Preoperative Multifidus Muscle Quality is Associated With Patient Reported Outcomes After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) commonly involves a transpsoas approach. Despite the association between LLIF, postoperative iliopsoas weakness, and iatrogenic neuropraxia, no study has yet examined the effect of psoas or multifidus muscle quality on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

This study retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent LLIF with 1-year minimum follow-up. Psoas and multifidus muscle qualities were graded on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging using two validated classification systems for muscle atrophy. Average muscle quality was calculated as the mean score from all levels (L1-2 through L5-S1). Univariate and multivariate statistics were utilized to investigate the relationship between psoas/multifidus muscle quality and preoperative, 6-weeks postoperative, and final postoperative PROs.

RESULTS

74 patients (110 levels) with a mean follow-up of 18.71 ± 8.02 months were included for analysis. Greater multifidus atrophy was associated with less improvement on ODI, SF12, and VR12 (P < .05) on univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, worse multifidus atrophy predicted less improvement on SF12 and VR12 (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Despite the direct manipulation of the psoas muscle inherent to LLIF, preoperative psoas muscle quality did not affect postoperative outcomes. Rather, the extent of preoperative multifidus fatty infiltration and atrophy was more likely to predict postoperative pain and disability. These findings suggest that multifidus atrophy may be more pertinent than psoas atrophy in its association with patient-reported outcome measures after LLIF.

Efficacy and Safety of the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) Technique in Spine Surgery: Meta-Analysis of 1409 Patients

(1) Objectives: The objective of this study was to quantify the exact clinical-radiological efficacy and safety of the extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) technique in spinal surgery; (2) Methods: A meta-analysis was performed using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Collaboration Library. Studies focusing on patients surgically treated with XLIF were included. The outcomes were as follows: visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), radiological outcomes, and adverse events. Cohort studies and case series were also included. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 12 months of age. Data were combined using Review Manager 5.4 and WebPlotDigitizer 13.1.4; (3) Results: Nineteen studies with a pool of 1409 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Leg pain VAS and back pain VAS significantly improved at 12 months (SMD 2.75, 95% CI 0.59-4.90; SMD 4.54, 95% CI 1.39-7.69). ODI showed significant improvement (MD 32.51, 95% CI 24.01-41.00) at 12 months. Disc height increased significantly (SMD -2.73, 95% CI -3.58 to -1.88). Lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis were significantly corrected postoperatively (MD -2.44, 95% CI -3.45 to -1.43; MD -2.55, 95% CI -3.61 to -1.48). The fusion rates at 12 months ranged from 85.0% to 93.3%. The most frequent complications were transient neurological conditions (2.2%), hardware failure (1.9%), and transient pain (1.8%). The most frequent serious complications were nerve root injury (1.0%), gastrointestinal impairment (0.7%), and vertebral fractures (0.6%); (4) Conclusions: This is the first meta-analysis of the specific use of XLIF in spinal surgery. This study demonstrates that the XLIF technique in spine surgery is associated with good clinical and radiological results and a low complication rate.

Towards a More Realistic Appraisal of Complications Following Staged Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Single Institution Series

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

With steadily increasing implementation of far lateral approaches in spine surgery, surgeons can utilize the advantages of different approaches synergistically to ensure an optimal patient outcome. Our single institution study aimed to assess the complication rates of patients who underwent a lateral interbody fusion as the index procedure and additional anterior or posterior instrumentation as part of a planned staged surgical reconstruction effort.

METHODS

This study was approved by our institutional review board (STUDY2021000113). We included 576 patients who received a lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) as the index procedure followed by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) between 2016 and 2020. Primary outcomes were complications identified during the initial inpatient stay, which were categorized into approach-related and secondary complications. Secondary outcomes tracked up to 6 years post-surgery.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was 19.2% (10.5% approach related, 8.7% secondary complications). Significant intraoperative hemorrhage (mean 659.3 mL vs 131.4 mL, P < .01) was the most common approach related complication with an incidence of 4%, followed by temporary hip flexor weakness in 2.6%. A permanent (femoral) nerve damage was verified in 1 patient. The most common secondary complication was impaired wound healing in 12 patients (2.1%). We identified a 7.1% (41 of 576 patients) rate of revision surgery, on average after 372 days (±34 days).

