle (P = 0.18) and lumbar lordosis (P = 0.48) compared with MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate (P = 0.11) was similar in both groups, while the subsidence was more severe in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

The above evidence suggests that OLIF is associated with a shorter operation time (with supplementary fixation in the prone position) and less intraoperative blood loss than MIS-TLIF and can lead to better leg pain alleviation, disc height restoration and subsidence resistance. No differences regarding back pain relief, functional recovery, complications, disc angle restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration and fusion rate were found. However, due to the limited number of studies, our results should be confirmed with high-level studies to fully compare the therapeutic efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID:  CRD42020201903 .

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) in Interbody Fusion Technique for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Preoperative pathology requiring fusion surgery has a great impact on postoperative outcomes. However, the previous clinical and meta-analysis studies did not control for the pathology. In this systematic review, the authors aimed to compare oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) as an interbody fusion technique in lumbar fusion surgery for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). We systematically searched for relevant articles in the available databases. Among the 3022 articles, three studies were identified and met the inclusion criteria. In terms of radiological outcome, the amount of disc height restoration was greater in the OLIF group than in the TLIF group, but there was no significant difference between the two surgical techniques (p = 0.18). In the clinical outcomes, the pain improvement was not significantly different between the two surgical techniques. In terms of surgical outcomes, OLIF resulted in a shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss than TLIF (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.02, respectively). The present meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in clinical, radiological outcomes, and surgical time between TLIF and OLIF for DS, but the lengths of hospital stay and blood loss were better in OLIF than TLIF. Though encouraging, these findings were based on low-quality evidence from a small number of retrospective studies that are prone to bias.

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Single-Center Retrospective Comparative Study

Objective

To compare the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in single-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients who underwent single-level DLS surgery in our department from 2015 to 2018 was performed. According to the surgical method, the enrolled patients were divided into two groups, namely, the OLIF group who underwent OLIF combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) and the TLIF group. Clinical outcomes included operation time, operation blood loss, postoperative drainage, hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Oswestry disability index (ODI), and complications, and imaging outcomes included upper vertebral slip, intervertebral space height (ISH), intervertebral foramen height (IFH), intervertebral space angle (ISA), lumbar lordosis (LL), and bone fusion rate. All outcomes were recorded and analyzed.

Results

A total of 65 patients were finally included, and there were 28 patients and 37 patients in the OLIF group and the TLIF group, respectively. The OLIF group showed shorter operation time, less blood loss, less postoperative drainage, and shorter hospital stay than the TLIF group (P < 0.05). The ISH, IFH, ISA, and LL were all larger in the OLIF group at postoperative and last follow-up (P < 0.05), but the degree of upper vertebral slip was found no difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). The bone graft fusion rate of OLIF group and TLIF group at 3 months, 6 months, and last follow-up was 78.57%, 92.86%, and 100% and 70.27%, 86.49%, and 97.30%, respectively, and no significant differences were found (P > 0.05). Compared with the TLIF group, the OLIF group showed a superior improvement in VAS and ODI at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months postoperative (P < 0.05), but no differences were found at 12 months postoperative and the last follow-up (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in complications between the two groups, with 4 patients and 6 patients in the OLIF group and TLIF group, respectively (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with TLIF, OLIF showed the advantages of less surgical invasion, better decompression effect, and faster postoperative recovery in single-level DLS surgery.

Retrospective Comparison of Minimally Invasive and Open Monosegmental Lumbar Fusion, and Impact of Virtual Reality on Surgical Planning and Strategy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Spinal fusion for symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis can be accomplished using an open or minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique. Evaluation of segmental spondylolisthesis and instabilities and review of their therapies are inseparably connected with lumbar tomographic imaging. We analyzed a cohort of patients who underwent MIS or open monosegmental dorsal fusion and compared surgical outcomes along with complication rates. We furthermore evaluated the influence of virtual reality (VR) visualization on surgical planning in lumbar fusion.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

 Patient files were retrospectively analyzed regarding patient- and disease-related data, operative performance, surgical outcomes, and perioperative surgical complications. Preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were retrospectively visualized via VR software. A questionnaire evaluated the influence of three-dimensional (3D) VR images versus two-dimensional CT and MRI scans on therapy planning, fusion method, and surgical technique and procedure.

