Are there differences in the reoperation rates for operative adjacent-segment disease between ALIF+PS, PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, and LLIF+PS? An analysis of a cohort of 5291 patients

OBJECTIVE

Biomechanical factors in lumbar fusions accelerate the development of adjacent-segment disease (ASD). Stiffness in the fused segment increases motion in the adjacent levels, resulting in ASD. The objective of this study was to determine if there are differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (ALIF+PS), posterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (PLIF+PS), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (TLIF+PS), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (LLIF+PS).

METHODS

A retrospective study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry identified an adult cohort (≥ 18 years old) with degenerative disc disease who underwent primary lumbar interbody fusions with pedicle screws between L3 to S1. Demographic and operative data were obtained from the registry, and chart review was used to document operative ASD. Patients were followed until operative ASD, membership termination, the end of study (March 31, 2022), or death. Operative ASD was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

The final study population included 5291 patients with a mean ± SD age of 60.1 ± 12.1 years and a follow-up of 6.3 ± 3.8 years. There was a total of 443 operative ASD cases, with an overall incidence rate of reoperation for ASD of 8.37% (95% CI 7.6-9.2). The crude incidence of operative ASD at 5 years was the lowest in the ALIF+PS cohort (7.7%, 95% CI 6.3-9.4). In the adjusted models, the authors failed to detect a statistical difference in operative ASD between ALIF+PS (reference) versus PLIF+PS (HR 1.06 [0.79-1.44], p = 0.69) versus TLIF+PS (HR 1.03 [0.81-1.31], p = 0.83) versus LLIF+PS (HR 1.38 [0.77-2.46], p = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large cohort of over 5000 patients with an average follow-up of > 6 years, the authors found no differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between ALIF+PS and PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, or LLIF+PS.

Advancing Prone-Transpsoas Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review and Evolution of Indications with Representative Cases

The Prone Transpsoas (PTP) approach to lumbar spine surgery, emerging as an evolution of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), offers significant advantages over traditional methods. PTP has demonstrated increased lumbar lordosis gains compared to LLIF, owing to the natural increase in lordosis afforded by prone positioning. Additionally, the prone position offers anatomical advantages, with shifts in the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus, reducing the likelihood of postoperative femoral plexopathy and moving critical peritoneal contents away from the approach. Furthermore, operative efficiency is a notable benefit of PTP. By eliminating the need for intraoperative position changes, PTP reduces surgical time, which in turn decreases the risk of complications and operative costs. Finally, its versatility extends to various lumbar pathologies, including degeneration, adjacent segment disease, and deformities. The growing body of evidence indicates that PTP is at least as safe as traditional approaches, with a potentially better complication profile. In this narrative review, we review the historical evolution of lateral interbody fusion, culminating in the prone transpsoas approach. We also describe several adjuncts of PTP, including robotics and radiation-reduction methods. Finally, we illustrate the versatility of PTP and its uses, ranging from 'simple' degenerative cases to complex deformity surgeries.

Comparison of Intraoperative Endplate Injury between Mini-Open Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) and Analysis of Risk Factors: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to compare the incidence of intraoperative endplate injury in patients who underwent Transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and mini-open lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery. The independent risk factors related to endplate injury in LLIF procedure were analyzed.

METHODS

A total of 199 patients who underwent LLIF (n = 106) or TLIF (n = 93) surgery from June 2019 to September 2021 were reviewed. The endplate injury was assessed by postoperative sagittal CT scan. A binary logistic analysis model were used to identify independent risk factors related to LLIF endplate injury based on univariate analysis.

RESULTS

There was an obvious difference in the occurrence of intraoperative endplate injury between LLIF (42/106, 39.6%) and TLIF group (26/93, 28%), although it did not reach the significant level. L1 CT value (OR = 0.985, 95% CI = 0.972-0.998), cage position (OR = 3.881, 95% CI = 1.398-10.771) and height variance (OR = 1.263, 95% CI = 1.013-1.575) were independent risk factors for endplate injury in LLIF procedure. According to the cage settlement patterns, there 5 types of A to E. The severity of the facet joint degeneration was positively related to the occurrence of endplate injury.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of intraoperative endplate injury is higher in LLIF than in TLIF procedures. Low bone quantity, cage posterior position and larger height variance are risk factors to induce endplate injury in LLIF surgery. The facet joint degeneration may be related to severe endplate injuries and even fractures.

Prone Transpsoas Lateral Interbody Fusion (PTP LIF) with Anterior Docking: Preliminary functional and radiographic outcomes

Background

Disadvantages of lateral interbody fusion (LIF) through a direct, transpsoas approach include difficulties associated with lateral decubitus positioning and limited sagittal correction without anterior longitudinal ligament release or posterior osteotomy. Prior technical descriptions advocate anchoring or docking the retractor into the posterior to middle aspect of the disc space.

Methods

72 patients who underwent 116 total levels of Prone Transpsoas (PTP) LIF with anterior docking with a single surgeon between December 2021 and May 2023 were included. Patient characteristics, perioperative data, as well as postoperative functional and radiographic outcomes were recorded. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients who underwent single-level PTP LIF with single-level percutaneous fixation (SLP). Patients in the SLP subgroup did not undergo direct decompression, release, or osteotomy.

Results

N=41 (56.9%) of cases included the L4-5 level. No vascular, bowel, or other visceral complications occurred. No patients developed a permanent motor deficit. Both the total cohort and the SLP group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in functional outcomes including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) as well as all radiographic parameters measured. Mean total operative time (incision to completion of closure for lateral and posterior fusion) in the SLP group was 104.3 minutes with a significant downward trend with increasing surgeon experience. The SLP group demonstrated a 9.9° increase in segmental lordosis (SL), a 7.5° increase in lumbar lordosis (LL), 5.3° reduction in pelvic tilt (PT), and a decrease in pelvic incidence - lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) from 11.0° preoperatively to 3.9°, postoperatively (p<.01).

Conclusions

PTP LIF with anterior docking may address shortcomings associated with traditional lateral interbody fusion by producing safe and reproducible access with improved restoration of segmental lordosis and optimization of spinopelvic parameters.

Transpsoas Approaches to the Lumbar Spine: Lateral and Prone

The lateral transpsoas approach has become fundamental to minimally invasive spine surgery. The large interbody grafts that can be placed through this approach allow for robust arthrodesis of the anterior column, indirect decompression, and restoration of lordosis without disrupting the posterior musculature or ligamentous structures. The lateral decubitus position has traditionally been used for this approach but the prone position has gained popularity because it can reduce operating times for patients who also require posterior pedicle screw fixation. The transpsoas approach can be effectively performed in either position but surgeons should know the nuances that distinguish them.

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.

Preoperative predictors of prolonged hospitalization in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

We aim to examine the preoperative factors associated with increased postoperative length of stay in patients undergoing LLIF in the hospital setting.

METHODS

Patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected from a single-surgeon database. Patients undergoing LLIF in the hospital setting were separated into postoperative LOS <48 h (H) and LOS ≥ 48H. Univariate analysis for preoperative characteristics was utilized to determine covariates for multivariable logistic regression. Multivariable logistic regression was then utilized to determine significant predictors of extended postoperative length of stay. Secondary univariate analysis of inpatient complications, operative, and postoperative characteristics were calculated to determine postoperative factors associated with prolonged hospitalization.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and forty patients were identified with 115 patients' LOS ≥ 48H. Univariate analysis identified age/Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score/gender/insurance type/number of contiguous fused levels/preoperative PROMs of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back/VAS leg/Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-PF)/Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)/degenerative spondylolisthesis diagnoses/foraminal stenosis/central stenosis for multivariable logistic regression. Multivariable logistic regression calculated significant positive predictors of LOS ≥ 48H to be age/3-level fusion/preoperative ODI scores. Negative predictors of LOS ≥ 48H were the diagnosis of foraminal stenosis/preoperative PROMIS-PF/male gender. The secondary analysis determined that patients with longer operative time/estimated blood loss/transfusion/postoperative day 0 and 1 pain and narcotic consumption/complications of altered mental status/postoperative anemia/fever/ileus/urinary retention were associated with prolonged hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Older patients undergoing LLIF with greater preoperative disability and 3-level fusion were more likely to require prolonged hospitalization. Male patients with higher preoperative physical function and who were diagnosed with foraminal stenosis were less likely to require prolonged hospitalization.

Postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF versus LLIF for adjacent segment disease

PURPOSE

Few studies examine the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for adjacent segment disease (ASD). We aim to compare the postoperative clinical trajectory through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF versus LLIF for ASD.

METHODS

Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on surgical technique for ASD: MIS-TLIF versus LLIF. PROMs of 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected at preoperative and postoperative 6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year time points. MCID attainment was calculated through comparison to established thresholds. Cohorts were compared through nonparametric inferential statistics.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were identified, with 22 patients undergoing MIS-TLIF after propensity score matching. Patients undergoing MIS-TLIF for ASD demonstrated significant postoperative improvement up to 1-year VAS back, up to 1-year VAS leg, and 6-month through 1-year ODI (p ≤ 0.035, all). Patients undergoing LLIF demonstrated significant postoperative improvement in 6-month SF-12 PCS, 6-month through 1-year VAS back, 12-week through 6-month VAS leg, and 6-month to 1-year ODI (p ≤ 0.035, all). No significant differences were calculated between surgical techniques for PROMs or MCID achievement rates.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing either MIS-TLIF or LLIF for adjacent segment disease demonstrated significant postoperative improvement in pain and disability outcomes. Additionally, patients undergoing LLIF reported significant improvement in physical function. Both MIS-TLIF and LLIF are effective for the treatment of adjacent segment disease.

Changes in psoas and posterior paraspinal muscle morphology after standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a quantitative MRI-based analysis

PURPOSE

Standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF) without posterior instrumentation can be an alternative to 360° fusion in selected cases. This study aimed to investigate quantitative changes in psoas and paraspinal muscle morphology that occur on index levels after SA-LLIF.

METHODS

Patients undergoing single- or multi-level SA-LLIF at L2/3 to L4/5 who had preoperative and postoperative lumbar MRI scans, the latter performed between 3 and 18 months after surgery for any reason, were retrospectively included. Muscle measurements were performed of the psoas and posterior paraspinal muscles (PPM; erector spinae and multifidus) on index levels using manual segmentation and an automated pixel intensity threshold method to differentiate muscle from fat signal. Changes in the total cross-sectional area (TCSA), the functional cross-sectional area (FCSA), and the percentage of fat infiltration (FI) of these muscles were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 67 patients (55.2% female, age 64.3 ± 10.6 years, BMI 26.9 ± 5.0 kg/m2) with 125 operated levels were included. Follow-up MRI scans were performed after an average of 8.7 ± 4.6 months, primarily for low back pain. Psoas muscle parameters did not change significantly, irrespective of the approach side. Among PPM parameters, the mean TCSA at L4/5 (+ 4.8 ± 12.4%; p = 0.013), and mean FI at L3/4 (+ 3.1 ± 6.5%; p = 0.002) and L4/5 (+ 3.0 ± 7.0%; p = 0.002) significantly increased.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that SA-LLIF did not alter psoas muscle morphology, underlining its minimally invasive nature. However, FI of PPM significantly increased over time despite the lack of direct tissue damage to posterior structures, suggesting a pain-mediated response and/or the result of segmental immobilization.

Lateral versus posterior approaches to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies-systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature

INTRODUCTION

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion arose as a revolutionary approach to treating several spinal pathologies because the techniques were able to promote indirect decompression and lordosis restoration through a minimally invasive approach allowing for reduced blood loss and early recovery for patients. However, it is still not clear how the technique compares to other established approaches for treating spinal degenerative diseases, such as TLIF, PLIF, and PLF.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published in the last 10 years comparing lateral approaches to posterior techniques. The authors included articles that compared the LLIF technique to one or more posterior approaches, treating only degenerative pathologies, and containing at least one of the key outcomes of the study. Exclusion articles that were not original and the ones that the authors could not obtain the full text; also articles without the possibility to calculate the standard deviation or mean were excluded. For count variables, the odds ratio was used, and for continuous variables, the standard means difference (SMD) was used, and the choice between random or fixed-effects model was made depending on the presence or not of significant (p < 0.05) heterogeneity in the sample.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included in the quantitative review. As for the intra-/perioperative variables, the lateral approaches showed a significant reduction in blood loss (SMD-1.56, p < 0.001) and similar operative time (SMD =  - 0.33, p = 0.24). Moreover, the use of the lateral approaches showed a tendency to lead to reduced hospitalization days (SMD =  - 0.15, p = 0.09), with significantly reduced odds ratios of complications (0.53, p = 0.01). As for the clinical outcomes, both approaches showed similar improvement both at improvement as for the last follow-up value, either in ODI or in VAS-BP. Finally, when analyzing the changes in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis, the lateral technique promoted significantly higher correction in both outcomes (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Lateral approaches can promote significant radiological correction and similar clinical improvement while reducing surgical blood loss and postoperative complications.

A retrospective review of single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion cases: early learning curve and perioperative outcomes

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to discuss our experience performing LLIF in the prone position and report our complications.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted that included all patients who underwent single- or multi-level single-position pLLIF alone or as part of a concomitant procedure by the same surgeon from May 2019 to November 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients and 250 levels were included in this study. Surgery was most commonly performed at the L4-L5 level (n = 100, 40%). The most common preoperative diagnosis was spondylolisthesis (n = 74, 47.7%). In the first 30 cases, 3 surgeries were aborted to an MIS TLIF. Complications included 3 unintentional ALL ruptures (n = 3/250, 1.2%), and 1 malpositioned implant impinging on the contralateral foramen requiring revision (n = 1/250, 0.4%), which all occurred within the first 30 cases. Out of 147 patients with more than 6-week follow-ups, there were 3 cases of femoral nerve palsy (n = 3/147, 2.0%). Two cases of femoral nerve palsy improved to preoperative strength by the 6th week postoperatively, while one improved to 4/5 preoperative strength by 1 year. There were no cases of bowel perforation or vascular injury.

CONCLUSION

Our single-surgeon experience demonstrates the initial learning curve when adopting pLLIF. Thereafter, we experienced reproducibility in our technique and large improvements in our operative times, and complication profile. We experienced no technical complications after the 30th case. Further studies will include long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes to understand the complete utility of this approach.

Approach-related anatomical differences in patients with lumbo-sacral transitional vertebrae undergoing lumbar fusion surgery at level L4/5

INTRODUCTION

Lumbo-sacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) are accompanied by changes in soft tissue anatomy. The aim of our retrospective study was to evaluate the effects of LSTV as well as the number of free lumbar vertebrae on surgical approaches of ALIF, OLIF and LLIF at level L4/5.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We assessed the CTs of 819 patients. Of these, 53 had LSTV from which 11 had six (6LV) and 9 four free lumbar vertebrae (4LV). We matched them for sex and age to a control group.

RESULTS

Patients with LSTV had a higher iliac crest and vena cava bifurcation, a greater distance between the common iliac veins and an anterior translation of the psoas muscle at level L4/5. In contrast, patients with 6LV had a lower iliac crest and aortic bifurcation, no differences in vena cava bifurcation and distance between the iliac veins compared to the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with LSTV and five or four free lumbar vertebrae, the LLIF approach at L4/5 may be hindered due to a high riding iliac crest as well as anterior shift of the psoas muscle. Whereas less mobilization and retraction of the iliac veins may reduce the risk of vascular injury at this segment by ALIF and OLIF. For patients with 6LV, a lower relative height of the iliac crest facilitates lateral approach during LLIF. For ALIF and OLIF, a stronger vessel retraction due to the deeper-seated vascular bifurcation is necessary during ALIF and is therefore potentially at higher risk for vascular injury.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (Direct Lateral Interbody Fusion/Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion) versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery in Spinal Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine are often treated with posterior interbody fusion surgery (posterior lumbar interbody fusion [PLIF]) for spinal instability or intractable back pain with neurologic impairment. Several lateral, less invasive procedures have recently been described (lateral lumbar interbody fusion [LLIF]/direct lateral interbody fusion/extreme lateral interbody fusion [XLIF]). The aim of this systematic review is to compare structural and functional outcomes of lateral surgical approaches to PLIF.

