Accuracy of Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement after Single-Position versus Dual-Position Insertion for Lateral Interbody Fusion and Pedicle Screw Fixation Using Fluoroscopy

Comprehensive Assessment of Indirect Decompression Through Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire-Based Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the clinical outcomes of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) as an indirect decompression technique for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and concomitant degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) patients. We utilized the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) to assess treatment success and its impact on patient's quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

We included 124 patients who underwent LLIF. Pre- and postoperative JOABPEQ evaluations indicated treatment success. Subgroup analysis categorized patients' perceptions of surgery as beneficial or non-beneficial.

RESULTS

89% of patients (110/124) reported satisfaction with LLIF. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion achieved successful indirect decompression, increasing canal diameter and central canal area. Significant improvements occurred across all JOABPEQ domains, notably for low back pain, lumbar function, walking ability, social life function, and mental health. Patients who perceived the surgery as beneficial experienced fewer postoperative complications, lower numeric rating scale scores for pain relief, and greater functional outcome improvements compared to non-beneficial patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the utility of JOABPEQ as a valuable and sensitive tool for assessing treatment effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes in DS and concomitant DLSS patients. Patients undergoing LLIF. The results affirm the favorable outcomes of LLIF as a surgical option for DLSS patients and emphasize the importance of considering patient perspectives when evaluating overall treatment success. The study provides valuable insights into the impact of indirect decompression on patients' QOL, supporting the effectiveness of LLIF as a minimally invasive technique for DLSS and DS management.

Single Position Lateral Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5/S1

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is an established surgical approach for spinal fusion, offering distinct advantages in restoring lumbar lordosis, indirectly decompressing neural elements, and facilitating high fusion rates because of the increase in the fusion surface area. Traditionally, ALIF is performed with the patient in a supine position, necessitating repositioning for additional posterior interventions, which increases operative time, anesthetic time, and complexity. The recent development of single position lateral ALIF (SPL-ALIF) enables anterior and posterior access without repositioning, enables gravity facilitated retroperitoneal access, and optimizes surgical efficiency, particularly in cases necessitating multilevel anterior column fusion. The current review comprehensively examines SPL-ALIF at the L5-S1 level, presenting technical considerations and comparative benefits over traditional techniques. The approach has demonstrated significant reductions in operative time, blood loss, and postoperative ileus, with equivalent radiographic outcomes compared with supine ALIF. Furthermore, SPL-ALIF has been evidenced to have a similar safety profile to supine ALIF with equivalent vascular, abdominal, and neurological complications, as well as comparable revision rates between the two procedures. However, SPL-ALIF is not without limitations. The technique may be less effective in cases requiring direct decompression or in patients with complex vascular anatomy or extensive retroperitoneal scarring. These challenges necessitate careful patient selection to optimize outcomes and minimize intraoperative risks. Future studies are warranted to validate the clinical benefits of SPL-ALIF, particularly concerning fusion rates, patient-reported outcomes, and complication profiles, thereby solidifying its role in the evolving landscape of minimally invasive spine surgery.

The Role of Cage Placement Angle in Optimizing Short-Term Clinical Outcomes in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

The purpose is to investigate the impact of cage angle on clinical outcomes and indirect decompression efficacy in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on 87 patients with single-level lumbar degenerative disease who underwent LLIF. Patients were grouped based on the angle of cage placement: minimal (0°-5°), mild (>5° ≤ 15°), and severe (>15°). Clinical outcomes assessed included pain intensity, functional improvement, and complication rates. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluations included measurements of canal diameter and central canal area pre- and postoperatively. Patient-reported outcomes were also analyzed using the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Clinical and radiographic outcomes were significantly improved across all cage angle groups. Reductions in low back pain, leg pain, and numbness were significant in all groups, with no significant differences. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluations revealed significant increases in canal diameter and central canal area postoperatively, confirming effective indirect decompression. Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire scores showed significant improvements in all domains, including low back pain, lumbar function, walking ability, social life function, and mental health. However, the severe angle group had higher rates of delayed cage subsidence. Complications such as transient motor weakness, thigh pain, numbness, and the need for revision surgery were consistent across groups, with no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF effectively treats LDD patients, providing significant short-term clinical and radiographic improvements regardless of cage angle. However, oblique cage placement increases the risk of cage subsidence, requiring careful surgical planning and postoperative following.

