Applied anatomy and surgical technique of the lateral single-position L5-S1 fusion

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.

Single-level TLIF Versus LLIF at L4-5: A Comparison of Patient-reported Outcomes and Recovery Ratios

INTRODUCTION

Both transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are suitable for achievement of lumbar arthrodesis. Comparative studies have observed complications and outcomes without stratification by lumbar level. This study aims to assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and recovery in TLIF and LLIF at L4-5.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary, elective, single-level, TLIF or LLIF procedures at L4-5 were grouped. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and postoperative complication rates were collected. PROMs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function, visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index, and 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Summary, and Mental Component Summary and were collected at preoperative, 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. Delta values and recovery ratios (RRs) were calculated for all PROMs at all time points. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and postoperative complications were compared using chi-squared and Student t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Differences in mean PROMs, delta values, and RR at each time point were evaluated using unpaired Student's t-test.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty TLIF and 46 LLIF patients were included. Most (54.3%) were men, mean age 56.3 years, and mean body mass index 30.8 kg/m2. Body mass index and insurance significantly differed (P ≤ 0.045, all). TLIF showed significantly greater mean operative time, length of stay, and postoperative narcotic consumption (P < 0.033, all) and greater postoperative nausea/vomiting (P = 0.004). No preoperative PROMs significantly differed. TLIF cohort had significantly greater VAS back at 6 months and VAS leg at 12 weeks and 6 months (P < 0.034, all). No mean delta PROMs or RRs significantly differed.

DISCUSSION

LLIF demonstrated significantly reduced length of stay, postoperative narcotic consumption, and postoperative nausea/vomiting and significantly improved VAS back at 6 months and VAS leg at 12 weeks and 6 months versus TLIF. Although 2-year PROMs and RRs did not significantly differ, our findings may suggest improved midterm follow-up pain scores for LLIF patients.

Fluoroscopy-based percutaneous posterior screw placement in the lateral position using the tunnel view technique: technical note

PURPOSE

Lumbar fusion using lateral single position surgery (LSPS) gained popularity during the last few years. While prone percutaneous pedicle screw placement is well described, placing percutaneous pedicle screws with the patient in the lateral position is considered the most complicated part of LSPS. In this article we describe the fluoroscopy navigated technique for lateral percutaneous screw placement using the tunnel view technique.

METHODS

The radiologic background and principles of the tunnel view technique are described. In addition, the special positioning of the patient, the C-arm and the surgical technique is discussed in detail.

RESULTS

This technique is used as the standard for percutaneous screw placement in the prone or lateral positions in our department since 2017. Since the introduction of this technique we have had 0% reoperation rate for symptomatic malpositioned pedicle screws.

CONCLUSION

The tunnel view technique simplifies pedicle screw placement while allowing for permanent observation of pedicle walls and the superior joint surface during placement of the Jamshidi needle. It also allows for confirmation of intrapedicular position of the screw after its implantation. This technique is safe and feasible in our clinical experience.

A novel anatomo-physiologic high-grade spondylolisthesis model to evaluate L5 nerve stretch injury after spondylolisthesis reduction

L5 nerve palsy is a well-known complication following reduction of high-grade spondylolisthesis. While several mechanisms for its occurrence have been proposed, the hypothesis of L5 nerve root strain or displacement secondary to mechanical reduction remains poorly studied. The aim of this cadaveric study is to determine changes in morphologic parameters of the L5 nerve root during simulated intraoperative reduction of high-grade spondylolisthesis. A standard posterior approach to the lumbosacral junction was performed in eight fresh-frozen cadavers with lumbosacral or lumbopelvic screw fixation. Wide decompressions of the spinal canal and L5 nerve roots with complete facetectomies were accomplished with full exposure of the L5 nerve roots. A 100% translational slip was provoked by release of the iliolumbar ligaments and cutting the disc with the attached anterior longitudinal ligament. To evaluate the path of the L5 nerves during reduction maneuvers, metal bars were inserted bilaterally at the inferomedial aspects of the L5 pedicle at a distance of 10 mm from the midpoint of the L5 pedicle screws. There was no measurable change in length of the L5 nerve roots after 50% and 100% reduction of spondylolisthesis. Mechanical strain or displacement during reduction is an unlikely cause of L5 nerve root injury. Further anatomical or physiological studies are necessary to explore alternative mechanisms of L5 nerve palsy in the setting of high-grade spondylolisthesis correction, and surgeons should favor extensive surgical decompression of the L5 nerve roots when feasible.