RESULTS

 Overall, 171 patients were included (MIS/open: 90/81). MIS was associated with less blood loss, shorter surgery time and hospital stay, lower complication rates, equivalent long-term patient-reported outcomes, but lower fusion rates and higher late reoperation rates than open surgery. Image presentation using VR significantly influenced the recommended surgical therapies (decompression only/decompression and fusion; p = 0.02), had no significant influence on the recommended fusion method (rigid/dynamic/stand-alone; p = 0.77), and, in cases of rigid fusion, a significant influence on the recommended technique (MIS/open; p = 0.03) and fusion procedure (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

 In patients with monosegmental degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis, MIS fusion was advantageous concerning perioperative complication rates and perioperative surgical outcomes, but disadvantageous regarding fusion and reoperation rates compared to open fusion. 3D-VR-based analysis of sectional images significantly influenced the recommended surgical planning.

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.

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Techniques, Technologies, and Indications

Over the past few decades, interest in minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has increased tremendously due to its core principle of minimizing approach-related injury while providing outcomes similar to traditional open spine procedures. With technical and technological advancements, MISS has expanded its utility not only to simple spinal stenosis, but also to complex spinal pathologies such as metastasis, trauma, or adult spinal deformity. In this article, we review the techniques and technology in MISS and discuss the indications, benefits, and limitations of MISS.

Biomechanical Comparison of Stand-Alone and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation for Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery-A Finite Element Analysis

BACKGROUND

The most common complication of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is endplate fracture/subsidence. The mechanics of endplate fracture in OLIF surgery are still unclear. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the biomechanical stability in patients undergoing OLIF surgery with stand-alone (SA) and bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) methods.

METHODS

A finite element model of the L1-L5 spinal unit was established and validated. Using the validated model technique, L4-L5 functional surgical models corresponding to the SA and BPSF methods were created. Simulations using the models were performed to investigate OLIF surgery. A 500-N compression force was applied to the superior surface of the model to represent the upper body weight, and a 7.5-Nm moment was applied to simulate the 6 movement directions of the lumbar spinal model: flexion and extension, right and left lateral bending, and right and left axial rotation. Finite element models were developed to compare the biomechanics of the SA and BPSF groups.

RESULTS

Compared with the range of motion of the intact lumbar model, that of the SA model was decreased by 79.6% in flexion, 54.5% in extension, 57.2% in lateral bending, and 50.0% in axial rotation. The BPSF model was decreased by 86.7% in flexion, 77.3% in extension, 76.2% in lateral bending, and 75.0% in axial rotation. Compared with the BPSF model, the maximum stresses of the L4 inferior endplate and L5 superior endplate were greatly increased in the SA model. The L4 inferior endplate stress was increased to 49.7 MPa in extension, and the L5 superior endplate stress was increased to 47.7 MPa in flexion, close to the yield stress of the lamellar bone (60 MPa).

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF surgery with BPSF could reduce the maximum stresses on the endplate, which might reduce the incidence of cage subsidence. OLIF surgery with the SA method produced more stress compared with BPSF, especially in extension and flexion, which might be a potential risk factor for cage subsidence.

Overview of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has continued to evolve over the past few decades, with significant advancements in technology and technical skills. From endonasal cervical approaches to extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusions, MISS has showcased its usefulness across all practice areas of the spine, with unique points of access to avoid pertinent neurovascular structures. Adult spine deformity has also recognized the importance of minimally invasive techniques in its ability to limit complications and to provide adequate sagittal alignment correction and improvements in patients' functional status. Although MISS has continued to make significant progress clinically, consideration must also be given to its economic impact and the learning curve surgeons experience in adding these procedures to their armamentarium. This review examines current innovations in MISS, as well as the economic impact and future directions of the field.

