Changes in Segmental and Lumbar Lordosis After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Different Lordotic Cage Angulations

Early Experience with Prone Lateral Interbody Fusion in Deformity Correction: A Single-Institution Experience

Background/Objectives: Lateral spine surgery offers effective minimally invasive deformity correction, but traditional approaches often involve separate anterior, lateral, and posterior procedures. The prone lateral technique streamlines this process by allowing single-position access for lateral and posterior surgery, potentially benefiting from the lordosing effect of prone positioning. While previous studies have compared prone lateral to direct lateral for adult degenerative diseases, this retrospective review focuses on the outcomes of adult deformity patients undergoing prone lateral interbody fusion. Methods: Ten adult patients underwent single-position prone lateral surgery for spine deformity correction, with a mean follow-up of 18 months. Results: Results showed significant improvements: sagittal vertical axis decreased by 2.4 cm, lumbar lordosis increased by 9.1°, pelvic tilt improved by 3.3°, segmental lordosis across the fusion construct increased by 12.2°, and coronal Cobb angle improved by 6.3°. These benefits remained consistent over the follow-up period. Correlational analysis showed a positive association between improvements in PROs and SVA and SL. When compared to hybrid approaches, prone lateral yielded greater improvements in SVA. Conclusions: Prone lateral surgery demonstrated favorable outcomes with reasonable perioperative risks. However, further research comparing this technique with standard minimally invasive lateral approaches, hybrid, and open approaches is warranted for a comprehensive evaluation.

Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Increases Operative Efficiency and Maintains Safety in Revision Lumbar Spinal Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Multi-centre retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without patient repositioning. This study examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF against traditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning.

METHOD

A multi-centre retrospective cohort study involving patients undergoing 1 to 4 level LLIF surgery was performed at 4 institutions in the US and Australia. Patients were included if their surgery was performed via either: P-LLIF with revision posterior fusion; or L-LLIF with repositioning to prone. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications, and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at P <0.05.

RESULTS

101 patients undergoing revision LLIF surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs. 2.66 L-LLIF, P =0.469) and number of LLIF levels (1.35 vs. 1.39, P =0.668) was similar between groups.Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group (151 vs. 206 min, P =0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150mL P-LLIF vs. 182mL L-LLIF, P =0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay in the P-LLIF group (2.7 vs. 3.3d, P =0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in complications between groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment measurements.

CONCLUSION

P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency when compared to L-LLIF for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

Radiographic Robustness of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) can be achieved with various techniques. Evidence supporting the long-term clinical advantages of one technique over another are inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the changes in sagittal parameters in the preoperative, intraoperative, and post-operative phase, (2) evaluate the radiographic maintenance of these parameters over time, and (3) compare the demographics and patient reported outcomes of patients undergoing various LIF techniques.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with degenerative spine disease undergoing single level anterior (ALIF), lateral (LLIF), posterior (PLIF), or transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion. Data collected included patient demographics and diagnosis at time of surgery. Upright lumbar radiographs taken pre-operatively, intra-operatively, and post-operatively were measured for lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), posterior disc height (PDH), and foraminal height (FH).

RESULTS

194 patients in a single center were included. PDH and FH increased intra-operatively following ALIF (P < .0001), PLIF (P < .0001), LLIF (P < .0001), and TLIF (P < .0001). SL also increased intra-operatively for ALIF (P = .002) and LLIF (P = .0007). Compared to intra-operative radiographs, PDH and FH decreased at latest post-operative phase for ALIF (P < .03), LLIF (P < .003), TLIF (P < .001), and PLIF (P < .005). SL decreased for ALIF (P = .0008), and TLIF (P = .02). LL did not change postoperatively across techniques. Patient reported outcomes improved post-surgically and disability index decreased, but neither differed between techniques.

CONCLUSION

LIF, regardless of technique, was shown to provide significant radiographic changes in PDH and FH. Techniques utilizing larger intervertebral cage sizes (ALIF/LLIF) improved SL. Single level LIF did not affect overall LL. No single technique displayed superior radiographic robustness over time.

What is the fate of the adjacent segmental angles 6 months after single-level L3-4 or L4-5 lateral lumbar interbody fusion?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is an effective technique for fusion and sagittal alignment correction/maintenance. Studies have investigated the impact on the segmental angle and lumbar lordosis (and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch), however not much is documented regarding the immediate compensation of the adjacent angles.

PURPOSE

To evaluate acute adjacent and segmental angle as well as lumbar lordosis changes in patients undergoing a L3-4 or L4-5 LLIF for degenerative pathology.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients included in this study were analyzed pre- and post-LLIF performed by one of three fellowship-trained spine surgeons, 6 months following surgery.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient demographics (including body mass index, diabetes diagnosis, age, and sex) as well as VAS and ODI scores were measured. Lateral lumbar radiograph parameters: lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), infra and supra-adjacent segmental angle, and pelvic incidence (PI).

METHODS

Multiple regressions were applied for the main hypothesis tests. We examined any interactive effects at each operative level and used the 95% confidence intervals to determine significance: a confidence interval excluding zero indicates a significant effect.

RESULTS

We identified 84 patients who underwent a single level LLIF (61 at L4-5, 23 at L3-4). For both the overall sample and at each operative level, the operative segmental angle was significantly more lordotic postop compared to preop (all ps≤.01). Adjacent segmental angles were significantly less lordotic postop compared to pre-op overall (p=.001). For the overall sample, greater lordotic change at the operative segment led to more compensatory reduction of lordosis at the supra-adjacent segment. At L4-5, more lordotic change at the operative segment led to more compensatory lordosis reduction at the infra-adjacent segment.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that LLIF resulted in significant increase in operative level lordosis and a compensatory decrease in supra- and infra-adjacent level lordosis, and subsequently no significant impact on spinopelvic mismatch.