CONCLUSIONS

We recorded an overall complication rate of 19.2% for staged adult deformity corrective surgeries utilizing far lateral interbody fusions at several lumbar levels followed by a more comprehensive posterior surgical reconstruction.

Management of Refractory Post-operative Osteomyelitis and Discitis: A Case Report

Vertebral osteomyelitis/discitis is a relatively rare disease but is a known potential complication of spinal surgical intervention. In general, the first-line treatment for this condition is targeted antibiotic therapy with surgical intervention only utilized in refractory cases with evidence of extensive damage, structural instability, or abscess formation. However, surgical best practices have not been established for osteomyelitis, including indications for anterior lateral interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lateral interbody fusion (PLIF), or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF). This case provides a discussion of the indications that led to a direct lateral approach in the setting of refractory osteomyelitis/discitis, supporting factors that led to its success, and the efficacy of utilizing intraoperative neuromonitoring in cases of infection.

Complications associated with single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and pooled analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a workhorse surgical approach for lumbar arthrodesis. There is growing interest in techniques for performing single-position surgery in which LLIF and pedicle screw fixation are performed with the patient in the prone position. Most studies of prone LLIF are of poor quality and without long-term follow-up; therefore, the complication profile related to this novel approach is not well known. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and pooled analysis to understand the safety profile of prone LLIF.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature and a pooled analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies reporting prone LLIF were assessed for inclusion. Studies not reporting complication rates were excluded.

RESULTS

Ten studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Overall, 286 patients were treated with prone LLIF across these studies, and a mean (SD) of 1.3 (0.2) levels per patient were treated. The 18 intraoperative complications reported included cage subsidence (3.8% [3/78]), anterior longitudinal ligament rupture (2.3% [5/215]), cage repositioning (2.1% [2/95]), segmental artery injury (2.0% [5/244]), aborted prone interbody placement (0.8% [2/244]), and durotomy (0.6% [1/156]). No major vascular or peritoneal injuries were reported. Sixty-eight postoperative complications occurred, including hip flexor weakness (17.8% [21/118]), thigh and groin sensory symptoms (13.3% [31/233]), revision surgery (3.8% [3/78]), wound infection (1.9% [3/156]), psoas hematoma (1.3% [2/156]), and motor neural injury (1.2% [2/166]).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-position LLIF in the prone position appears to be a safe surgical approach with a low complication profile. Longer-term follow-up and prospective studies are needed to better characterize the long-term complication rates related to this approach.

Vertebral Endplate Concavity in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Tapered 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Cage versus Squared PEEK Cage

Background and Objectives: To prevent postoperative problems in extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), it is critical that the vertebral endplate not be injured. Unintentional endplate injuries may depend on the cage. A novel porous titanium cage for XLIF has improved geometry with a tapered tip and smooth surface. We hypothesized that this new cage should lead to fewer endplate injuries. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 32 patients (mean 74.1 ± 6.7 years, 22 females) who underwent anterior and posterior combined surgery with XLIF for lumbar degenerative disease or adult spinal deformity from January 2018 to June 2022. A tapered 3D porous titanium cage (3DTi; 11 patients) and a squared PEEK cage (sPEEK; 21 patients) were used. Spinal alignment values were measured on X-ray images. Vertebral endplate concavity (VEC) was defined as concavity ≥ 1 mm of the endplate on computed tomography (CT) images, which were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 week and 3 months postoperatively. Results: There were no significant differences in the patient demographic data and preoperative and 3-month postoperative spinal alignments between the groups. A 3DTi was used for 25 levels and an sPEEK was used for 38 levels. Preoperative local lordotic angles were 4.3° for 3DTi vs. 4.7° for sPEEK (p = 0.90), which were corrected to 12.3° and 9.1° (p = 0.029), respectively. At 3 months postoperatively, the angles were 11.6° for 3DTi and 8.2° for sPEEK (p = 0.013). VEC was present in 2 levels (8.0%) for 3DTi vs. 17 levels (45%) for sPEEK (p = 0.002). After 3 months postoperatively, none of the 3DTi had VEC progression; however, eight (21%) levels in sPEEK showed VEC progression (p = 0.019). Conclusions: The novel 3DTi cage reduced endplate injuries by reducing the endplate load during cage insertion.

