Axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) approach for adult scoliosis

Trans-sacral interbody fixation in long fusions to the sacrum for adult spinal deformity: complications and fusion rates at minimum two years follow-up

PURPOSE

This study aims to investigate the fusion rate and complications associated with trans-sacral interbody fusion (TSIF) in long fusions to the sacrum for adult spinal deformity (ASD) over a two year follow-up period. Potential predictor variables associated with pseudarthrosis were also examined.

METHODS

A retrospective clinical review was conducted on a consecutive series of ASD patients who underwent long fusions to the sacrum, with TSIF performed as a same-day or staged procedure. Patient demographics, bone mineral density, operative details, perioperative and late complications, and fusion rates were reviewed. Univariate analysis was used to identify the risk factors associated with pseudarthrosis.

RESULTS

The study included 43 patients with an average age of 55.3 ± 8.9 years. The perioperative complication rate was 28%, with 12% of the complications directly related to TSIF. The late complication rate was 33%, with 16% related to TSIF. The most common complications were pseudarthrosis (14%) and postoperative ileus (7%). The overall radiographic fusion rate at two years was 86%. Univariate analysis revealed that revision surgery was significantly associated with pseudarthrosis (p = 0.027). Over the follow-up period, patients who underwent TSIF during long posterior fusions to the sacrum showed improvement in overall SRS scores, ODI scores, and SF-36 physical health and mental health (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

TSIF is a relatively safe and minimally invasive method for achieving interbody fusion at the lumbosacral junction in the treatment of ASD, with acceptable fusion rates and a low complication rate. However, TSIF is not recommended for revision reconstruction in ASD.

Pros and Cons of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

This paper reviews current knowledge on minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). Although it has significant advantages, such as less postoperative pain, short hospital stay, quick return to work, better cosmetics, and less infection rate, there are also disadvantages. The long learning curve, the need for special instruments and types of equipment, high costs, lack of tactile sensation and biplanar imaging, some complications that are hard to treat, and more radiation to the surgeon and surgical team are the disadvantages.Most studies remark that the outcomes of MISS are similar to traditional surgery. Although patients demand it more than surgeons, we predict the broad applications of MISS will replace most of our classical surgical approaches.

Paracoccygeal Transsacral Approach: A Rare Approach for Axial Lumbosacral Interbody Fusion

Lumbosacral interbody fusion is a mainstay of surgical treatment for degenerative spinal pathologies causing chronic pain and functional impairment. However, the optimal technique for this procedure remains controversial. Well-established open approaches, including anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), have historically been the standard of practice. A recent paradigm shift in spinal surgery has led to the investigation of minimally invasive approaches to mitigate tissue damage without compromising outcomes. This extensive review aims to examine current clinical and biomechanical evidence on the paracoccygeal transsacral approach to an axial lumbosacral interbody fusion. Since this technique was first described in 2004, accumulating evidence suggests it results in high fusion rates, consistent improvements in pain and function, reduced perioperative morbidity, and low rates of complication. Although early clinical outcomes have been promising, there is a paucity of comparative data investigating outcomes of the paracoccygeal transsacral approach to traditional alternatives and other minimally invasive techniques. Here, we summarize current evidence and discuss pertinent topics for the spinal surgeon considering this novel approach, including indications, advantages, relevant anatomy, contraindications, and technical considerations.

The Current State of Minimally Invasive Approaches to Adult Spinal Deformity

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Minimally invasive approaches to adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery have seen a large increase in popularity over the last decade, largely because these techniques are viewed as a potential improvement to the lengthy recovery and high complication rates observed after traditional open surgery for this pathology. The purpose of this review is to present a summary of the latest minimally invasive techniques used in adult spinal deformity surgery, examine whether MIS surgery can accomplish the goals of ASD surgery, and investigate whether MIS surgery is safer than traditional approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

While minimally invasive approaches have been able to achieve similar patient-reported outcomes as open approaches, they are associated with their own unique complications. Furthermore, they are limited in their ability to correct severe sagittal imbalance. Emerging techniques, such as anterior column realignment and mini-open posterior column osteotomy, have been developed to address these limitations. The minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery algorithm (MISDEF) can help guide surgeons on which approaches may be appropriate for a particular case. To maximize the benefits of a minimally invasive approach without compromising the goals of ASD surgery, surgeons must be selective in choosing which cases are amenable to an MIS approach. Leading experts continue to develop algorithms to guide surgical decision-making. As we learn to better define our indications, understand treatment goals, and refine our techniques, MIS approaches will likely play an even larger role in a comprehensive ASD treatment strategy.