Spinal Robotics in Single-Position Lateral Surgery: A Narrative Review of Key Concepts and Considerations

Anterior column realignment via anterior, oblique, or lateral lumbar interbody fusion is increasingly recognized as a powerful mechanism for indirect decompression and sagittal realignment in flexible deformity. Single-position lateral surgery is a popular variation that places patients in the lateral decubitus position, allowing concomitant placement of lateral interbodies and posterior segmental instrumentation without the need for repositioning the patient. The addition of robotics to this technique can help to overcome ergonomic limitations of the placement of pedicle screws in the lateral decubitus position; however, its description in the literature is relatively lacking. In this review we aim to discuss the indications, advantages, and pitfalls of this approach.

Short-Term Comparison Between Unilateral Versus Bilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in Short-Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Prospective Randomized Study

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES

No prospective studies have directly compared clinical and radiographic outcomes of unilateral vs bilateral instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). We compared the short-term radiographic, clinical outcomes, and some complications of the unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) (UPS) vs bilateral PPS (BPS) fixation in short-level spinal fusion with LLIF for LDD.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled study of 33 patients who underwent UPS or BPS fixation after LLIF for LDD; 18 patients were assigned to the UPS group and 15 patients to the BPS group. Clinical outcomes, complication rates, and fusion rates were assessed.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, and level of surgery. Blood loss, length of hospital stay, and numeric rating scale score one year after surgery did not differ between groups. The operative time was longer in the BPS than UPS group (120.2 vs 88.8 min, respectively; P = .029). Both groups showed improvement in disc height and dural sac in the immediate postoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, which did not differ significantly between groups. The subsidence grade and fusion rate did not differ, but cage subsidence was more severe in the UPS than BPS group.

CONCLUSION

Unilateral and bilateral PPS fixation after LLIF yielded similar short-term clinical and radiological outcomes. However, severe cage subsidence was more common in the UPS group, which suggests that BPS fixation after LLIF may be a better choice over the long term.

Quantifying Satisfaction of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients in Post-lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: Establishing Critical JOABPEQ Cutoff Scores

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective study aimed to determine the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) cutoff scores for assessing patient satisfaction postlateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) patients.

METHODS

Analyzing 136 DLSS patients (83 males, 53 females), the study evaluated demographics, pain (Numeric Rating Scale), and JOABPEQ outcomes (low back pain, lumbar function, walking ability, social life, mental health). Patient satisfaction was surveyed, and based on their responses, patients were categorized into "Beneficial" and "Nonbeneficial" groups. Statistical analysis encompassed the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U test, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for JOABPEQ cutoff determination.

RESULTS

Postoperative improvements in JOABPEQ scores, especially in walking ability, social life function, and mental health, were significant. Pain intensity, assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale, also showed notable reductions. The Δ walking ability cutoff was set at 25.00, indicating substantial mobility improvement. This domain's area under the curve (AUC) was 0.815 (95% CI: 0.726-0.903), demonstrating high effectiveness in assessing patient satisfaction postsurgery. The study also found no significant differences in complication rates between groups for conditions like transient motor weakness, thigh pain/numbness, and revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This study underscores the value of patient-centered outcomes in evaluating LLIF surgery success for DLSS. The identified JOABPEQ cutoff values provide a quantitative tool for assessing patient satisfaction, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive postoperative evaluations beyond traditional clinical metrics for improved patient care and life quality.

The Utility and Appropriateness of Single-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-Arm-Based Navigation in the Novel Oblique Position

PURPOSE

Single-position surgery with patients in a lateral position, which involves inserting percutaneous pedicular screws (PPS) and lateral interbody fusion (LIF) to avoid changing the position, has been reported. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the utility and appropriateness of single-position LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation in the innovative oblique position.

METHODS

This study involved a retrospective analysis of 92 consecutive patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation. Thirty-five subjects demonstrated surgery with repositioning, as well as 24 in the lateral decubitus position, and 33 in the oblique during PPS, where the position was changed to the lateral decubitus position using bed rotation without resetting. We compared these three groups in terms of the surgery time, blood loss, and the accuracy of the screw placement.