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.

Psoas Major Muscle Volume Does Not Affect the Postoperative Thigh Symptoms in XLIF Surgery

Background: Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) is a minimally invasive surgery that accesses the lumbar spine through the psoas muscle. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between the psoas major muscle volume and anterior thigh symptoms after XLIF. Methods: Eighty-one patients (mean age 63 years) with degenerative spine diseases underwent XLIF (total = 94 levels). Thirty-eight patients were female (46.9%), and 24 patients (29.6%) had a history of lumbar surgery. Supplemental pedicle screws were used in 48 patients, and lateral plates were used in 28 patients. Neuromonitoring devices were used in all cases. The patients were classified into two groups (presence of thigh symptoms and no thigh symptoms after the surgery). The psoas major volumes were measured and calculated by CT (computed tomography) scan and compared between the two patient groups. Results: In the first 24 h after surgery, 32 patients (39.5%) had thigh symptoms (20 reported pain, 9 reported numbness, and 18 reported weakness). At one year postoperatively, only 3 of 32 patients (9.4%) had persistent symptoms. Conclusions: As a final observation, no statistically significant difference in the mean psoas major volume was found between the group of patients with new postoperative anterior thigh symptoms and those with no thigh symptoms. Preoperative psoas major muscle volume seems not to correlate with postoperative anterior thigh symptoms after XLIF.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: What Is the Evidence of Indirect Neural Decompression? A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has gained in popularity. A proposed advantage is the achievement of indirect neural decompression. However, evidence of the effectiveness of LLIF in neural decompression in lumbar degenerative conditions remains unclear.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We sought to extrapolate clinical and radiological results and consequently the potential benefits and limitations of LLIF in indirect neural decompression in degenerative lumbar diseases.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature in English using the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist. Scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain were extracted, as were data on the following radiological measurements: disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal area (FA), central canal area (CA).

RESULTS

In the 42 articles included, data on 2445 patients (3779 levels treated) with a mean follow-up of 14.8 ± 5.9 months were analyzed. Mean improvements in VAS back, VAS leg, and ODI scale scores were 4.1 ± 2.5, 3.9 ± 2.2, and 21.9 ± 7.2, respectively. Post-operative DH, FH, FA, and CA measurements increased by 68.6%, 21.9%, 37.7%, and 29.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Clinical results indicate LLIF as an efficient technique in indirect neural decompression. Analysis of radiological data demonstrates the effectiveness of symmetrical foraminal decompression. Data regarding indirect decompression of central canal and lateral recess are inconclusive and contradictory. Bony stenosis appears as an absolute contraindication. The role of facet joint degeneration is unclear. This systematic review provides a reference for surgeons to define the potential and limitations of LLIF in indirect neural elements decompression.

Reduction in foraminal height after lateral access surgery does not affect quality of life: A 2-year outcome study on lateral lumbar interbody fusion

INTRODUCTION

Reduction in neuroforaminal height (FH) may diminish the indirect decompression benefit that lateral access surgery (LAS) provides. However, the relationship between postoperative FH reduction in LAS and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether FH reduction affects HRQoL outcomes at 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 45 patients who underwent LAS for degenerative lumbar spine conditions was performed. The cohort was divided into two groups: maintenance (A) and reduction (B) in FH. Outcome measures included numerical pain rating scale (NPRS back and leg pain), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), North American Spine Society (NASS) score for neurogenic symptoms (NS), patient satisfaction, and expectation fulfilment for surgery. Mean disc height (DH), FH, and fusion were evaluated on plain radiographs. Radiological fusion was assessed with the Bridwell fusion classification. Unpaired student's t-test was used to compare between groups and one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc correction was used to determine differences between time intervals within each group.

