Prone single-position extreme lateral interbody fusion (Pro-XLIF): preliminary results

Clinical and radiographic outcomes following 120 consecutive patients undergoing prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

The prone transpsoas approach is a single-position alternative to traditional lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Earlier prone LLIF studies have focused on technique, feasibility, perioperative efficiencies, and immediate postoperative radiographic alignment. This study was undertaken to report longer-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, and to identify learnings from experiential evolution of the prone LLIF procedure.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing prone LLIF for any indication at one institution were included (n = 120). Demographic, diagnostic, treatment, and outcomes data were captured via prospective institutional registry. Retrospective analysis identified 31 'pre-proceduralization' and 89 'post-proceduralization' prone LLIF approaches, enabling comparison across early and later cohorts.

RESULTS

187 instrumented LLIF levels were performed. Operative time, retraction time, LLIF blood loss, and hospital stay averaged 150 min, 17 min, 50 ml, and 2.2 days, respectively. 79% of cases were without complication. Postoperative hip flexion weakness was identified in 14%, transient lower extremity weakness in 12%, and sensory deficits in 10%. At last follow-up, back pain, worst-leg pain, Oswestry, and EQ-5D health state improved by 55%, 46%, 48%, and 51%, respectively. 99% improved or maintained sagittal alignment with an average 6.5° segmental lordosis gain at LLIF levels. Only intra-psoas retraction time differed between pre- and post-proceduralization; proceduralization saved an average 3.4 min/level (p = 0.0371).

CONCLUSIONS

The largest single-center prone LLIF experience with the longest follow-up to-date shows that it results in few complications, quick recovery, improvements in pain and function, high patient satisfaction, and improved sagittal alignment at an average one year and up to four years postoperatively.

Analysis of the efficacy of separation surgery for severe neurological compression in multiple myeloma: a retrospective analysis of 35 cases

PURPOSE

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of separation surgery for Epidural Spinal Cord Compression (ESCC) graded ≥ 2 in patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM), analyze factors influencing surgical outcomes, and develop a preliminary treatment decision framework for these patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from 35 MM patients who underwent separation surgery for ESCC graded ≥ 2 between 2013 and 2018. Patient data, including baseline information, surgical details, complications, and pre-operative as well as one-month post-operative efficacy evaluation indicators were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed on pre-operative and post-operative efficacy indicators to determine if there were significant improvements (p < 0.05). Ordered logistic regression was utilized to assess factors associated with an unfavorable post-operative quality of life outcome.

RESULTS

Compared to pre-operative values, at one-month post-surgery, patients showed significant improvements in Frankel Score Classification (4 vs 5, p < 0.05), Karnofsky Performance Score (30 vs 70, p < 0.05), and Visual Analogue Scale (8 vs 3, p < 0.05). Complications occurred in 7 cases (20%). The number of segments with ESCC (OR = 0.171, p < 0.05) and pre-operative chemotherapy (OR = 5.202, p = 0.05) were identified as independent factors influencing patient outcomes. Patients with more than two vertebral segments with ESCC exhibited significantly worse post-operative conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Separation surgery effectively alleviates pain, improves neurological function, and enhances the quality of life in patients with ESCC graded ≥ 2 due to MM.

The Emerging Roles of Nanocarrier Drug Delivery System in Treatment of Intervertebral Disc Degeneration-Current Knowledge, Hot Spots, Challenges and Future Perspectives

Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition that has substantial consequences on individuals and society, both socially and economically. The primary contributor to LBP is often identified as intervertebral disc degeneration (IVDD), which worsens and leads to significant spinal problems. The conventional treatment approach for IVDD involves physiotherapy, drug therapy for pain management, and, in severe cases, surgery. However, none of these treatments address the underlying cause of the condition, meaning that they cannot fundamentally reverse IVDD or restore the mechanical function of the spine. Nanotechnology and regenerative medicine have made significant advancements in the field of healthcare, particularly in the area of nanodrug delivery systems (NDDSs). These approaches have demonstrated significant potential in enhancing the efficacy of IVDD treatments by providing benefits such as high biocompatibility, biodegradability, precise drug delivery to targeted areas, prolonged drug release, and improved therapeutic results. The advancements in different NDDSs designed for delivering various genes, cells, proteins and therapeutic drugs have opened up new opportunities for effectively addressing IVDD. This comprehensive review provides a consolidated overview of the recent advancements in the use of NDDSs for the treatment of IVDD. It emphasizes the potential of these systems in overcoming the challenges associated with this condition. Meanwhile, the insights and ideas presented in this review aim to contribute to the advancement of precise IVDD treatment using NDDSs.