METHODS

We conducted a MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library search for studies focusing on outcomes and complications comparing LLIF (direct lateral interbody fusion/XLIF) and PLIF. The systematic review was reported using the PRISMA criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 1000 research articles were identified, of which 5 studies were included comparing the outcomes and complications between the lateral and posterior approach. Three studies found significantly less perioperative blood loss with a lateral approach. Average hospital stay was shorter in populations who underwent the lateral approach compared with PLIF. Functional outcomes (visual analog scale score/Oswestry Disability Index) were similar or better with LLIF. In most of the included studies, complication rates did not differ between the posterior and lateral approach. Most of the neurologic deficits with XLIF/LLIF were temporary and healed completely within 1 year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

A lateral approach (XLIF/LLIF) is a good and safe alternative for PLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar diseases, with comparable functional outcomes, shorter hospital stays, and less blood loss. Future prospective studies are needed to establish the role of lateral minimally invasive approaches in spinal degenerative surgery.

Anterior spinal fusion (ALIF/OLIF/LLIF) with lumbosacral transitional vertebra: A systematic review and proposed treatment algorithm

•Key anterior approaches differences in LSTV include vascular (aortic bifurcation/iliocaval confluence), muscular (psoas) and osseus anatomy (inter-crestal tangent/pubic symphysis), when compared to non-LSTV.•There are increased surgical deviations but not significantly greater complications for anterior approaches in LSTV.•Vascular awareness while accessing L45 will be in the presence of a more cephalad ABF and ICC with sacralized L5, and access to the deeper L56 level will be in the presence of a more caudal ABF and ICC in lumbarized S1.

The predictive value of psoas and paraspinal muscle parameters measured on MRI for severe cage subsidence after standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The effect of psoas and paraspinal muscle parameters on cage subsidence after minimally invasive techniques, such as standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF), is unknown.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to determine whether the functional cross-sectional area (FCSA) of psoas and lumbar spine extensor muscles (multifidus and erector spinae), and psoas FCSA normalized to the vertebral body area (FCSA/VBA) differ among levels with severe cage subsidence after SA-LLIF when compared to levels without severe cage subsidence.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective single center cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent SA-LLIF between 2008 and 2020 for degenerative conditions using exclusively polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages, had a lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan within 12 months, a lumbar computed tomography (CT) scan within 6 months prior to surgery, and a postoperative clinical and radiographic follow-up at a minimum of 6 months were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Severe cage subsidence.

METHODS

MRI measurements included psoas and combined multifidus and erector spinae (paraspinal) FCSA and FCSA/VBA at the L3-L5 pedicles. Following manual segmentation of muscles on axial T2-weighted images using ITK-SNAP (version 3.8.0), the FCSA was calculated using a custom written program on Matlab (version R2019a, The MathWorks, Inc.) that used an automated pixel intensity threshold method to differentiate between fat and muscle. Mean volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) at L1/2 was measured by quantitative CT. The primary endpoint was severe cage subsidence per level according to the classification by Marchi et al. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed using generalized linear mixed models. All analyses were stratified by biological sex.

RESULTS

95 patients (45.3% female) with a total of 188 operated levels were included in the analysis. The patient population was 92.6% Caucasian with a median age at surgery of 65 years. Overall subsidence (Grades 0-III) was 49.5% (53/107 levels) in men versus 58.0% (47/81 levels) in women (p=.302), and severe subsidence (Grades II-III) was 22.4% (24/107 levels) in men versus 25.9% (21/81 levels) in women (p=.608). In men, median psoas FCSA and psoas FCSA/VBA at L3 and L4 were significantly greater in the severe subsidence group when compared to the non-severe subsidence group. No such difference was observed in women. Paraspinal muscle parameters did not differ significantly between non-severe and severe subsidence groups for both sexes. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis with adjustments for vBMD and cage length, psoas FCSA at L3 (OR 1.002; p=.020) and psoas FCSA/VBA at L3 (OR 8.655; p=.029) and L4 (OR 4.273; p=.043) were found to be independent risk factors for severe cage subsidence in men.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that greater psoas FCSA at L3 and psoas FCSA/VBA at L3 and L4 were independent risk factors for severe cage subsidence in men after SA-LLIF with PEEK cages. The higher compressive forces the psoas exerts on lumbar segments as a potential stabilizer might explain these findings. Additional pedicle screw fixation might be warranted in these patients to avoid severe cage subsidence.

Biomechanical Comparison of Unilateral and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation after Multilevel Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Human Cadaveric Biomechanical Study.

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) utilizing a wide cage has been reported as having favorable biomechanical characteristics. We examine the biomechanical stability of unilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation after multilevel LLIF utilizing 26 mm wide cages compared to bilateral fixation.

METHODS

Eight human cadaveric specimens of L1-L5 were included. Specimens were attached to a universal testing machine (MTS 30/G). Three-dimensional specimen range of motion (ROM) was recorded using an optical motion-tracking device. Specimens were tested in 3 conditions: 1) intact, 2) L1-L5 LLIF (4 levels) with unilateral rod, 3) L1-L5 LLIF with bilateral rods.

RESULTS

From the intact condition, LLIF with unilateral rod decreased flexion-extension by 77%, lateral bending by 53%, and axial rotation by 26%. In LLIF with bilateral rods, flexion-extension decreased by 83%, lateral bending by 64%, and axial rotation by 34%. Comparing unilateral and bilateral fixation, LLIF with bilateral rods reduced ROM by a further 23% in flexion-extension, 25% in lateral bending, and 11% in axial rotation. The difference was statistically significant in flexion-extension and lateral bending (P < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable decreases in ROM were observed after multilevel (4-level) LLIF utilizing 26 mm cages supplemented with both unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws and rods. The addition of bilateral fixation provides a 10-25% additional decrease in ROM. These results can inform surgeons of the incremental biomechanical benefit when considering unilateral or bilateral posterior fixation after multilevel LLIF.

Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease by Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients Under and Over 80 Years of Age

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiological results of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for lumbar degenerative disease in patients under the age of 80 years with those over the age of 80 years.

METHODS

One hundred two patients who underwent LLIF without direct decompression were enrolled, including 92 patients who were less than 80 years (group A) and 10 over 80 years (group B). All patients were evaluated using numerical evaluation scale scores for low back pain, leg pain, and leg numbness, as well as demographic data, surgical data, and imaging data before and after LLIF surgery.

RESULTS

Patients over the age of 80 years were found to have longer hospital stays (P = 0.006) and more postoperative muscle weakness (P = 0.011) and endplate injuries (P = 0.038). In addition, each numerical evaluation scale score improved significantly from preoperative to postoperative (P < 0.001). However, the changes in scores between preoperative and postoperative for each numerical evaluation scale were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Statistically significant increases in lumbar lordosis preoperatively compared with postoperatively were observed in patients under 80 years but did not change in those over 80 years.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest a need for awareness of intraoperative endplate injury and postoperative motor weakness. Critically, indirect decompression with LLIF in lumbar degenerative disease in patients over age 80 as well as those under age 80 has shown satisfactory clinical and radiological results. This study shows that age alone should not prevent older people from undergoing LLIF.

Complication rates following stand-alone lateral interbody fusion: a single institution series after 10 years of experience

PURPOSE

This retrospective single institution study's goal was to analyze and report the complications from stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIF).

METHODS

This research was approved by the institutional review board (STUDY2021000113). We retrospectively reviewed the database of patients with adult degenerative spine deformity treated via LLIF at our institution between January 2016 and December 2020.

RESULTS

Stand-alone LLIF was performed in 158 patients (145 XLIF, 13 OLIF; mean age 65 y.; 88 f., 70 m.). Mean surgical time was 85 min (± 24 min). Mean follow-up was 14 months (± 5 m). Surgical blood loss averaged 120 mL (± 187 mL) and the mean number of fused levels was 1.2 (± 0.4 levels). Overall complication rate was 19.6% (31 total; 23 approach-related, 8 secondary complications).

CONCLUSION

Lateral interbody fusion appears to be a safe surgical intervention with relatively low complication- and revision rates.

Instrumentation choice and early radiographic outcome following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF): Lateral instrumentation versus posterior pedicle screw fixation

Background

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive fusion procedure that may be performed with or without supplemental instrumentation. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the effect of supplemental instrumentation technique on perioperative morbidity and fusion rate in LLIF.

Methods

A single-institutional retrospective review of patients who underwent LLIF for lumbar spondylosis was conducted. Patients were grouped according to supplemental instrumentation technique: stand-alone LLIF, LLIF with laterally placed instrumentation, or LLIF with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF). Outcomes included fusion rates, peri-operative complication, and reoperation; estimated blood loss (EBL); surgery duration; length of stay; and length of follow-up.