RESULTS

The operative time was significantly shorter in the single-position surgery, both in the lateral and oblique positions, compared to surgery in a dual position. The blood loss was significantly increased in the lateral position compared to the dual and oblique positions. The screw trajectory angle on the downside was significantly smaller in the lateral position, and the accuracy of the screw placement on the downside was significantly lower in the lateral position compared to the dual and oblique positions.

CONCLUSION

Single-position surgery could reduce the average surgery time by about 60 min. The present study indicated the oblique position during PPS insertion might make single-position surgery more useful to improve the accuracy of PPS on the downside, with less blood loss.

Assessing Procedural Accuracy in Lateral Spine Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis of Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement with Intraoperative CT Navigation

Percutaneous pedicle screws (PPSs) are commonly used in posterior spinal fusion to treat spine conditions such as trauma, tumors, and degenerative diseases. Precise PPS placement is essential in preventing neurological complications and improving patient outcomes. Recent studies have suggested that intraoperative computed tomography (CT) navigation can reduce the dependence on extensive surgical expertise for achieving accurate PPS placement. However, more comprehensive documentation is needed regarding the procedural accuracy of lateral spine surgery (LSS). In this retrospective study, we investigated patients who underwent posterior instrumentation with PPSs in the thoracic to lumbar spine, utilizing an intraoperative CT navigation system, between April 2019 and September 2023. The system's methodology involved real-time CT-based guidance during PPS placement, ensuring precision. Our study included 170 patients (151 undergoing LLIF procedures and 19 trauma patients), resulting in 836 PPS placements. The overall PPS deviation rate, assessed using the Ravi scale, was 2.5%, with a notably higher incidence of deviations observed in the thoracic spine (7.4%) compared to the lumbar spine (1.9%). Interestingly, we found no statistically significant difference in screw deviation rates between upside and downside PPS placements. Regarding perioperative complications, three patients experienced issues related to intraoperative CT navigation. The observed higher rate of inaccuracies in the thoracic spine suggests that various factors may contribute to these differences in accuracy, including screw size and anatomical variations. Further research is required to refine PPS insertion techniques, particularly in the context of LSS. In conclusion, this retrospective study sheds light on the challenges associated with achieving precise PPS placement in the lateral decubitus position, with a significantly higher deviation rate observed in the thoracic spine compared to the lumbar spine. This study emphasizes the need for ongoing research to improve PPS insertion techniques, leading to enhanced patient outcomes in spine surgery.

Minimally Invasive Approach for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Lateral Single-Position Surgery with Intraoperative Computed Tomography Navigation and Fluoroscopy: A Technical Note

OBJECTIVE

Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is a prevalent condition that leads to low back pain and neurological symptoms. This technical note presents a novel surgical strategy for treating DS using lateral single-position surgery (SPS) in combination with intraoperative computed tomography navigation and fluoroscopy.

METHODS

Fifteen patients (5 males and 10 females, mean age 70.2 years) diagnosed with DS with a slip of 5 mm or more underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation using this technique. The procedure involved slip reduction using an upside PPS and rod fixation, followed by LLIF performed in the same lateral position. The term "upside PPS" refers to a PPS that is inserted on the ceiling side of the patient's surgical field. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic assessments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the lateral SPS.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated significant improvements in various parameters, including spondylolisthesis reduction, segmental lordosis, disc height, and spinal canal dimensions. The lateral-SPS procedure exhibited several advantages over traditional flip LLIF approaches for slip reduction. Additionally, the technique provided accurate intraoperative navigation guidance through computed tomography imaging, ensuring precise implant placement and slip reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining LLIF and PPS fixation in a single procedure presents a precise, efficient approach for DS treatment, minimizing repositioning needs. This technique enables effective lumbar reconstruction, restoration of spinal stability, and improved patient outcomes. Although further investigation is warranted, lateral SPS surgery may hold promise as an innovative solution for managing DS by reducing surgical invasiveness and optimizing surgical efficiency.