Team Approach: Safety and Value in the Practice of Complex Adult Spinal Surgery

Surgical management of complex adult spinal deformities is of high risk, with a substantial risk of operative mortality. Current evidence shows that potential risk and morbidity resulting from surgery for complex spinal deformity may be minimized through risk-factor optimization. The multidisciplinary team care model includes neurosurgeons, orthopaedic surgeons, physiatrists, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, psychologists, physical therapists, specialized physician assistants, and nurses. The multidisciplinary care model mimics previously described integrated care pathways designed to offer a structured means of providing a comprehensive preoperative medical evaluation and evidence-based multimodal perioperative care. The role of each team member is illustrated in the case of a 66-year-old male patient with previous incomplete spinal cord injury, now presenting with Charcot spinal arthropathy and progressive vertebral-body destruction resulting in lumbar kyphosis.

The effect of vascular approach surgeons on perioperative complications in lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusions

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a popular technique used in spine surgery. It is minimally invasive, provides indirect decompression, and allows for coronal plane deformity correction. Despite these benefits, the approach to LLIF has been linked to complications associated with the lumbosacral plexus and vascular anatomy. As a result, vascular surgeons may be recruited for the exposure portion of the procedure.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare exposure-related complication and postoperative (postop) neuropraxia rates between exposure (EXP) and spine surgeon only (SSO) groups while performing the approach for LLIF.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective analysis of patients treated at a single institution.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients undergoing LLIF procedures between 2012 and 2018.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Operative time, estimated blood loss, fluoroscopy, length of stay (LOS), intra- and postoperative complications, and physiologic measures including pre- and postoperative motor examinations and unresolved neuropraxia.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LLIF were separated into EXP and SSO groups based on the presence or absence of vascular/general surgeon during the approach. The entire clinical history of patients with a decrease in pre- and postop motor examination was reviewed for the presence of neuropraxia. All other intra- and postop exposure-related complications were recorded for comparison. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to account for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) percentage of LLIFs including L4-L5, and number of levels fused. Independent t test and chi-square analyses were used to identify significant differences between EXP and SSO groups. Statistical significance was set at p<.05.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-five patients underwent LLIF procedures, 155 SSO and 120 EXP. Postoperatively, 26 patients (11.1%) experienced a drop in any Medical Research Council (MRC) score, and two patients (0.7%) experienced unresolved quadriceps palsies. The mean recovery time for MRC scores was 84.4 days. Other complications included 2 pneumothoraces (0.7%), 1 iliac vein injury (0.4%), 14 cases of ileus (5.1%), 3 pulmonary emboli (1.1%), 2 deep vein thrombosis (0.7%), 3 cases of abdominal wall paresis (1.1%), and one abdominal hematoma (0.4%). After PSM, demographics including age, gender, body mass index, CCI, levels fused, and operative time were similar between cohorts. Twenty patients had changes in pre- to postop motor scores (SSO 9.4%, EXP 12.4%, p>.05). Iliopsoas motor scores decreased at the highest rate (EXP 12.4%, SSO 8.2%, p>.05) followed by quadriceps (EXP 5.2%, SSO 4.7%, p>.05). One SSO patient's postop course was complicated by a foot drop but returned to baseline within 1 year. One patient in EXP group developed an unresolved quadriceps palsy (EXP 1.0%, SSO 0.0%, p>.05). Intraoperative exposure complications included one pneumothorax (EXP 1.0%, SSO 0.0%, p>.05). There were no differences in PE/DVT, Ileus, or LOS. In the EXP cohort, three patients experienced abdominal wall paresis (EXP 2.9%, SSO 0.00%, p=.246).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparing the LLIF exposures performed by EXP and SSO, we found no significant difference in the rates of complications. Additional research is needed to determine the etiology of the abdominal wall complications. In conclusion, neuropraxia- and approach-related complications are similarly low between exposure and spine surgeons.