RESULTS

The average pre-op mean FH was 16.9 ± 3.5 mm. Group A had 25 patients showing postoperative maintenance of FH (19.4 ± 3.3 mm to 20.2 ± 3.2 mm; 4% increase) at 2-year postsurgery while group B had 20 patients showing decrease in FH (21.1 ± 3.3 mm to 18.7 ± 3.5 mm; 11% decrease). Group A mean DH improved from 7.0 ± 2.0 mm to 10.3 ± 1.6 mm (47% increase). Group B mean DH improved from 6.8 ± 2.3 mm to 11.0 ± 3.0 mm (62% increase). There were no significant differences in NPRS, ODI, NASS, SF-36, and SF-36 MCS/PCS between groups at 2 years ( p > 0.05); 92% of group A and 85% of group B patients reported good satisfaction and fulfilment of expectations ( p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Despite an initial increase in FH after LAS surgery, 45% of patients had FH reduction at 2 years. However, FH reduction up to 11% did not affect short-term HRQoL outcomes.

Predictors of the need for laminectomy after indirect decompression via initial anterior or lateral lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to evaluate factors that are associated with the need for additional posterior direct decompressive surgery after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

Eighty-six adult patients who underwent ALIF or LLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis and foraminal stenosis were enrolled. Patient factors (age, sex, number of surgery levels, and visual analog scale [VAS] score for leg and back pain); procedure-related factors (cage height and lordosis); and radiographic measurements (disc height [DH]; foraminal height [FH], foraminal area [FA], central canal diameter [CCD], and facet joint degeneration [FD]) were analyzed. All patients underwent staged surgery on 2 different days, with the anterior portion first, followed by the posterior portion.

RESULTS

Of 86 patients, 62 underwent posterior decompression and 24 had no posterior decompression. There were no significant differences between groups with regard to age, sex, preoperative VAS score for back pain, cage height, cage angulation, preoperative DH, FH, FA, CCD, and FD (p > 0.05). The group that underwent posterior decompression showed statistically different numbers of treated segments (1.92 vs 1.21, p < 0.01), preoperative VAS leg score (7.9 vs 6.3), symptom duration (14.2 months vs 9.4 months), postoperative DH improvement (61.3% vs 96.2%), postoperative FH improvement (21.5% vs 32.1%), postoperative FA improvement (24.1% vs 36.9%), and cage height minus preoperative DH (5.3 mm vs 7.5 mm) compared with the nondecompression group.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be some correlation between the need for posterior decompression and the number of treated segments, VAS leg scores, symptom duration, FH, FA, and difference between the cage height and preoperative DH. In selected patients undergoing staged surgery, indirect decompression without direct decompression may be a reasonable option in treating degenerative spinal conditions.

Short-term outcomes of lateral lumbar interbody fusion without decompression for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4-5