The impact of cage positioning on lumbar lordosis and disc space restoration following minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate patient and surgical factors that predict increased overall lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis correction following a minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent one- or two-level LLIF. Preoperative, initial postoperative, and 6-month postoperative measurements of LL, segmental lordosis, anterior disc height, and posterior disc height were collected from standing lateral radiographs for each patient. Cage placement was measured utilizing the center point ratio (CPR) on immediate postoperative radiographs. Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between cage lordosis and radiographic parameters. Multivariate linear regression was performed to assess independent predictors of outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 106 levels in 78 unique patients were included. Most procedures involved fusion of one level (n = 50, 64.1%), most commonly L3-4 (46.2%). Despite no differences in baseline segmental lordosis, patients with anteriorly or centrally placed cages experienced the greatest segmental lordosis correction immediately (mean anterior 4.81° and central 4.46° vs posterior 2.47°, p = 0.0315) and at 6 months postoperatively, and patients with anteriorly placed cages had greater overall lordosis correction postoperatively (mean 6.30°, p = 0.0338). At the 6-month follow-up, patients with anteriorly placed cages experienced the greatest increase in anterior disc height (mean anterior 6.24 mm vs posterior 3.69 mm, p = 0.0122). Cages placed more posteriorly increased the change in posterior disc height postoperatively (mean posterior 4.91 mm vs anterior 1.80 mm, p = 0.0001) and at 6 months (mean posterior 4.18 mm vs anterior 2.06 mm, p = 0.0255). There were no correlations between cage lordotic angle and outcomes. On multivariate regression, anterior cage placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in segmental lordosis, while posterior placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in posterior disc height. Percutaneous screw placement, cage lordotic angle, and cage height did not independently predict any radiographic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF procedures reliably improve LL and increase intervertebral disc space. Anterior cage placement improves the lordosis angle greater than posterior placement, which better corrects sagittal alignment, but there is still a significant improvement in lordosis even with a posteriorly placed cage. Posterior cage placement provides greater restoration in posterior disc space height, maximizing indirect decompression, but even the anteriorly placed cages provided indirect decompression. Cage parameters including cage height, lordosis angle, and material do not impact radiographic improvement.

A Short-Term Assessment of Lumbar Sagittal Alignment Parameters in Patients Undergoing Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if intraoperative on-table lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis (SL) coincide with perioperative change in lordosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Improvements in sagittal alignment are believed to correlate with improvements in clinical outcomes. Thus, it is important to establish whether intraoperative radiographs predict postoperative improvements in LL or SL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic medical records were reviewed for patients ≥18 years old who underwent single-level and two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation between 2016 and 2020. LL, SL, and the lordosis distribution index were compared between preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative radiographs using paired t tests. A linear regression determined the effect of subsidence on SL and LL.

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those, 75 patients had one-level fusions and 43 had a two-level fusion. LL significantly increased following on-table positioning [delta (Δ): 5.7°, P <0.001]. However, LL significantly decreased between the intraoperative to postoperative radiographs at two to six weeks (Δ: -3.4°, P =0.001), while no change was identified between the intraoperative and more than three-month postoperative radiographs (Δ: -1.6°, P =0.143). SL was found to significantly increase from the preoperative to intraoperative radiographs (Δ: 10.9°, P <0.001), but it subsequently decreased at the two to six weeks follow up (Δ: -2.7, P <0.001) and at the final follow up (Δ: -4.1, P <0.001). On linear regression, cage subsidence/allograft resorption was predictive of the Δ SL (β=0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.16-0.94; P =0.006), but not LL (β=0.10; 95% confidence interval: -0.44 to 0.65; P =0.708).

CONCLUSION

Early postoperative radiographs may not accurately reflect the improvement in LL seen on intraoperative radiographic imaging, but they are predictive of long-term lumbar sagittal alignment. Each millimeter of cage subsidence or allograft resorption reduces SL by 0.55°, but subsidence does not significantly affect LL.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

4.

Biomechanical changes at the adjacent segments induced by a lordotic porous interbody fusion cage

Biomechanical changes at the adjacent segments after interbody fusion are common instigators of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). This study aims to investigate how the presence of a lordotic porous cage affects the biomechanical performance of the adjacent segments. A finite element model (FEM) of a lumbar spine implanted with a lordotic cage at L3-L4 was validated by in-vitro testing. The stress distribution on the cage and range of motion (ROM) of L3-L4 were used to assess the stability of the implant. Three angles of cage (0° = non-restoration, 7° = normal restoration and 11° = over-restoration) were modelled with different porosities (0%, 30% and 60%) and evaluated in the motions of flexion, extension, lateral bending and rotation. The ROM, intervertebral disc pressure (IDP) and facet joint force (FJF) were used to evaluate biomechanical changes at the adjacent segments in each model. The results indicated that porous cages produced more uniform stress distribution, but cage porosity did not influence the ROM, IDP and FJF at L2-L3 and L4-L5. Increasing the cage lordotic angle acted to decrease the ROM and IDP, and increase the FJF of L4-L5, but did not alter the ROM of L2-L3. In conclusion, changes in ROM, IDP and FJF at the adjacent segments were mainly influenced by the lordotic angle of the cage and not by the porosity. A larger angle of lordotic cage was shown to reduce the ROM and IDP, and increase the FJF of the lower segment (L4-L5), but had little effect on the ROM of the upper segment (L2-L3).