Prone Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: Case Series With an Operative Video Using Fluoroscopy-Based Instrument Tracking Guidance

Single Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of the Current Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Spinal fusion, vital for treating various spinal disorders, has evolved since the introduction of the minimally invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) by Pimenta in 2001. Traditionally performed in the lateral decubitus position, LLIF faces challenges such as intraoperative repositioning, neurological complications, and lack of access to lower lumbar levels. These challenges lead to long surgery times, increased rates of perioperative complications, and increased costs. The more recently popularized prone lateral approach mitigates these issues primarily by eliminating patient repositioning, thereby enhancing surgical efficiency, and reducing operative times. This review examines the progression of spinal fusion techniques, focusing on the advantages and recent findings of the prone lateral approach compared to the traditional LLIF.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prone lateral approach has shown improved patient outcomes, including lower blood loss and shorter hospital stays, and has been validated by multiple studies for its safety and efficacy compared to the LLIF approach. Significant enhancements in postoperative metrics, such as the Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and radiological improvements have been noted. Comparatively, the prone lateral approach offers superior segmental lordosis correction and potentially better subjective outcomes than the lateral decubitus position. Despite these advances, both techniques present similar risks of neurological complications. Overall, the prone lateral approach has emerged as a promising alternative in lumbar interbody fusion, combining efficiency, safety, and improved clinical outcomes.

Single Position Lateral versus Prone Transpsoas Lateral Interbody Fusion Inclusive of L4-L5: A Single Surgeon Experience Examining Early Postoperative Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure is a minimally invasive lumbar spine approach that provides indirect neural decompression, improved sagittal alignment, and a high fusion rate. Typically accompanied by posterior pedicle screw insertion, there has been interest in performing LLIF in a single position to decrease cost and time under anesthesia. However, there is a paucity of direct comparisons between single-position LLIF via prone versus lateral decubitus positioning. Therefore, this study aims to compare the outcomes of a single surgeon performing prone versus lateral single-position LLIF, inclusive of the L4-L5 level.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of a consecutive case series of patients who underwent either prone or lateral, single-position LLIF by a single surgeon. All cases involved the L4-L5 level. Demographic data, perioperative details, clinical outcomes, and preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis were recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients underwent lateral and 16 patients underwent prone single-position LLIF. Demographics and average interbody size were similar between groups. Operative time, change in lumbar lordosis, and length of hospital stay did not differ between the 2 positions. Both groups performed similarly in terms of preoperative and postoperative visual analog score pain score and complications. Patients who underwent lateral position LLIF ambulated farther on postoperative day 1 (250 feet vs. 200 feet, P = 0.015). Average time to follow up was 53 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates promising preliminary results indicating that single-position LLIF performs well, even at the L4-L5 level, in both the prone and lateral positions.

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.

Complications of the Prone Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The prone transpsoas (PTP) approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a novel technique for degenerative lumbar spine disease. However, there is a paucity of information in the literature on the complications of this procedure, with all published data consisting of small samples. We aimed to report the intraoperative and postoperative complications of PTP in the largest study to date.

METHODS

A retrospective electronic medical record review was conducted at 11 centers to identify consecutive patients who underwent LLIF through the PTP approach between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. The following data were collected: intraoperative characteristics (operative time, estimated blood loss [EBL], intraoperative complications [anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) rupture, cage subsidence, vascular and visceral injuries]), postoperative complications, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 365 patients were included in the study. Among these patients, 2.2% had ALL rupture, 0.3% had cage subsidence, 0.3% had a vascular injury, 0.3% had a ureteric injury, and no other visceral injuries were reported. Mean operative time was 226.2 ± 147.9 minutes. Mean EBL was 138.4 ± 215.6 mL. Mean hospital stay was 2.7 ± 2.2 days. Postoperative complications included new sensory symptoms-8.2%, new lower extremity weakness-5.8%, wound infection-1.4%, cage subsidence-0.8%, psoas hematoma-0.5%, small bowel obstruction and ischemia-0.3%, and 90-day readmission-1.9%.

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter case series, the PTP approach was well tolerated and associated with a satisfactory safety profile.