OBJECTIVE Recently, authors have called into question the utility and complication index of the lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedure at the L4-5 level. Furthermore, the need for direct decompression has also been debated. Here, the authors report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion, relying only on indirect decompression to treat patients with neurogenic claudication secondary to Grade 1 and 2 spondylolisthesis at the L4-5 level. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective evaluation of 18 consecutive patients with Grade 1 or 2 spondylolisthesis from a prospectively maintained database. All patients underwent a transpsoas approach, followed by posterior percutaneous instrumentation without decompression. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and SF-12 were administered during the clinical evaluations. Radiographic evaluation was also performed. The mean follow-up was 6.2 months. RESULTS Fifteen patients with Grade 1 and 3 patients with Grade 2 spondylolisthesis were identified and underwent fusion at a total of 20 levels. The mean operative time was 165 minutes for the combined anterior and posterior phases of the operation. The estimated blood loss was 113 ml. The most common cage width in the anteroposterior dimension was 22 mm (78%). Anterior thigh dysesthesia was identified on detailed sensory evaluation in 6 of 18 patients (33%); all patients experienced resolution within 6 months postoperatively. No patient had lasting sensory loss or motor deficit. The average ODI score improved 26 points by the 6-month follow-up. At the 6-month follow-up, the SF-12 mean Physical and Mental Component Summary scores improved by 11.9% and 9.6%, respectively. No patient required additional decompression postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS This study offers clinical results to establish lateral lumbar interbody fusion as an effective technique for the treatment of Grade 1 or 2 degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4-5. The use of this surgical approach provides a minimally invasive solution that offers excellent arthrodesis rates as well as favorable clinical and radiological outcomes, with low rates of postoperative complications. However, adhering to the techniques of transpsoas lateral surgery, such as minimal table break, an initial look-and-see approach to the psoas, clear identification of the plexus, minimal cranial caudal expansion of the retractor, mobilization of any traversing sensory nerves, and total psoas dilation times less than 20 minutes, ensures the lowest possible complication profile for both visceral and neural injuries even in the narrow safe zones when accessing the L4-5 disc space in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Dynamic Posture-Related Preoperative Pain as a Single Clinical Criterion in Patient Selection for Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion Without Direct Decompression

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

Evidence on predicting the success of indirect decompression via extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) is scarce. The authors investigated if patients who could achieve a pain-free position preoperatively would derive clinical benefit from XLIF without direct decompression.

METHODS

Data from 50 consecutive patients who underwent XLIF with and without direct decompression by a single surgeon from January 2014 to August 2017 was collected. Primary outcome is the rate of failure of patients who underwent XLIF without direct decompression, characterized by persistence of pain postoperatively that required reoperations within 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are clinical outcomes and patient-reported quality of life outcome data, including visual analogue scale for leg (VASL) and back (VASB) pain, Oswetry Disability Index (ODI), and Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) of SF-12, for up to 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

One patient with preoperative dynamic posture-related pain who underwent XLIF without direct decompression subsequently had a reoperation due to persisting pain. Statistically significant improvement was achieved across all patient reported outcomes (P < .05): improvement of 68% for VASL, 61% for VASB, 50% for ODI, 33% for PCS, and 11% for MCS of SF-12 at last follow-up. Six patients had thigh symptoms that resolved.

CONCLUSION

The simple clinical criterion based on postural pain status preoperatively may help clinicians in patient selection for indirect decompression of XLIF without the need for direct decompression. Further studies with larger cohorts are warranted to establish the validity of the algorithm.

Spondylectomy and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for thoracolumbar kyphosis in an adult with achondroplasia: A case report

RATIONALE

Fixed thoracolumbar kyphosis with spinal stenosis in adult patients with achondroplasia presents a challenging issue. We describe the first case in which spondylectomy and minimally invasive lateral access interbody arthrodesis were used for the treatment of fixed severe thoracolumbar kyphosis and lumbar spinal canal stenosis in an adult with achondroplasia.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 61-year-old man with a history of achondroplastic dwarfism presented with low back pain and radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication.

DIAGNOSES

Plain radiographs revealed a high-grade thoracolumbar kyphotic deformity with diffuse degenerative changes in the lumbar spine. The apex was located at L2, the local kyphotic angle from L1 to L3 was 105°, and the anterior area was fused from the L1 to L3 vertebrae. MRI revealed significant canal and lateral recess stenosis secondary to facet hypertrophy.

INTERVENTIONS

We planned a front-back correction of the anterior and posterior spinal elements. We first performed anterior release at the fused part from L1 to L3 and XLIF at L3/4 and L4/5. Next, the patient was placed in the prone position. Spondylectomy at the L2 vertebra and posterior fusion from T10 to L5 were performed. Postoperative radiographs revealed L1 to L3 kyphosis of 32°.