Early Radiological Assessment of Static and Expandable Cages in Lateral Single Position for Indirect Decompression- Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the postoperative alignment of static and expandable cages in lateral single-position (LSP) for indirect decompression in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

We included sixty-seven patients who underwent LSP-LLIF for lumbar degenerative disease. We performed radiological assessments preoperatively and two weeks postoperatively using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. We divided the patients into the expandable cage group (23 patients) and the static cage group (44 patients). We measured disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and foraminal area (FA) from computed tomography images and the area of the dural sac from magnetic resonance imaging. We recorded surgical outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Both static and expandable cages demonstrated improvements in DH, SL, FA, and dural sac expansion. However, we found no statistically significant differences in the average change in DH (4.4 ± 2.1 mm vs. 4.2 ± 1.8 mm, P = 0.685), the average change in SL (1.0 ± 4.4° vs. 1.9 ± 3.6°, P = 0.310), or FA change (32.5 ± 31.7 mm2 vs. 34.9 ± 29.5 mm2, P = 0.966) between the expandable and static cage groups. We also found no statistically significant difference in dural sac enlargement between the two groups. We observed no significant differences in operation time, estimated blood loss, or length of hospital stay between the two groups. No severe adverse events or additional surgeries were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In LSP-LLIF without facet joint resection or other posterior techniques, static and expandable cages showed comparable effectiveness in achieving increased DH, SL, FA, and indirect decompression.

The Analysis of Preoperative Roussouly Classification on Pain Scores and Radiological Data in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Disease

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE

The type of sagittal profile defined by Roussouly has affected spinal degeneration and surgical outcome. This study aimed to investigate the effect of preoperative Roussouly classification on pain intensity and radiological data of patients with lumbar degenerative disease who underwent indirect decompression with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated 102 patients who underwent LLIF without direct decompression. Patients were subdivided into 4 groups according to the Roussouly classification determined from preoperative full-length and lateral spine X-rays, and classified according to Roussouly types I, II, and IV in the nonstandard group and Roussouly type III in the standard group.

RESULTS

The nonstandard group showed improved sagittal vertical axis and lumbar lordosis after LLIF surgery, but the midsagittal canal diameter and axial central canal area of the thecal sac using T2-weighted sagittal and axial magnetic resonance imaging were smaller than those in the standard group. On the other hand, each numeric rating scale score 1 year after surgery improved in all patients. Changes in numeric rating scale scores in low back pain, leg pain, and numbness were not statistically significant between Roussouly classification types.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the nonstandard group may have less indirect decompression effect from LLIF than the standard group. In the short term, we show for the first time after LLIF surgery that preoperative sagittal spinal alignment and the pelvic position may not significantly impact pain improvement.

Single position robot-assisted pedicle screw placement with S2-alar-iliac fixation in lateral decubitus: cadaveric feasibility study and early clinical experience

OBJECTIVES

Single position lateral fusion with robotic assistance eliminates the need for surgical staging while harnessing the precision of robotic adjuncts. We expand on this technique by demonstrating the technical feasibility of placing bilateral pedicle screws with S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) fixation while in the lateral position.

METHODS

A cadaveric study was performed using 12 human specimens. A retrospective clinical series was also performed for patients who had undergone robot-assisted placement of S2AI screws in lateral decubitus between June 2020 and June 2022. Case demographics, implant placement time, implant size, screw accuracy, and complications were recorded. Early postoperative radiographic outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

In the cadaveric series, a total of 126 screws were placed with robotic assistance in 12 cadavers of which 24 screws were S2AI. There were four breaches from pedicle screws and none with S2AI screws for an overall accuracy rate of 96.8%. In the clinical series, four patients (all male, mean age 65.8 years) underwent single position lateral surgery with S2AI distal fixation. Mean BMI was 33.6 and mean follow-up was 20.5 months. Mean radiographic improvements were lumbar lordosis 12.3 ± 4.7°, sagittal vertical axis 1.5 ± 2.1 cm, pelvic tilt 8.5 ± 10.0°, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch 12.3 ± 4.7°. A total of 42 screws were placed of which eight screws were S2AI. There were two breaches from pedicle screws and none from S2AI screws for an overall accuracy rate of 95.2%. No repositioning or salvage techniques were required for the S2AI screws.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate here the technical feasibility of single position robot-assisted placement of S2-alar-iliac screws in the lateral decubitus position for single position surgery.

Biomechanical Comparison of Multilevel Stand-Alone Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion With Posterior Pedicle Screws: An In Vitro Study

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) allows placement of large interbody cages while preserving ligamentous structures important for stability. Multiple clinical and biomechanical studies have demonstrated the feasibility of stand-alone LLIF in single-level fusion. We sought to compare the stability of 4-level stand-alone LLIF utilizing wide (26 mm) cages with bilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation.