Results

82 patients underwent LLIF at 114 levels. 35 patients (42.7%) received supplemental lateral instrumentation, 30 (36.6%) received supplemental PPSF, and 17 (20.7%) underwent stand-alone LLIF. More patients in the lateral instrumentation group had prior lumbar fusion at adjacent levels (23/35, 65.71%) versus stand-alone (3/17, 17.6%) or PPSF (2/30, 6.67%) groups (p = 0.003). 4/17 patients (23.5%) with stand-alone LLIF and 4/35 patients (11.42%) with lateral instrumentation underwent reoperation, versus 0/30 with PPSF (p = 0.030). There was no difference in fusion rates between groups (p = 0.717). Operation duration was longer in patients with PPSF (p < 0.005) and length of follow-up was longer for PPSF than lateral instrumentation (p = 0.001). Choice of instrumentation group was a statistically significant predictor of reoperation.

Conclusions

While rates of complete radiographic fusion on imaging follow-up didn't differ, patients receiving PPSF were less likely than stand-alone or lateral instrumentation groups to require reoperation, though operative time was significantly longer. Further study of choice of supplemental instrumentation with LLIF is indicated.

Single-position anterior and lateral lumbar fusion in the supine position: a novel technique for multi-level arthrodesis

OBJECTIVE

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are common techniques that typically require staged procedures when performed in combination. Interest is emerging in single-position surgery to increase operative efficiency. We report a novel surgical technique, supine extended reach (SupER) lateral fusion, to perform ALIF and LLIF with the patient in a single supine position.

METHODS

A man in his fifties presented with degenerative levoscoliosis, spondylolisthesis, sagittal-plane deformity, and progressive low back pain. He was offered L3-S1 anterolateral fusion.

RESULTS

With the patient supine, a left abdominal paramedian incision was performed to gain anterior retroperitoneal access, and standard L5-S1 and L4-5 ALIFs were performed. The anterior incision was used for direct visualization, retraction, and bimanual dissection. A left lateral incision was then made to perform an L3-4 LLIF. The patient subsequently underwent a second-stage L3-S1 posterior percutaneous fixation. The patient tolerated the procedures well, without complications. Postoperative radiograph findings confirmed acceptable implant positioning. The patient was discharged home in stable condition and was doing well at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This case description is the first report of the SupER technique, which allows incorporation of anterior and lateral fusion constructs at adjacent levels without changing patient positioning. Many surgeons believe the ALIF to be the most powerful technique for achieving lordosis, and this technique enables concomitant lateral access in a supine position. It can also be used as an alternative strategy when anterior access to the disc space is unobtainable. Further clinical investigation of this technique is warranted.

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.

Single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion: an overview of terminology, concepts, rationale and the current evidence base

PURPOSE

To provide definitions and a conceptual framework for single position surgery (SPS) applied to circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Narrative literature review and experts' opinion.

RESULTS

Two major limitations of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been (a) a perceived need to reposition the patient to the prone position for posterior fixation, and (b) the lack of a robust solution for fusion at the L5/S1 level. Recently, two strategies for performing single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion have been described. The combination of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position (LALIF), LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (pPSF) in the lateral decubitus position is known as lateral single-position surgery (LSPS). Prone LLIF (PLLIF) involves transpsoas LLIF done in the prone position that is more familiar for surgeons to then implant pedicle screw fixation. This can be referred to as prone single-position surgery (PSPS). In this review, we describe the evolution of and rationale for single-position spinal surgery. Pertinent studies validating LSPS and PSPS are reviewed and future questions regarding the future of these techniques are posed. Lastly, we present an algorithm for single-position surgery that describes the utility of LALIF, LLIF and PLLIF in the treatment of patients requiring AP lumbar fusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Single position surgery in circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine includes posterior fixation in association with any of the following: lateral position LLIF, prone position LLIF, lateral position ALIF, and their combination (lateral position LLIF+ALIF). Preliminary studies have validated these methods.

Predictors of subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) facilitates the restoration of disc height and the indirect decompression of neural elements. However, these benefits are lost when the graft subsides into the adjacent endplates. The factors leading to subsidence after LLIF are poorly understood. This article presents a case series of patients who underwent LLIF and reports factors correlating with subsidence.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a consecutive, prospectively collected, single-institution database of patients who underwent LLIF over a 29-month period was performed. The degree of subsidence was measured on the basis of postoperative imaging. The timing of postoperative subsidence was determined, and intraoperative fluoroscopic images were reviewed to determine whether subsidence occurred as a result of endplate violation. The association of subsidence with age, sex, cage size and type, bone density, and posterior instrumentation was investigated.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-one patients underwent LLIF at a total of 204 levels. Subsidence was observed at 23 (11.3%) operated levels. True subsidence, attributable to postoperative cage settling, occurred for 12 (5.9%) of the levels; for the remaining 11 (5.4%) levels, subsidence was associated with intraoperative endplate violation noted on fluoroscopy during cage placement. All subsidence occurred within 12 weeks of surgery. Univariate analysis showed that the prevalence of true subsidence was significantly lower among patients with titanium implants (0 of 55; 0%) than among patients with polyetheretherketone cages (12 of 149; 8.1%) (p = 0.04). In addition, the mean ratio of graft area to inferior endplate area was significantly lower among the subsidence levels (0.34) than among the nonsubsidence levels (0.42) (p < 0.01). Finally, subsidence among levels with posterior fixation (4.4% [6/135]) was not significantly different than among those without posterior fixation (8.7% [6/69]) (p = 0.23). Multivariate analysis results showed that the ratio of cage to inferior endplate area was the only significant predictor of subsidence in this study (p < 0.01); increasing ratios were associated with a decreased likelihood of subsidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the prevalence of subsidence after LLIF was low in this clinical series. Titanium cages were associated with a lower prevalence of observed subsidence on univariate analysis; however, multivariate analysis demonstrated that this effect may be attributable to the increased surface area of these cages relative to the inferior endplate area.

Spinal exposure for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position: anatomical and technical considerations

PURPOSE

Single position surgery has demonstrated to reduce hospital length of stay, operative times, blood loss, postoperative pain, ileus, and complications. ALIF and LLIF surgeries offer advantages of placing large interbody devices under direct compression and can be performed by a minimally invasive approach in the lateral position. Furthermore, simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior column is possible in the lateral position without the need for patient repositioning. The purpose of this study is to outline the anatomical and technical considerations for performing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position.

METHODS

Surgical technique and technical considerations for reconstruction of the anterior column in the lateral position by ALIF at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels.

RESULTS

Topics outlined in this review include: Operating room layout and patient positioning; surgical anatomy and approach; vessel mobilization and retractor placement for L4-5 and L5-S1 lateral ALIF exposure, in addition to comparative technique of disc space preparation, trialing and implant placement compared to the supine ALIF procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior exposure performed in the lateral decubitus position allows safe-, minimally invasive access and implant placement in ALIF. The approach requires less peritoneal and vessel retraction than in a supine position, in addition to allowing simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior columns when performing 360° Anterior-Posterior fusion.

Saphenous somatosensory-evoked potentials monitoring of femoral nerve health during prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

To assess whether saphenous somatosensory-evoked potentials (saphSSEP) monitoring may provide predictive information of femoral nerve health during prone lateral interbody fusion (LIF) procedures.

METHODS

Intraoperative details were captured prospectively in consecutive prone LIF surgeries at a single institution. Triggered electromyography was used during the approach; saphSSEP was monitored throughout using a novel system that enables acquisition of difficult signals and real-time actionable feedback facilitating intraoperative intervention. Postoperative neural function was correlated with intraoperative findings.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients (58% female, mean age 64, mean BMI 32) underwent LIF at 95 total levels, inclusive of L4-5 in 76%, fixated via percutaneous pedicle screws (81%) or lateral plate, with direct decompression in 39%. Total operative time averaged 149 min. Psoas retraction time averaged 16 min/level. Baseline SSEPs were unreliable in 3 due to comorbidities in 2 and anesthesia in 1; one of those resulted in transient quadriceps weakness, fully recovered at 6 weeks. In 25/56, no saphSSEP changes occurred, and none had postoperative femoral nerve deficits. In 24/31 with saphSSEP changes, responses recovered intraoperatively following intervention, with normal postoperative function in all but one with delayed quadriceps weakness, improved at 4 months and recovered at 9 months, and a second with transient isolated anterior thigh numbness. In the remaining 7/31, saphSSEP changes persisted to close, and resulted in 2 transient isolated anterior thigh numbness and 2 combined sensory and motor femoral nerve deficits, both resolved at between 4 and 8 months.