OUTCOMES

No complications occurred during or after surgery. Postoperatively, the patient's low back pain and neurological claudication were resolved. No worsening of kyphosis was observed 24 months postoperatively.

LESSONS

Circumferential decompression of the spinal cord at the apical vertebral level and decompression of lumbar canal stenosis were necessary. Front-back correction of the anterior and posterior spinal elements via spondylectomy and lateral lumbar interbody fusion is a reasonable surgical option for thoracolumbar kyphosis and developmental canal stenosis in patients with achondroplasia.

Clinical evaluation of microendoscopy-assisted extreme lateral interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) has rapidly become a popular operative procedure for lumbar canal stenosis and scoliosis. This approach provides direct access to the lateral aspect of the disc with minimal disruption of spinal structures, including ligaments and muscles. However, it involves risk of injuries to the lumbar nerve plexus, segmental artery and intestinal tract because of the limited surgical field. This study aimed to clarify the benefit of using a microendoscope to prevent these injuries.

METHODS

A total of 96 consecutive patients treated by a single surgeon were retrospectively analyzed. The basic approach via the psoas muscle was performed in accordance with the conventional XLIF procedure. Operative manipulations, such as insertion of the shim, discectomy, endplate preparation and intervertebral spacer placement, were performed with the assistance of a microendoscope. Preoperative and postoperative neurological status were evaluated using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients underwent surgery for a single vertebral level, nine patients underwent surgery for 2 levels and three patients underwent surgery for 3 levels (average, 1.2 levels). The average age of patients was 61 years (range, 22-83 years); the mean follow-up period was 18 months (range, 3-36 months). Average preoperative and postoperative JOA scores were 11.9 and 15.6, with a mean recovery rate of 33%. Average preoperative and postoperative ODI scores were 38.6 and 19.1. There were 3 (3.1%) complications: 2 end-plate fractures and 1 deep surgical site infection. There were no bowel perforations or vascular injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Microendoscopy assistance is one solution for severe visceral and vascular injuries related to XLIF.

Extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion: Do the cons outweigh the pros?

BACKGROUND

Major factors prompted the development of minimally invasive (MIS) extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF; NuVasive Inc., San Diego, CA, USE) for the thoracic/lumbar spine. These include providing interbody stabilization and indirect neural decompression while avoiding major visceral/vessel injury as seen with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and to avert trauma to paraspinal muscles/facet joints found with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterior-lateral fusion techniques (PLF). Although anticipated pros of MIS XLIF included reduced blood loss, operative time, and length of stay (LOS), they also included, higher fusion, and lower infection rates. Unanticipated cons, however, included increased morbidity/mortality rates.

METHODS

We assessed the pros and cons (e.g., risks, complications, comparable value/superiority/inferiority, morbidity/mortality) of MIS XLIF vs. ALIF, TLIF, PLIF, and PLF.

RESULTS

Pros of XLIF included various biomechanical and technical surgical advantages, along with multiple cons vs. ALIF, TLIF, PLIF, and PLF. For example, XLIF correlated with a considerably higher frequency of major neurological deficits vs. other constructs; plexus injuries 13.28%, sensory deficits 0-75% (permanent in 62.5%), motor deficits 0.7-33.6%, and anterior thigh pain 12.5-25%. XLIF also disproportionately contributed to other major morbidity/mortality; sympathectomy, major vascular injuries (some life-ending others life-threatening), bowel perforations, and seromas. Furthermore, multiple studies documented no superiority, and the potential inferiority of XLIF vs. ALIF, TLIF, PLIF, and PLF.

CONCLUSION

Reviewing the pros of XLIF (e.g. radiographic, technical, biomechanical) vs. the cons (inferiority, increased morbidity/mortality) vs. ALIF, TLIF, PLIF, and PLF, we question whether XLIF should remain part of the lumbar spinal surgical armamentarium.