Intra-abdominal Content Movement in Prone Versus Lateral Decubitus Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, anatomical imaging study of healthy volunteer subjects in accurate surgical positions.

OBJECTIVE

To establish if there is a change in the position of the abdominal contents in the lateral decubitus (LD) versus prone position.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the LD position has been validated anatomically and for procedural safety, specifically in relation to visceral risks. Recently, LLIF with the patient in the prone position has been suggested as an alternative to LLIF in the LD position.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbosacral region in the right LD position with the hips flexed and the prone position with the legs extended. Anatomical measurements were performed on axial magnetic resonance images at the L4-5 disc space.

RESULTS

Thirty-four subjects were included. The distance from the skin to the lateral disc surface was 134.9 mm in prone compared with 118.7 mm in LD ( P <0.0001). The distance between the posterior aspect of the disc and the colon was 20.3 mm in the prone compared with 41.1 mm in LD ( P <0.0001). The colon migrated more posteriorly in relation to the anterior margin of the psoas in the prone compared with LD (21.7  vs . 5.5 mm, respectively; P <0.0001). 100% of subjects had posterior migration of the colon in the prone compared with the LD position, as measured by the distance from the quadratum lumborum to the colon (44.4  vs . 20.5 mm, respectively; P <0.001).

CONCLUSION

There were profound changes in the position of visceral structures between the prone and LD patient positions in relation to the LLIF approach corridor. Compared with LD LLIF, the prone position results in a longer surgical corridor with a substantially smaller working window free of the colon, as evidenced by the significant and uniform posterior migration of the colon. Surgeons should be aware of the potential for increased visceral risks when performing LLIF in the prone position.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II-prospective anatomical cohort study.

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.

Novel Use of Bilateral Prone Transpsoas Approach for the Treatment of Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Pseudarthrosis and Interbody Cage Subsidence

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pseudarthrosis is a complication after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) that leads to recurrent symptoms and potential revision surgery. Subsidence of the interbody adds to the complexity of surgical revision. In addition, we report a novel technique for the treatment of TLIF pseudarthrosis with subsidence and propose an approach algorithm for TLIF cage removal.

METHODS

Cases of reoperation for TLIF pseudarthrosis were reviewed. We report a novel technique using a bilateral prone transpsoas (PTP) approach to remove a subsided TLIF cage and place a new lateral cage. An approach algorithm was developed based on the experience of TLIF cage removal. The patient was placed in the prone position with somatosensory evoked potential and electromyography monitoring. A PTP retractor was placed using standard techniques on the ipsilateral side of the previous TLIF. After the discectomy, the subsided TLIF cage was visualized but unable to be removed. The initial dilator was closed, and a second PTP retractor was placed on the contralateral side. After annulotomy and discectomy to circumferentially isolate the subsided cage, a box cutter was used to push and mobilize the TLIF cage from this contralateral side, which could then be pulled out from the ipsilateral side. A standard lateral interbody cage was then placed.

RESULTS

Retractor time was less than 10 minutes on each side. The patient's symptoms resolved postoperatively. We review illustrative cases of various approaches for TLIF cage removal spanning the lumbosacral spine and recommend an operative approach based on the lumbar level, degree of subsidence, and mobility of the interbody.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral PTP retractors for TLIF cage removal may be effectively used in cases of pseudarthrosis with severe cage subsidence. Careful consideration of various factors, including patient surgical history, body habitus, and intraoperative findings, is essential in determining the appropriate treatment for these complex cases.

Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Increases Operative Efficiency and Maintains Safety in Revision Lumbar Spinal Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Multi-centre retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without patient repositioning. This study examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF against traditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning.

METHOD

A multi-centre retrospective cohort study involving patients undergoing 1 to 4 level LLIF surgery was performed at 4 institutions in the US and Australia. Patients were included if their surgery was performed via either: P-LLIF with revision posterior fusion; or L-LLIF with repositioning to prone. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications, and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at P <0.05.

RESULTS

101 patients undergoing revision LLIF surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs. 2.66 L-LLIF, P =0.469) and number of LLIF levels (1.35 vs. 1.39, P =0.668) was similar between groups.Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group (151 vs. 206 min, P =0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150mL P-LLIF vs. 182mL L-LLIF, P =0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay in the P-LLIF group (2.7 vs. 3.3d, P =0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in complications between groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment measurements.

CONCLUSION

P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency when compared to L-LLIF for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

The Effect of Intraoperative Prone Position on Psoas Morphology and Great Vessel Anatomy: Consequences for Prone Lateral Approach to the Lumbar Spine

BACKGROUND

This study sought to quantify radiographic differences in psoas morphology, great vessel anatomy, and lumbar lordosis between supine and prone intraoperative positioning to optimize surgical planning and minimize the risk of neurovascular injury.