CONCLUSIONS

SaphSSEP was reliably monitored in most cases and provided actionable feedback that was highly predictive of neurological events during LIF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

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.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Single Surgeon Learning Curve

OBJECTIVE

To characterize lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgical learning curve and investigate changes in perioperative and postoperative clinical parameters associated with increased operative experience.

METHODS

In a case series, surgical learning curve was defined using 3-parameter asymptotic regression and piecewise linear regression, yielding learning phase (patients 1-53) and proficient phase (patients 54-179) cohorts. Using a 5-point grading scale, ipsilateral iliopsoas (hip-flexion) and quadriceps (knee-extension) muscle strength and thigh and groin sensory disturbances were compared for differences preoperatively versus postoperatively using χ² test. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected preoperatively and postoperatively and compared between cohorts with unpaired t test.

RESULTS

The proficient phase cohort demonstrated significantly reduced operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, and narcotic consumption on postoperative days 0 and 1. The proficient phase cohort displayed decreased disability at 6 weeks and 6 months and demonstrated significant improvement at all time points for disability, pain, and physical function except for 6 weeks and 2 years for physical function, whereas the learning phase cohort demonstrated improvement in disability beginning at 6 months, leg pain at all time points, and back pain through 6 months. Ipsilateral groin and thigh sensory disturbances and iliopsoas and quadriceps weakness improved with increasing operative experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The proficient phase cohort demonstrated significantly improved perioperative profile, reduced complication rate, and reduced rates of iliopsoas and quadriceps weakness. While the proficient phase cohort demonstrated earlier improvement in disability and physical function scores compared with the learning phase cohort, 2-year outcome measures did not differ. Long-term clinical outcomes suggest that patient safety and quality of life are not compromised during the learning phase, but patients may be particularly susceptible to femoral nerve injury early in a surgeon's practice.

Expandable vs Static Interbody Devices for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has paved a way for minimally invasive surgical treatment of a wide variety of spine pathologies. Interbody devices are used to stabilize painful disc levels, provide indirect decompression of neural elements, correct deformity, restore lordosis, and provide a sound durable fusion. Through the years, new static and expandable interbody devices have been developed in an attempt to improve radiographic and clinical outcomes in lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this article is to explore the advantages and disadvantages between static and expandable interbody devices when used in LLIF. Specifically, this article addresses the differences in subsidence, indirect decompression, restoration of lumbar lordosis, complications, patient-reported outcomes, and cost between static and expandable interbody devices.

Single-Position Anterior Column Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Lateral lumbar fusion is a commonly used spinal fusion technique that allows for indirect neural decompression while correcting sagittal malalignment. The lateral position has evolved to include placement of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation, anterior longitudinal ligament release, and approach the L5-S1 segment. This review article focuses on the anatomy and technique of the single-position anterior column spinal fusion and highlights the recent trends, outcomes, and future directions for the approach.

Single-Position Fluoroscopy-Guided Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Intraoperative Computed Tomography-Navigated Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation: Technical Report and Literature Review

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a powerful tool in minimally invasive spine surgery with high rates of fusion, excellent indirect decompression, and deformity correction. LLIF offers advantages compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion including a more favorable complication profile. Traditionally, the interbody fusion is performed in the lateral position and fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw fixation performed with the patient repositioned prone. The evolution of both pedicle screw technology and intraoperative navigation has enhanced the feasibility of single (lateral)-position surgery. Early reports using fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screws and computer or robotic navigation suggest this technique can be performed safely and accurately. The purpose of this brief report is to provide the technical steps, workflow, as well as pearls and pitfalls for single-position LLIF with true intraoperative computed tomography navigation-guided percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. A case example is included for illustration.

Single Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Instrumentation Utilizing Computer Navigation and Robotic Assistance: Retrospective case review and surgical technique considerations

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine safety and short-term outcomes of single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with bilateral posterior instrumentation and robotic assistance. The article also describes surgical technique considerations for the procedure.

METHODS

20 patients underwent single-position LLIF with posterior instrumentation and robotic assistance. The patients were followed for a minimum of 3 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

Average operative time was 211 ± 34 minutes, average blood loss was 51.25 ± 17 cc's, and average length of stay was 1.4 ± .75 days. There were no intraoperative complications, readmissions, revision surgeries, and no incidence of hardware malposition. Significant improvement in pain and ODI scores was noted at 3 month follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated safety and short-term clinical efficacy of minimally invasive single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral posterior instrumentation utilizing robotic assistance and navigation. There are certain surgical technique considerations that must be followed to ensure optimal surgical workflow and predictable outcomes.

Do evoked potentials matter? Pre-pathologic signal change and clinical outcomes with expandable cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery

Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS LLIF) is a reliable technique for treatment of degenerative disk disease, foraminal stenosis and spinal deformity. The retroperitoneal transpsoas approach risks lumbar plexus injury that may result in anterior thigh pain, sensory loss and weakness. A prospective study of 64 consecutive patients undergoing MIS LLIF with expandable cages (23 standalone, 41 integrated with lateral plate) using multimodal electrophysiological monitoring was performed. We measured sequential retraction times, complications, patient reported outcome scores and electrophysiologic findings with a minimum 12-month follow-up. Incidence of evoked potential and electromyographic signal change was moderate, and rarely resulted in post-operative neurologic deficit. Evoked potential signal changes were frequently resolved by the un-breaking of the surgical table or repositioning of the retractor. Average retraction times were 24 (15-41) minutes for standalone cages and 30 (15-41) minutes for integrated cages. At follow-up, the vast majority (97%) of patients reported significant clinical improvement post-operatively with only 2 patients reporting postoperative neurologic symptoms and subsequent recovery at 12-months. The present study shows that evoked potentials combined with electromyography is a more sensitive measure of pre-pathologic lumbar plexopathy in LLIF compared to electromyography alone, especially at L3/4 and L4/5 levels. Based on our findings, there is limited clinical indication for routine neural monitoring at rostral lumbar levels. The routine inclusion of multimodal electrophysiological monitoring in lateral transpsoas surgery is recommended to minimise the risk of neural injury by enabling optimal patient and retractor positioning and continued surveillance throughout the procedure.

Comparison of 3D-printed titanium-alloy, standard titanium-alloy, and PEEK interbody spacers in an ovine model

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Osseointegration is a pivotal process in achieving a rigid fusion and ultimately a successful clinical outcome following interbody fusion surgery. Advancements in 3D printing technology permit commonly used titanium interbody spacers to be designed with unique architectures, such as a highly interconnected and specific porous structure that mimics the architecture of trabecular bone. Interbody implants with a microscale surface roughness and biomimetic porosity may improve bony ongrowth and ingrowth compared to traditional materials.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the osseointegration of lumbar interbody fusion devices composed of surgical-grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK), titanium-alloy (TAV), and 3D-printed porous, biomimetic TAV (3DP) using an in vivo ovine model.

STUDY DESIGN

In Vivo Preclinical Animal Study METHODS: Eighteen sheep underwent two-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion randomized with either 3DP, PEEK, or TAV interbody spacers (n=6 levels for each spacer per time point). Postoperative time points were 6 and 12 weeks. Microcomputed tomography and histomorphometry were used to quantify bone volume (BV) within the spacers (ingrowth) and the surface bone apposition ratio (BAR) (ongrowth), respectively.

RESULTS

The 3DP-treatment group demonstrated significantly higher BV than the PEEK and TAV groups at 6 weeks (77.3±44.1 mm³, 116.9±43.0 mm³, and 108.7±15.2 mm³, respectively) (p<.05). At 12 weeks, there were no BV differences between groups (p>.05). BV increased in all groups from the 6- to 12-week time points (p<.05). At both time points, the 3DP-treated group (6w: 23.6±10.9%; 12w: 36.5±10.9%) had significantly greater BAR than the PEEK (6w: 8.6±2.1%; 12w: 14.0±5.0%) and TAV (6w: 6.0±5.7%; 12w: 4.1±3.3%) groups (p<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

3DP interbody spacers facilitated greater total bony ingrowth at 6 weeks, and greater bony ongrowth postoperatively at both 6 and 12 weeks, in comparison to solid PEEK and TAV implants.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Based on these findings, the 3DP spacers may be a reasonable alternative to traditional PEEK and TAV spacers in various clinical applications of interbody fusion.