METHODS

Eight human cadaveric specimens of L1-5 were included. Specimens were attached to a universal testing machine (MTS 30/G). Flexion, extension, and lateral bending were attained by applying a 200 N load at a rate of 2 mm/sec. Axial rotation of ± 8° of the specimen was performed at 2°/sec. Three-dimensional specimen motion was recorded using an optical motion-tracking device. Specimens were tested in 4 conditions: (1) intact, (2) bilateral pedicle screws and rods, (3) 26-mm stand-alone LLIF, (4) 26-mm LLIF with bilateral pedicle screws and rods.

RESULTS

Compared to the stand-alone LLIF, bilateral pedicle screws and rods had 47% less range of motion in flexion-extension (p < 0.001), 21% less in lateral bending (p < 0.05), and 20% less in axial rotation (p = 0.1). The addition of bilateral posterior instrumentation to the stand-alone LLIF resulted in decreases of all 3 planes of motion: 61% in flexion-extension ( p < 0.001), 57% in lateral bending (p < 0.001), 22% in axial rotation (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Despite the biomechanical advantages associated with the lateral approach and 26 mm wide cages, stand-alone LLIF for 4-level fusion is not equivalent to pedicle screws and rods.

Biomechanical characteristics of 2 different posterior fixation methods of bilateral pedicle screws: A finite element analysis

BACKGROUND

To explore the biomechanical characteristics of 2 posterior bilateral pedicle screw fixation methods using finite element analysis.

METHODS

A normal L3-5 finite element model was established. Based on the verification of its effectiveness, 2 different posterior internal fixation methods were simulated: bilateral pedicle screws (model A) were placed in the L3 and L5 vertebral bodies, and bilateral pedicle screws (model B) were placed in the L3, L4, and L5 vertebral bodies. The stability and stress differences of intervertebral discs, endplates, screws, and rods between models were compared.

RESULTS

Compared with the normal model, the maximum stress of the range of motion, intervertebral disc, and endplate of the 2 models decreased significantly. Under the 6 working conditions, the 2 internal fixation methods have similar effects on the stress of the endplate and intervertebral disc, but the maximum stress of the screws and rods of model B is smaller than that of model A.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these results, it was found that bilateral pedicle screw fixation in 2 vertebrae L3 and L5 can achieve similar stability as bilateral pedicle screw fixation in 3 vertebrae L3, L4, and L5. However, the maximum stress of the screw and rod in model B is less than that in model A, so this internal fixation method can effectively reduce the risk of fracture. The 3-dimensional finite element model established in this study is in line with the biomechanical characteristics of the spine and can be used for further studies on spinal column biomechanics. This information can serve as a reference for clinicians for surgical selection.

Perioperative and Radiographic Outcomes Between Single-Position Surgery (Lateral Decubitus) and Dual-Position Surgery for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation: Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and percutaneous posterior screw fixation (PPSF) techniques is used to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies. Dual-position (DP) lumbar surgery involves repositioning the patient from the supine or lateral decubitus position to prone for posterior fixation. Single-position (SP) lumbar surgery is commonly performed nowadays, a minimally invasive alternative performed entirely from the lateral decubitus position. However, controversy still exists. This meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between SP lumbar surgery and DP lumbar surgery for LLIF and PPSF.

METHODS

We conducted this meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched Medline and Scopus from inception to November 11, 2021, for relevant studies.

RESULTS

Six studies were identified, which contained totals of 502 and 447 patients in the SP and DP groups, respectively. The unstandardized mean difference in operative time, length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, radiation doses, lumbar lordosis, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch were -86.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] -149.2 to -23.1) minutes, -1.6 (95% CI -2.4 to -0.9) days, -55.6 (95% CI -127.5 to 16.2) mL, -30.3 (95% CI -80.5 to 19.8) mGy, 1.34 (95% CI -1.17 to 3.86) degrees, and -4.06 (95% CI -5.65 to -2.47) lower in SP when compared with DP. The chances of having complications and reoperations in SP were 0.75 (95% CI 0.49-1.14) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.44-1.36) times, respectively, compared with the DP group. No significant differences were found for intraoperative blood loss, radiation dose, lumbar lordosis, complications, and reoperations between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found that SP have lower operative time and length of hospital stay compared with DP LLIF and PPSF. However, no differences in intraoperative blood loss, radiation dose, radiographic change, complications, and reoperation rates were found.