METHODS

Measurements on supine magnetic resonance imaging and prone intraoperative computed tomography with O-arm from L2 to L5 levels included the anteroposterior and mediolateral proximity of the psoas, aorta, inferior vena cava (IVC), and anterior iliac vessels to the vertebral body. Psoas transverse and longitudinal diameters, psoas cross-sectional area, total lumbar lordosis, and segmental lordosis were assessed.

RESULTS

Prone position produced significant psoas lateralization, especially at more caudal levels (P < 0.001). The psoas drifted slightly anteriorly when prone, which was non-significant, but the magnitude of anterior translation significantly decreased at more caudal segments (P = 0.038) and was lowest at L5 where in fact posterior retraction was observed (P = 0.032). When prone, the IVC (P < 0.001) and right iliac vein (P = 0.005) migrated significantly anteriorly, however decreased anterior displacement was seen at more caudal levels (P < 0.001). Additionally, the IVC drifted significantly laterally at L5 (P = 0.009). Mean segmental lordosis significantly increased when prone (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Relative to the vertebral body, the psoas demonstrated substantial lateral mobility when prone, and posterior retraction specifically at L5. IVC and right iliac vein experienced significant anterior mobility-particularly at more cephalad levels. Prone position enhanced segmental lordosis and may be critical to optimizing sagittal restoration.

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.

Complications of the Prone Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The prone transpsoas (PTP) approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a novel technique for degenerative lumbar spine disease. However, there is a paucity of information in the literature on the complications of this procedure, with all published data consisting of small samples. We aimed to report the intraoperative and postoperative complications of PTP in the largest study to date.

METHODS

A retrospective electronic medical record review was conducted at 11 centers to identify consecutive patients who underwent LLIF through the PTP approach between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. The following data were collected: intraoperative characteristics (operative time, estimated blood loss [EBL], intraoperative complications [anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) rupture, cage subsidence, vascular and visceral injuries]), postoperative complications, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 365 patients were included in the study. Among these patients, 2.2% had ALL rupture, 0.3% had cage subsidence, 0.3% had a vascular injury, 0.3% had a ureteric injury, and no other visceral injuries were reported. Mean operative time was 226.2 ± 147.9 minutes. Mean EBL was 138.4 ± 215.6 mL. Mean hospital stay was 2.7 ± 2.2 days. Postoperative complications included new sensory symptoms-8.2%, new lower extremity weakness-5.8%, wound infection-1.4%, cage subsidence-0.8%, psoas hematoma-0.5%, small bowel obstruction and ischemia-0.3%, and 90-day readmission-1.9%.

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter case series, the PTP approach was well tolerated and associated with a satisfactory safety profile.

Robotic-Assisted Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Background

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a widely utilized minimally invasive surgical procedure for anterior fusion of the lumbar spine. However, posterior decompression or instrumentation often necessitates patient repositioning, which is associated with increased operative time and time under anesthesia1-3. The single-position prone transpsoas approach is a technique that allows surgeons to access both the anterior and posterior aspects of the spine, bypassing the need for intraoperative repositioning and therefore optimizing efficiency4. The use of robotic assistance allows for decreased radiation exposure and increased accuracy, both with placing instrumentation and navigating the lateral corridor.

Description

The patient is placed in the prone position, and pedicle screws are placed prior to interbody fusion. Pedicle screws are placed with robotic guidance. After posterior instrumentation, a skin incision for LLIF is made in the cephalocaudal direction, orthogonal to the disc space, with use of intraoperative (robotic) navigation. Fascia and abdominal muscles are incised to enter the retroperitoneal space. Under direct visualization, dilators are placed through the psoas muscle into the disc space, and an expandable retractor is placed and maintained with use of the robotic arm. Following a thorough discectomy, the disc space is sized with trial implants. The expandable cage is placed, and intraoperative fluoroscopy is utilized to verify good instrumentation positioning. Finally, posterior rods are placed percutaneously.

Alternatives

An alternative surgical approach is a traditional LLIF with the patient beginning in the lateral position, with intraoperative repositioning from the lateral to the prone position if circumferential fusion is warranted. Additional alternative surgical procedures include anterior or posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques.