Early Outcomes of 3D-printed Porous Titanium versus Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cage Implantation for Standalone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Symptomatic Adjacent Segment Degeneration

OBJECTIVE

This study compared outcomes of 3D-printed porous titanium (Ti) versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage implantation for standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF) in the treatment of symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (ASD).

METHODS

44 patients (59 levels) underwent SA-LLIF with Ti or PEEK cages between 10/2016 and 07/2020. The primary outcome was cage subsidence according to Marchi et al. Secondary outcomes included revision/recommendations for revision surgery, back/leg pain severity, changes in disc/foraminal height and global/segmental lumbar lordosis.

RESULTS

44 patients (21 female) were included with a mean age at surgery of 61.8±11.5 years, average radiological follow-up of 12.5±8.2 and clinical follow-up of 11.0±7.1 months. The overall subsidence rate was significantly less in the Ti versus PEEK group (20% vs. 58.8%; p=0.004). Revision was recommended to none of the patients in the Ti and 3 in the PEEK group (p=0.239). Furthermore, patients in the Ti group showed significantly better improvement in back pain NRS score (p=0.001). Disc height (p<0.001) and foraminal height restoration (p=0.011) were statistically significant in the Ti group, whereas only disc height restoration was significant in the PEEK group (p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing SA-LLIF for ASD treatment, 3D-printed Ti cages had significantly lower overall subsidence rate compared to PEEK cages. Furthermore, Ti cages resulted in fewer recommendations for revision surgery. Whether greater pain reduction in the Ti group is associated with earlier or higher fusion rates needs to be further elucidated.

How Do Patient-Reported Outcomes Vary Between Lumbar Fusion Patients with Complete Versus Incomplete Follow-Up?

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between patients who do and do not follow up for 2 years after lumbar fusion.

METHODS

Primary, elective, single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral lumbar interbody fusion, or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures were identified. Patients were grouped by 2-year PROM follow-up completion. Mean and delta PROM scores for visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), short-form (SF)-12 Physical Composite Score (PCS), and Mental Composite Score (MCS) were computed for both groups preoperatively and postoperatively. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was determined for PROM scores using established threshold values. Linear and logistic regression assessed mean and ΔPROM scores as predictors of 2-year follow-up completion and compared MCID achievement between groups, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 316 lumbar fusion patients. PROM scores were more favorable for complete follow-up patients for 6-month VAS back (P = 0.003), 6-month and 1-year ODI (P ≤ 0.027, both), and 6-week and 6-month SF-12 PCS (P ≤ 0.015, both). Six-month VAS back (P = 0.007); 6-month and 1-year ODI (P ≤ 0.028, both); 6-week, 6-month, and 1-year SF-12 PCS (P ≤ 0.041, all); and 6-week SF-12 MCS (P ≤ 0.028, both) significantly predicted 2-year follow-up. ΔPROMs significantly differed between groups at 1 year for ΔVAS leg (P = 0.029), ΔODI (P = 0.013), and ΔSF-12 MCS (P = 0.004). One-year ΔVAS leg (P = 0.035), ΔODI (P = 0.011), and ΔSF-12 MCS (P = 0.003) significantly predicted follow-up. MCID achievement for ΔPROMs significantly differed between groups for 6-week VAS leg (P = 0.035), overall ODI (P = 0.034), and SF-12 PCS from 12 weeks through 1 year (P ≤ 0.011, all) and overall (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with full follow-up demonstrated significantly more favorable outcome scores and improvement in pain, disability, and physical function at several postoperative time points.

Supine lateral lumbar interbody fusion: cadaveric proof of principle for simultaneous anterior and lateral approaches

BACKGROUND

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are commonly performed in separate stages with a change in patient positioning to provide arthrodesis in the lumbar spine. Interest has recently emerged in performing these approaches as a single-stage surgery with the patient in the lateral decubitus position. The objective of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of performing minimally invasive anterolateral fixation in a single supine position.

METHODS

Two fresh-frozen cadavers were used and placed supine. Standard minimally invasive anterior access was obtained by the approach surgeon. An ALIF was performed at L5-S1 using standard techniques. A lateral incision was marked over the L4-5 disc space using fluoroscopy. Direct palpation and bimanual dissection were achieved through the same anterior incision, allowing access to the retroperitoneal space. Dilator and retractor docking was performed under fluoroscopic guidance. Direct visualization of the docking hardware through the anterior incision was used to ensure the safety of peritoneal contents and vasculature. The LLIF was then performed using standard techniques at L4-5.

RESULTS

Plain radiographs confirmed acceptable positioning of both the ALIF and LLIF grafts. No injury to the cadaveric peritoneum, vasculature, or lumbar plexus was observed. A slightly enlarged anterior incision also permitted retroperitoneal access and visualization of the L3-4 disc space.

CONCLUSION

This cadaver feasibility study demonstrates that combined minimally invasive ALIF and LLIF procedures may be performed as a single-stage with the patient in the supine position. Clinical consideration and study of this approach are warranted.

Development of a decision-making pathway for utilizing standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

To develop a decision-making pathway for primary SA-LLIF. Furthermore, we analyzed the agreement of this pathway and compared outcomes of patients undergoing either SA-LLIF or 360-LLIF.

METHOD

A decision-making pathway for SA-LLIF was created based on the results of interviews/surveys of senior spine surgeons with over 10 years of experience. Internal validity was retrospectively evaluated using consecutive patients undergoing either SA-LLIF or 360-LLIF between 01/2018 and 07/2020 with 3D-printed Titanium cages. An outcome assessment looking primarily at revision surgery and secondary at cage subsidence, changes in disk and foraminal height, global and segmental lumbar lordosis, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss, and length of stay was carried out.

RESULTS

78 patients with 124 treated levels (37 SA-LLIF, 41 360-LLIF) were retrospectively analyzed. The pathway showed a direct agreement (SA-LLIF) of 100.0% and an indirect agreement (360-LLIF) of 95.1%. Clinical follow-up averaged 13.5 ± 6.5 months including 4 revision surgeries in the 360-LLIF group and none in the SA-LLIF group (p = 0.117). Radiographic follow-up averaged 9.5 ± 4.3 months, with no statistically significant difference in cage subsidence rate between the groups (p = 0.440). Compared to preoperative images, patients in both groups showed statistically significant changes in disk height (p < 0.001), foraminal height (p < 0.001), as well as restoration of segmental lordosis (p < 0.001 and p = 0.018). The SA-LLIF group showed shorter duration of surgery, less estimated blood loss and shorter LOS (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The proposed decision-making pathway provides a guide to adequately select patients for SA-LLIF. Further studies are needed to assess the external applicability and validity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Comparison of Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Open Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Single-Level Spondylolisthesis of L4-L5

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and conventional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for treating single-level spondylolisthesis at L4-L5.

METHODS

The patients underwent minimally invasive LLIF (n = 18), minimally invasive TLIF (n = 17), and conventional open PLIF (n = 20) for spondylolisthesis at L4-L5. Reduction of slippage, improvement in segmental lordosis, and restoration of foraminal height were measured. Perioperative parameters such as blood loss and operation time and clinical outcomes such as visual analog scale score and Oswestry Disability Index were compared.

RESULTS

Compared with the open PLIF group, the minimally invasive LLIF group showed greater restoration of mean foraminal height, significantly smaller mean intraoperative estimated blood loss, and less mean hemoglobin reduction on the third day postoperatively. Compared with the minimally invasive TLIF group, the minimally invasive LLIF group showed greater restoration of mean segmental lordosis. The minimally invasive LLIF group showed a significantly shorter mean time to start walking after surgery compared with the conventional open PLIF and minimally invasive TLIF groups. However, compared with the minimally invasive TLIF group, the minimally invasive LLIF group showed a significantly longer mean operating time. Clinical outcomes were not statistically different among the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of spondylolisthesis of L4-L5, minimally invasive LLIF provided an effective surgical alternative to minimally invasive TLIF or conventional open PLIF, with the advantages of less blood loss, the faster start of postoperative walking, and comparable improvement in radiologic parameters.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in adult spine deformity - A review of literature

INTRODUCTION

Surgery for adult spine deformity presents a challenging issue for spinal surgeons with high morbidity rates reported in the literature. The minimally invasive lateral approach aims at reducing these complications while maintaining similar outcomes as associated with open spinal surgeries. The aim of this paper is to review the literature on the use of lateral lumbar interbody fusion in the cases of adult spinal deformity.