Setting for single position surgery: survey from expert spinal surgeons

PURPOSE

To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field.

METHODS

Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique.

CONCLUSION

A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

Surgical fixation of pathologic and traumatic spinal fractures using single position surgery technique in lateral decubitus position

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Case Series.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to determine complications, readmission, and revision surgery rates in patients undergoing single position surgery (SPS) for surgical treatment of traumatic and pathologic thoracolumbar fractures.

METHODS

A multi-center review of patients who underwent SPS in the lateral decubitus position (LSPS) for surgical management of traumatic or pathologic thoracolumbar fractures between January 2016 and May 2020 was conducted. Operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmissions, and revision surgeries were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 12 patients with a mean age of 45 years (66.67% male) were included. The majority of patients underwent operative treatment for acute thoracolumbar trauma (66.67%) with a mean injury severity score (ISS) of 16.71. Mean operative time was 175.5 min, mean EBL of 816.67 cc. Five patients experienced a complication, two of which required revision surgery for additional decompression during the initial admission. All ambulatory patients were mobilized on postoperative day 1. The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was 9.67 days.

CONCLUSION

The results of this case series supports LSPS as a feasible alternative to the traditional combined anterior-posterior approach for surgical treatment of pathologic and thoracolumbar fractures. These results are similar to reductions in operative time, EBL, and LOS seen in the elective spine literature with LSPS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Intraoperative computed tomography-guided navigation versus fluoroscopy for single-position surgery after lateral lumbar interbody fusion

There are no reports comparing fluoroscopy and intraoperative computed tomography (CT) navigation in lateral single-position surgery (SPS) in terms of surgical outcomes or implant-related complications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use radiological evaluation to compare the incidence of instrument-related complications in SPS of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using fluoroscopy with that using CT navigation techniques. We evaluated 99 patients who underwent lateral SPS. Twenty-six patients had a percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) inserted under fluoroscopy (SPS-C group), and 73 patients had a PPS inserted under intraoperative CT navigation (SPS-O group). Average operation time was shorter in the SPS-C group than in the SPS-O group (88.4 ± 24.4 min versus 111.9 ± 35.3 min, respectively, P = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in postoperative thigh symptoms or reoperation rate. The screw insertion angle of the SPS-C group was smaller than that of the SPS-O group, but there was no significant difference in the rate of screw misplacement (4.6% versus 3.4%, respectively, P = 0.556). By contrast, facet joint violation (FJV) was significantly lower in the SPS-O group than in the SPS-C group (8.4% versus 21.3%, respectively, P < 0.001). While fluoroscopy was superior to intraoperative CT navigation in terms of mean surgery time, there was no significant difference in the accuracy of PPS insertion between fluoroscopy and intraoperative CT navigation. The advantage of intraoperative CT navigation over fluoroscopy is that it significantly decreases the occurrence of FJV in SPS.

Utility of Power Tool and Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement in Single Position Surgery: A Technical Note

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to demonstrate the utility of power tools and intraoperative neuromonitoring of percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) insertion (so-called PPS monitoring) by SINGLE-position surgery (SPS) after lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of medical records from a single center was performed to identify patients who underwent SPS for lateral lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation using PPS during intraoperative computed tomography navigation from 2020 to 2021. We investigated the PPS insertion time and screw positional accuracy of patients who underwent SPS involving power tools and PPS monitoring during this period. In this technical note, we report on this surgical technique.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (mean age 72.0 ± 8.5 years, range 53-81 years) were included in this study. There were no intraoperative complications in all cases. Posterior fixation using PPS was added in all cases, and a total of 106 PPSs were inserted. It took an average of 6.2 ± 2.4 seconds to insert the PPS from the PPS insertion point to the end using a power tool and PPS monitoring. Moreover, there were no cases of pedicle breaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to previous reports related to power tools in the prone position, the lateral decubitus SPS technique can also use power tools to save PPS insertion time. Furthermore, we suggest that the use of PPS monitoring may prevent erroneous PPS insertions by using intraoperative computed tomography navigation in advance.