Clinical and Radiologic Fate of the Lumbosacral Junction After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the Bottom of a Long Construct in CMIS Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity

Introduction:

Surgeons use numerous arthrodesis strategies for fusion of the lumbosacral junction including anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). The optimal L5-S1 fusion strategy remains inconclusive. The purpose of this study is to compare the fate of the lumbosacral junction in ALIF versus AxiaLIF patients in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Methods:

Adult spinal deformity patients, treated with CMIS techniques, with at least 2-year follow-up who underwent AxiaLIF or ALIF at the lumbosacral junction were included. Patients were separated into two groups: AxiaLIF (56 patients) and ALIF (38 patients). Outcome measures included segmental lordosis, sagittal vertical alignment, lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence–LL mismatch, and pseudarthrosis, major complication, and revision surgery rates.

Results:

The ALIF group achieved greater postoperative and delta segmental lordosis, higher delta sagittal vertical alignment, higher delta LL, and lower postoperative pelvic incidence–LL mismatch. The pseudarthrosis, major complication, and revision surgery rates were higher in the AxiaLIF group. Five cases of pseudarthrosis at L5-S1 were seen, all in the AxiaLIF group.

Discussion and Conclusion:

ALIF patients showed more favorable radiographic correction parameters and lower rates of pseudarthrosis, major complications, and revision surgeries. ALIF is the preferred strategy for L5-S1 arthrodesis at a bottom of a long construct.

Comparison of a Newer Versus Older Protocol for Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgical (CMIS) Correction of Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD)-Evolution Over a 10-Year Experience

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective.

OBJECTIVES

Compare circumferential minimally invasive surgical (CMIS) correction outcomes of patients treated for adult spinal deformity (ASD) with a newer versus older protocol SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CMIS techniques have become increasingly popular. Increasing experience and learning curve may help improve outcomes.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database was queried for all patients who underwent CMIS correction of ASD (Cobb angle >20° or sagittal vertical axis [SVA] >50 mm or pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch >10) at 3+ levels. Those without a full-length radiograph or 2-year follow-up were excluded. Patients were compared based on treatment using our original or newer protocol.

RESULTS

The original protocol had 76 patients with an average age of 66.99 years (range 46-81, standard deviation [SD] 9.03), and the new protocol had 53 patients with average age of 65.85 years (range 48-85, SD 8.08). Preoperative and latest visual analog scale (VAS) scores in the original were 6.85 and 3.45 (p = .001) and in the new were 6.19 and 2.27 (p = .004). Delta-VAS scores were 3.27 and 4.27. The Oswestry disability index (ODI) reduced from 45.84 to 32.91 (p = .041) in the original and from 44.21 to 25.39 (p = .017) in the new. Average delta-ODIs were 22.25 and 24.01. Preoperative, latest, and delta-SF physical component scores for the original were 35.38, 42.42, and 10.06 and for the new, 30.89, 39.49, and 11.93. SF mental component scores were 50.96, 55.19, and 12.84 and 50.12, 52.99, and 8.85. The original and new protocols had latest Cobb angles of 11.54° and 11.12° (p = .789), delta-Cobb angles of 14.51° and 20.03° (p < .05), latest SVAs of 42.85 and 30.58 mm (p < .05) and latest PI-LL mismatch of 15.49 and 9.00 mm (p < .05). In the original and the new, the average preoperative SVAs that reliably achieved a postoperative SVA of 50 mm or less were 84 and 119 mm, respectively, and the maximum delta-SVAs were 89 and 120 mm. The new protocol had fewer surgical complications (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Improvements in radiographic scores, functional outcomes, and limits of SVA correction and lower complication rates suggest that the new protocol may help improve outcomes. These findings may be a reflection of our 10-year experience and advances in the learning curve.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.