METHODS

A literature review was done using the healthcare database Advanced Research on NICE and NHS website using Medline. Search terms were "XLIF" or "LLIF" or "DLIF" or "lateral lumbar interbody fusion" or "minimal invasive lateral fusion" and "adult spinal deformity" or "spinal deformity".

RESULTS

A total of 417 studies were considered for the review and 44 studies were shortlisted after going through the selection criteria. The data of 1722 patients and 4057 fusion levels were analysed for this review. The mean age of the patients was 65.18 years with L4/5 being the most common level fused in this review. We found significant improvement in the radiological parameters (lordosis, scoliosis, and disk height) in the pooled data. Transient neurological symptoms and cage subsidence were the two most common complications reported.

CONCLUSION

LLIF is a safe and effective approach in managing adult spinal deformity with low morbidity and acceptable complication rates. It can be used alone for lower grades of deformity and as an adjuvant procedure to decrease the magnitude of open surgeries in high-grade deformities.

Comparison of Prone Transpsoas and Standard Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Retrospective Radiographic Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (PTP-LLIF) is a recently introduced modification to standard LLIF. To date, no study has compared the radiographic outcomes of standard LLIF and PTP-LLIF. We performed a radiographic parameter-based propensity score-matched analysis to compare postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes between PTP-LLIF and standard LLIF for degenerative lumbar spine disease.

METHODS

A total of 30 consecutive patients met the inclusion criteria. The preoperative standing scoliosis radiographs were retrospectively reviewed for global and segmental sagittal alignment. Propensity score matching was calculated using the baseline radiographic parameters. One-to-one matching of patients who had undergone PTP-LLIF with those who had a similar propensity score but had undergone standard LLIF was performed to compare the radiographic (primary) and clinical (secondary) outcomes.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching resulted in 10 pairs of PTP-LLIF and standard LLIF patients. The PTP-LLIF group had had significantly better improvement in lumbar lordosis (P = 0.047). The difference in the improvement in pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch approached statistical significance for the PTP-LLIF group (P = 0.05). This led to better improvement in the short-form 12-item physical score (P = 0.03) and Oswestry disability index (P = 0.1) in the PTP-LLIF group. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in the other clinical and radiographic outcomes. The PTP-LLIF group had a shorter operative time (P = 0.4) and hospital stay (P = 0.1), without a statistically difference, and shorter radiation exposure time (P = 0.5). The standard LLIF group had experienced less intraoperative bleeding, without a statistically significant difference (P = 0.3). The mean follow-up time was 10.2 ± 5.2 months in the PTP-LLIF group and 30.9 ± 17.2 months in the standard LLIF group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PTP-LLIF group showed significantly better improvement in lumbar lordosis and short-form 12-item physical score.

Long-Term Results of Anterior-Only Lumbar Interbody Fusions in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: Comparative Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a risk factor of lumbar spine surgical failure. The interest of anterior lumbar fusion in this context remains unknown. This retrospective study aimed to compare the outcome of anterior-only fusions between RA patients and non-RA (NRA) patients to treat lumbar spine degenerative disorders.

METHODS

NRA and RA groups including anterior-only fusion were compared. Clinical data (Visual Analog Scale score axial back pain scale, the Oswestry Disability Index, and a questionnaire of satisfaction regarding the surgical result); radiologic data (bone fusion, sagittal balance analysis); and adverse events were assessed using repeated measure 1-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 9.5 years (95% confidence interval [7.1-12.2]) for the RA group (n = 13) and 9.4 years (95% confidence interval [8.7-10.3]) for the NRA group (n = 36). Anterior fusion improved clinical outcome without any effect of RA (Visual Analog Scale score axial back pain scale; P < 0.001/Oswestry Disability Index; P = 0.01). The presence of RA influenced neither the satisfaction as the regards the surgical result nor spine balance nor bone fusion. Context of RA increased the surgical revision rate (10 patients [76.9%] for RA group vs. 3 patients [8.8%] for the NRA group; P = 0.001) because of the occurrence of an adjacent segment disease needing surgical revision (P = 0.028), especially the occurrence of intervertebral frontal dislocation (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

As noticed for posterior-only fusion, the anterior lumbar approach in RA patients does not seem to avoid the occurrence of an adjacent segment disease.

Evaluation of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: novel 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage

PURPOSE

This study aims to compare the early subsidence rate (6-12 months) of standalone novel 3D-printed titanium (Ti) versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody cages after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHOD

A retrospective study of 113 patients (186 levels) who underwent LLIF surgery with Ti or PEEK cages was conducted. Early subsidence was measured in each treated level using the Marchi et al. classification in radiographs or CT scans acquired at 6-12 months follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression analyses with generalized mixed models, setting subsidence as the outcome variable and including cage type (Ti vs PEEK) as well as significant and trending variables (p < 0.10) in univariate analyses, were conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 51 female and 62 male patients were analyzed. The median [IQR] age at surgery was 60.0 [51.0-70.0] years. Of the 186 levels, 119 levels were treated using PEEK and 67 levels with Ti cages. The overall subsidence rate for Grades I-III was significantly less in the Ti versus the PEEK group (p = 0.003). For high-grade subsidence (Grade II or III), Ti cages also demonstrated a subsidence rate (3.0%) that was significantly less compared to PEEK cages (18.5%) (p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis showed that patients treated with Ti cages were less likely to develop severe subsidence compared to those treated with PEEK (OR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.30) (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that 3D-printed novel Ti cages had a significantly lower early subsidence rate compared to PEEK cages in standalone LLIF patients.

A novel endoscope-assisted technique for lateral lumbar interbody fusion: feasibility study, technical note, and operative video

The lateral approach to the spine is generally well tolerated, but reports of debilitating injury to the lumbar plexus, iliac vessels, ureter, and abdominal viscera are increasingly recognized, likely related to the lack of direct visualization of these nearby structures. To minimize this complication profile, the authors describe here a novel, minimally invasive, endoscope-assisted technique for the LLIF and evaluate its clinical feasibility. Seven consecutive endoscope-assisted lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedures by the senior authors were reviewed for the incidence of approach-related complications. One patient had a postoperative approach-related complication. This patient developed transient ipsilateral thigh hip flexion weakness that resolved spontaneously by the 3-month follow-up. No patient experienced visceral, urological, or vascular injury, and no patient sustained a permanent neurological injury related to the procedure. The authors' preliminary experience suggests that this endoscope-assisted LLIF technique may be clinically feasible to mitigate vascular, urological, and visceral injury, especially in patients with previous abdominal surgery, anomalous anatomy, and revision operations. It provides direct visualization of at-risk structures without significant additional operative time. A larger series is needed to determine whether it reduces the incidence of lumbar plexopathy or visceral injury compared with traditional lateral approaches.

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

BACKGROUND

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) affords a wide operative corridor to allow for a large interbody cage implantation for segmental reconstruction. There is a paucity of data describing segmental lordosis (SL) achieved with lordotic implants of varying angles. Here we compare changes in SL and lumbar lordosis (LL) after implantation of 6°, 10°, and 12° cages.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed LLIF cases over a 5.5-year period. We derived SL and LL using the standard cobb angle measurement from a standing lateral radiograph. We analyzed mean changes in SL and LL over time using the linear mixed effect model to estimate these longitudinal changes.

RESULTS

The most frequently treated level was L3-4, followed by L4-5. Significant increases in mean SL were found at each follow-up time point for all the cohorts. In an intercohort comparison, the mean changes in SL at immediate postoperative and last follow-up were significantly greater in the 10° cohort than 6° ([7.4° versus 3.1°, P = .004], [6.1° versus 2.3°, P = .025] respectively). The 12° cohort had higher mean change in SL at last follow-up than the 6° cohort (5.9° versus 2.3°, P = .022). There was no difference in mean change in SL between the 10° and 12° cohorts. No difference in overall mean LL over time was found. In terms of mean change in LL, no difference was observed except at immediate and 6-month postoperative in the 10° cohort ([9.6°, P = .001], [8.5, P = .003] respectively). By comparing mean change in LL, no difference existed except between the 10° and 6° immediately after surgery (9.6° versus 0.2°, P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF cages significantly improve SL at the index level. However, this increase in SL is greater for 10° and 12° cages than the standard 6° cage. Use of 10° cages also resulted in overall improved LL than 6° cages.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Single position circumferential fusion improves operative efficiency, reduces complications and length of stay compared with traditional circumferential fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with percutaneous posterior screw fixation are two techniques used to address degenerative lumbar pathologies. Traditionally, these anterior-posterior (AP) surgeries involve repositioning the patient from the supine or lateral decubitus position to prone for posterior fixation. To reduce operative time (OpTime) and subsequent complications of prolonged anesthesia, single-position lumbar surgery (SPLS) is a novel, minimally invasive alternative performed entirely from the lateral decubitus position.

