Supra-psoas shallow docking in lateral interbody fusion

Sequential Depth Stimulation Within the Psoas Offers No Benefit for Localization of the Lumbar Plexus During Lateral Lumbar Fusion Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

In this study we aim to assess the difference in triggered EMG readings throughout different depths in the psoas muscle during the lateral approach to the lumbar spine and their effect on surgeon decision making.

METHODS

Three surgeons, practicing at different institutions, assessed triggered EMG readings during the trans psoas approach at the level of the disc and 5,10 and 15 millimeters into the psoas muscle with sequential dilators. Measurement of distance into the psoas muscle was done with a specially designed instrument. Results of anterior and posterior directed stimulation as well as the delta value between these were recorded and underwent statistical analysis. Patients who had partial readings were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

A total of 40 levels in 35 patients were included in the study. There was no significant difference found between means of anterior or posterior threshold readings along the different distance groups. A significant difference was found (P = .024) in the mean difference between the distance groups with a decrease in the difference between anterior and posterior threshold values found as the distance from the disc space increased. None of the surgeons reported a decision to abort the fusion of a spinal level.

CONCLUSIONS

In the trans-psoas approach to the lumbar spine, the assessment of the location of the femoral nerve using directional neuromonitoring when advancing in the psoas muscle shows no clear benefit as opposed to stimulating solely when adjacent to the disc space.

Rational decision making in a wide scenario of different minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion approaches and devices

With the proliferation of a variety of modern MIS spine surgery procedures, it is mandatory that the surgeon dominate all aspects involved in surgical indication. The information related to the decision making in patient selection for specific procedures is mandatory for surgical success. The objective of this study is to present decision-making criteria in minimally invasive surgery (MIS) selection for a variety of patients and pathologies. In this article, practicing surgeons who specialize in various MIS approaches for spinal fusion were engaged to provide expert opinion and literature review on decision making criteria for several MIS procedures. Pros, cons, relative limitations, and case examples are provided for patient selection in treatment with MIS posterolateral fusion (MIS-PLF), mini anterior lumbar interbody fusion (mini-ALIF), lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), MIS posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-PLIF) and MIS transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). There is a variety of aspects to consider when deciding which modern MIS surgical approach is most appropriate to use based on patient and pathologic characteristics. The surgeon must adapt them to the characteristic of each type of patients, helping them to choose the most effective and efficient therapeutic option for each case.

Outcomes of Two Different Techniques Using the Lateral Approach for Lumbar Interbody Arthrodesis

Study Design Retrospective cohort study. Objective To determine the short-term outcomes of two different lateral approaches to the lumbar spine. Methods This was a retrospective review performed with four fellowship-trained spine surgeons from a single institution. Two different approach techniques were identified. (1) Traditional transpsoas (TP) approach: dissection was performed through the psoas performed using neuromonitored sequential dilation. (2) Direct visualization (DV) approach: retractors are placed superficial to the psoas followed by directly visualized dissection through psoas. Outcome measures included radiographic fusion and adverse event (AE) rate. Results In all, 120 patients were identified, 79 women and 41 men. Average age was 64.2 years (22 to 86). When looking at all medical and surgical AEs, 31 patients (25.8%) had one or more AEs; 22 patients (18.3%) had a total of 24 neurologically related AEs; 15 patients (12.5%) had anterior/lateral thigh dysesthesias; 6 patients (5.0%) had radiculopathic pain; and 3 patients (2.5%) had postoperative weakness. Specifically, for neurologic AEs, the DV group had a rate of 28.0% and the TP group had a rate of 14.2% (p < 0.18). When looking at the rate of neurologic AEs in patients undergoing single-level fusions only, the DV group rate was 28.6% versus 10.2% for the TP group (p < 0.03). Conclusion Overall, 18.3% of patients sustained a postoperative neurologic AE following lateral interbody fusions. The TP approach had a statistically lower rate of neurologic-specific AE for single-level fusions.