High neurological complication rates for extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion and related techniques: A review of safety concerns

BACKGROUND

There are frequent reports of lumbosacral plexus and other neurological injuries occurring with extreme lateral interbody fusions (XLIF) and other related lateral lumbar techniques.

METHODS

This review focuses on the new neurological deficits (e.g. lumbosacral plexus, root injuries) that occur following minimally invasive surgery (MIS) XLIF and other related lateral lumbar techniques.

RESULTS

A review of multiple articles revealed the following ranges of new postoperative neurological complications for XLIF procedures: plexus injuries 13.28%; sensory deficits 0-75% (permanent in 62.5%); motor deficits 0.7-33.6%; anterior thigh pain 12.5-25%. Of interest, in a study by Lykissas et al., the frequency of long-term neural injury following lateral lumber interbody fusion (LLIF) with BMP-2 (72 patients) was much higher than for LLIF performed with autograft/allograft (72 patients). The addition of bone morphogenetic protein led to persistent sensory deficits in 29 vs. 20 without BMP; persistent motor deficits in 35 with vs. 17 without BMP; and persistent anterior thigh/groin pain in 8 with vs. 0 without BMP. They should also have noted the unacceptably high incidence of neural injury occurring with LLIF alone without BMP.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the high risk of neural injury (up to 75% for sensory, 33.6% for motor, and an overall plexus injury rate of 13.28%) utilizing the XLIF and other similar lateral lumbar approaches. With such extensive neurological injuries, is the XLIF really safe, and should it still be performed?

Non-neurological major complications of extreme lateral and related lumbar interbody fusion techniques

BACKGROUND

Complications exclusive of new neurological deficits/injuries that follow extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) and related lateral lumbar interbody techniques should be better recognized to determine the safety of these procedures. Unfortunately, a review of the XLIF literature did not accurately reflect the frequency of these "other complications" as few US surgeons publish such adverse events that may lead to medicolegal suits.

METHODS

Major complications occurring with XLIF included sympathectomy, major vascular injuries, bowel perforations, sterile seromas, and instrumentation failures.

RESULTS

The frequency of sympathectomy was 4% for XLIF vs. 15% for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). There were three major vascular injuries for XLIF; one fatal intraoperative event, one life-threatening retroperitoneal hematoma, and one iatrogenic lumbar artery pseudoaneurysm that was successfully embolized. Two bowel perforations were reported, whereas a third was a "direct communication." One patient developed a sterile recurrent seroma due to vancomycin powder utilized for an XLIF. One study cited malpositioning of an XLIF cage resulting in a lateral L3-L4 extrusion, whereas the second series looked at the 45% risk of cage-overhang when XLIF devices were placed in the anterior one-third of the vertebral body.

CONCLUSION

Excluding new neurological deficits, XLIF techniques resulted in multiple other major complications. However, these small numbers likely reflect just the tip of the iceberg (e.g., 10%) and the remaining 90% may never be known as many US-based spine surgeons fail to publish such adverse events as they are discoverable in a court of law and may lead to medicolegal suits.

Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECT Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are 2 currently popular techniques for lumbar arthrodesis. The authors compare the total risk of each procedure, along with other important complication outcomes. METHODS This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies (up to May 2015) that reported complications of either MI-TLIF or LLIF were identified from a search in the PubMed database. The primary outcome was overall risk of complication per patient. Secondary outcomes included risks of sensory deficits, temporary neurological deficit, permanent neurological deficit, intraoperative complications, medical complications, wound complications, hardware failure, subsidence, and reoperation. RESULTS Fifty-four studies were included for analysis of MI-TLIF, and 42 studies were included for analysis of LLIF. Overall, there were 9714 patients (5454 in the MI-TLIF group and 4260 in the LLIF group) with 13,230 levels fused (6040 in the MI-TLIF group and 7190 in the LLIF group). A total of 1045 complications in the MI-TLIF group and 1339 complications in the LLIF group were reported. The total complication rate per patient was 19.2% in the MI-TLIF group and 31.4% in the LLIF group (p < 0.0001). The rate of sensory deficits and temporary neurological deficits, and permanent neurological deficits was 20.16%, 2.22%, and 1.01% for MI-TLIF versus 27.08%, 9.40%, and 2.46% for LLIF, respectively (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p = 0.002, respectively). Rates of intraoperative and wound complications were 3.57% and 1.63% for MI-TLIF compared with 1.93% and 0.80% for LLIF, respectively (p = 0.0003 and p = 0.034, respectively). No significant differences were noted for medical complications or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS While there was a higher overall complication rate with LLIF, MI-TLIF and LLIF both have acceptable complication profiles. LLIF had higher rates of sensory as well as temporary and permanent neurological symptoms, although rates of intraoperative and wound complications were less than MI-TLIF. Larger, prospective comparative studies are needed to confirm these findings as the current literature is of relative poor quality.

Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF): Comparative Effectiveness and Safety versus PLIF/TLIF and Predictive Factors Affecting LLIF Outcome

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

STUDY RATIONALE

The surgical treatment of adult degenerative lumbar conditions remains controversial. Conventional techniques include posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). A new direct approach known as lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF), or extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF(®)) or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), has been introduced. Objectives The objective of this article is to determine the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF, at one or more levels with or without instrumentation, versus PLIF or TLIF surgery in adults with lumbar degenerative conditions, and to determine which preoperative factors affect patient outcomes following LLIF surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed using PubMed and bibliographies of key articles. Articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Each article was evaluated using a predefined quality rating scheme.

RESULTS

The search yielded 258 citations and the following met our inclusion criteria: three retrospective cohort studies (all using historical cohorts) (class of evidence [CoE] III) examining the comparative effectiveness and safety of LLIF/XLIF(®)/DLIF versus PLIF or TLIF surgery, and one prospective cohort study (CoE II) and two retrospective cohort studies (CoE III) assessing factors affecting patient outcome following LLIF. Patients in the LLIF group experienced less estimated blood loss and a lower mortality risk compared with the PLIF group. The number of levels treated and the preoperative diagnosis were significant predictors of perioperative or early complications in two studies.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence of the comparative effectiveness of LLIF versus PLIF/TLIF surgery. There is low-quality evidence suggesting that LLIF surgery results in fewer complications or reoperations than PLIF/TLIF surgery. And there is insufficient evidence that any preoperative factors exist that predict patient outcome after LLIF surgery.

The lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar and thoracic spine: A review

Background:

In the last several years, the lateral transpsoas approach to the thoracic and lumbar spine, also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), has become an increasingly common method to achieve fusion. Several recent large series describe several advantages to this approach, including less tissue dissection, smaller incisions, decreased operative time, blood loss, shorter hospital stay, reduced postoperative pain, enhanced fusion rates, and the ability to place instrumentation through the same incision. Indications for this approach have expanded and now include degenerative disease, tumor, deformity, and infection.

Methods:

A lateral X-ray confirms that the patient is in a truly lateral position. Next, a series of tubes and dilators are used, along with fluoroscopy, to identify the mid-position of the disk to be incised. After continued dilation, the optimal site to enter the disk space is the midpoint of the disk, or a position slightly anterior to the midpoint of the disk. XLIF typically allows for a larger implant to be inserted compared to TLIF or PLIF, and, if necessary, instrumentation can be inserted percutaneously, which would allow for an overall minimally invasive procedure.

Results:

Fixation techniques appear to be equal between XLIF and more traditional approaches. Some caution should be exercised because common fusion levels of the lumbar spine, including L4-5 and L4-S1, are often inaccessible. In addition, XLIF has a unique set of complications, including neural injuries, psoas weakness, and thigh numbness.

Conclusion:

Additional studies are required to further evaluate and monitor the short and long-term safety, efficacy, outcomes, and complications of XLIF procedures.