PURPOSE

Assess the perioperative safety and efficacy of single position AP lumbar fusion surgery (SPLS).

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary ALIF and/or LLIF surgery with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 were included over a 4-year period. Patients were classified as either traditional repositioned "Flip" surgery or SPLS. Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, EBL, LOS, perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included LL, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL. All measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at p < .05. Propensity matching was completed where demographic differences were found.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group. Age, gender, BMI, and CCI were similar between groups. Levels fused (1.47 SPLS vs 1.52 Flip, p = .468) and percent cases including L5-S1 (31% SPLS, 35% Flip, p = .405) were similar between cohorts. SPLS significantly reduced OpTime (103 min vs 306 min, p < .001), EBL (97 vs 313 mL, p < .001), LOS (1.71 vs 4.12 days, p < .001), and fluoroscopy radiation dosage (32 vs 88 mGy, p < .001) compared to Flip. Perioperative complications were similar between cohorts with the exception of postoperative ileus, which was significantly lower in the SPLS group (0% vs 5%, p < .001). There was no significant difference in wound, vascular injury, neurological complications, or Venous Thrombotic Event. There was no significant difference found in 90-day return to operating room (OR).

CONCLUSIONS

SPLS improves operative efficiency in addition to reducing blood loss, LOS and ileus in this large cohort study, while maintaining safety.

Effects of Surgical Positioning on L4-L5 Accessibility and Lumbar Lordosis in Lateral Transpsoas Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of Prone and Lateral Decubitus in Asymptomatic Adults

BACKGROUND

Lateral interbody fusion (LIF) is traditionally performed in lateral decubitus on a breaking surgical table to improve L4-L5 access. Prone transpsoas (PTP) LIF may improve sagittal alignment and facilitate single-position circumferential procedures; but may require manipulation of the iliac crest for L4-L5 accessibility.

METHODS

Healthy adult volunteers (n = 41) were positioned as if for surgery in right-lateral decubitus on a radiolucent breaking table, and also prone on a Jackson-style surgical frame atop a custom PTP bolster. Iliac crest distance from the L5 superior endplate, and coronal and sagittal plane alignments were measured from fluororadiographs obtained in each of 5 positions: standard lateral decubitus (LD), prone-hips and spine neutral (PR-NN), prone-hips neutral and spine coronally bent (PR-NCB), prone-hips extended and spine neutral (PR-EN), and prone-hips extended and spine coronally bent (PR-ECB).

RESULTS

L4-L5 accessibility was lowest in prone-neutral and improved in all augmented positional configurations: PR-NN<>PR-EN<LD<PR-ECB<PR-NCB. Coronal bending with the PTP positioner created greater accessibility than that achieved by lateral decubitus breaking (PR-NCB>LD, P = 0.0480). Coronal angulations were greatest in LD, and statistically different from both prone neutral (LD>PR-NN, P < 0.0001) and prone coronally bent (LD>PR-NCB, P < 0.0001). Lordosis was greatest in extended prone positions and lowest in lateral decubitus: PR-EN>PR-ECB>PR-NCB<>PR-NN>LD. All prone positions showed significantly greater lordosis than lateral decubitus (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with lateral decubitus, prone positioning provides equivalent or better L4-L5 LIF access around the iliac crest when a positioner is used that enables coronal bending, and improved positional lordosis, which may facilitate segmental correction and achievement of surgical alignment goals.

The History of Anterior and Lateral Approaches to the Lumbar Spine

Anterior and lateral approaches to the lumbar spine are commonly used today for a variety of indications. These approaches can ultimately be traced back to early attempts to treat Pott's disease. Evidence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection of the spine dates as far back as 2400 BCE, with ancient Egyptian mummies exhibiting lesions consistent with Pott's disease. For many centuries, Pott's disease was treated conservatively, and surgery came to be used when conservative therapy was ineffective, as medical therapy had yet to become available. In 1779, Percivall Pott recommended that peripheral paraspinal tuberculous abscesses be drained after noticing that patients' lower limb function improved after the formation of spontaneous draining sinuses. Building on Pott's ideas, Ménard described the first lateral approach to the spine via a costotransversectomy approximately 1 century after Pott's theory. Most importantly, the surge in understanding anatomy with respect to developing safe corridors to the deeper structures of the human body brought together advances in technology, instrumentation, and visualization. Surgeons were thus emboldened to explore more complex anterior approaches to the spine. In 1906, Müller reported the first successful anterior approach to the spine in a patient with Pott's disease. Over the next several decades, the efforts of surgeons such as Ito, Capener, Burns, and Mercer would lead to the development of the anterior lumbar interbody fusion. The costotransversectomy later evolved into the lateral rhachotomy and lateral extracavitary approach, which along with advances in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion paved the way for the oblique lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Radiological evaluation of fusion patterns after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: institutional case series

INTRODUCTION

There is no consensus on how to evaluate segmental fusion after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Bone bridges (BB) between two contiguous vertebra are reported as pathognomonic criteria for anterior fusion. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no radiological investigations on zygapophyseal joints (ZJ) status after LLIF. The aim of this radiological study was to investigate the different fusion patterns after LLIF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective single-centre radiological study. Patients who underwent LLIF and posterior percutaneous screw fixation for degenerative spondylolisthesis, on a single lumbar level, were considered for eligibility. Complete radiological data and a minimum follow-up of 1 year were the inclusion criteria. Intervertebral BB were investigated for evaluating anterior fusion and ZJ ankylotic degeneration was evaluated according Pathria et al., as a matter of proof of posterior fusion and segmental immobilization.

RESULTS

Seventy-four patients were finally included in the present study. Twelve months after surgery, intervertebral BB were recognized in 58 segments (78.3%), whereas ZJ Pathria grade was I in 8 (10.8%) patients, II in 15 (20.3%) and III in 51 (68.9%) that were considered posteriorly fused. The overlapping rate between anteriorly and posteriorly fused segments was 72.4% (42 segments), whereas 10 (13.5%) did not achieve any fusion, anterior or posterior, and 6 (8.1%) were posteriorly fused only.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results seem to suggest that anterior fusion is not sufficient to achieve segmental immobilization. Further properly designed investigations are needed to investigate eventual clinical-radiological correlations.

Interbody Fusions in the Lumbar Spine: A Review

BACKGROUND

Lumbar interbody fusion is among the most common types of spinal surgery performed. Over time, the term has evolved to encompass a number of different approaches to the intervertebral space, as well as differing implant materials. Questions remain over which approaches and materials are best for achieving fusion and restoring disc height.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We reviewed the literature on the advantages and disadvantages of various methods and devices used to achieve and augment fusion between the disc spaces in the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Using search terms specific to lumbar interbody fusion, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar and identified 4993 articles. We excluded those that did not report clinical outcomes, involved cervical interbody devices, were animal studies, or were not in English. After exclusions, 68 articles were included for review.

RESULTS

Posterior approaches have advantages, such as providing 360° support through a single incision, but can result in retraction injury and do not always restore lordosis or correct deformity. Anterior approaches allow for the largest implants and good correction of deformities but can result in vascular, urinary, psoas muscle, or lumbar plexus injury and may require a second posterior procedure to supplement fixation. Titanium cages produce improved osteointegration and fusion rates but also increase subsidence caused by the stiffness of titanium relative to bone. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has an elasticity closer to that of bone and shows less subsidence than titanium cages, but as an inert compound PEEK results in lower fusion rates and greater osteolysis. Combination PEEK-titanium coating has not yet achieved better results. Expandable cages were developed to increase disc height and restore lumbar lordosis, but the data on their effectiveness have been inconclusive. Three-dimensionally (3D)-printed cages have shown promise in biomechanical and animal studies at increasing fusion rates and reducing subsidence, but additive manufacturing options are still in their infancy and require more investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

All of the approaches to spinal fusion have plusses and minuses that must be considered when determining which to use, and newer-technology implants, such as PEEK with titanium coating, expandable, and 3D-printed cages, have tried to improve upon the limitations of existing grafts but require further study.

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.