Rationale

LLIF is associated with reported advantages of decreased risks of vascular injury, visceral injury, dural tear, and perioperative infection5,6. The single-position prone transpsoas approach confers the added benefits of reduced operative time, anesthesia time, and surgical staffing requirements7. Other potential benefits of the prone lateral approach include improved lumbar lordosis correction, gravity-induced displacement of peritoneal contents, and ease of posterior decompression and instrumentation8-11. Additionally, the use of robotic assistance offers numerous benefits to minimally invasive techniques, including intraoperative navigation, instrumentation templating, a more streamlined workflow, and increased accuracy in placing instrumentation, while also providing a reduction in radiation exposure and operative time. In our experience, the table-mounted LLIF retractor has a tendency to drift toward the floor-i.e., anteriorly-when the patient is positioned prone, which may, in theory, increase the risk of iatrogenic bowel injury. The rigid robotic arm is much stiffer than the traditional retractor, thereby reducing this risk.

Expected Outcomes

Compared with traditional LLIF, with the patient in the lateral and then prone positions, the single-position prone LLIF has been shown to have several benefits. Guiroy et al. performed a systematic review comparing single and dual-position LLIF and found that the single-position surgical procedure was associated with significantly lower operative time (103.1 versus 306.6 minutes), estimated blood loss (97.3 versus 314.4 mL), and length of hospital stay (1.71 versus 4.08 days)17. Previous studies have reported improved control of segmental lordosis in the prone position, which may be advantageous for patients with sagittal imbalance18,19.

Important Tips

Adequate release of the deep fascial layers is critical for minimizing deflection of retractors and navigated instruments.The hip should be maximally extended to maximize lordosis, allowing for posterior translation of the femoral nerve and increasing the width of the lateral corridor.A bolster is placed against the rib cage to provide resistance to the laterally directed force when impacting the graft.The cranial and caudal limits of the approach are bounded by the ribcage and iliac crest; thus, surgery at the upper or lower lumbar levels may not be feasible for this approach. Preoperative radiographs should be evaluated to determine the feasibility of this approach at the intended levels.When operating at the L4-L5 disc space, posterior retraction places substantial tension on the femoral nerve. Thus, retractor time should be minimized as much as possible and limited to a maximum of approximately 20 minutes20-22.A depth of field (distance from the midline to the flank) of approximately 20 cm may be the limit for this approach with the current length of retractor blades19.In robotic-assisted surgical procedures, minor position shifts in surface landmarks, the robotic arm, or the patient may substantially impact the navigation software. It is critical for the patient and navigation components to remain fixed throughout the operation.In addition to somatosensory evoked potential and electromyographic monitoring, additional motor evoked potential neuromonitoring or monitoring of the saphenous nerve may be considered22.In the prone position, the tendency is for the retractor to migrate superficially and anteriorly. It is critical to be aware of this tendency and to maintain stable retractor positioning.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

LLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusionMIS = minimally invasive surgeryPTP = prone transpsoasy.o. = years oldASIS = anterior superior iliac spinePSIS = posterior superior iliac spineALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionTLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionMEP = motor evoked potentialSSEP = somatosensory evoked potentialEMG = electromyographyCT = computed tomographyMRI = magnetic resonance imagingOR = operating roomPOD = postoperative dayIVC = inferior vena cavaA. = aortaPS. = psoas.

Location of the Femoral Nerve in the Lateral Decubitus Versus Prone Position

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the position of the femoral nerve within the lumbar plexus at the L4-L5 disc space in the lateral decubitus vs prone position.

METHODS

Seven lumbar plexus specimens were dissected and the femoral nerve within the psoas muscle was identified and marked with radiopaque paint. Lateral fluoroscopic images of the cadaveric specimens in the lateral decubitus vs prone position were obtained. The location of the radiopaque femoral nerve at the L4-L5 disc space was normalized as a percentage of the L5 vertebral body (0% indicates posterior location and 100% indicates anterior location at the L4-L5 disc space). The location of the femoral nerve at L4-L5 in the lateral decubitus vs prone position was compared using a paired t test.

RESULTS

In the lateral decubitus position, the femoral nerve was located 28% anteriorly from the posterior edge of the L4-L5 disc space, and in the prone position, the femoral nerve was relatively more posterior, located 18% from the posterior edge of the L4-L5 disc space (P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

The femoral nerve was on average more posteriorly located at the L4-L5 disc space in the prone position compared to lateral decubitus. This more posterior location allows for a larger safe zone at the L4-L5 disc space, which may decrease the incidence of neurologic complications associated with Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in the prone vs lateral decubitus position; however, further studies are needed to evaluate this possible clinical correlation.

Simultaneous Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery and Unilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical and radiological efficacy of a combine of lateral single screw-rod and unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (LSUP) for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the treatment of spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

Sixty-two consecutive patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive (MIS)-TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) or LLIF-LSUP were retrospectively studied. Segmental lordosis angle (SLA), lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), disc height (DH), slipping percentage, the cross-sectional areas (CSA) of the thecal sac, screw placement accuracy, fusion rate and foraminal height (FH) were used to evaluate radiographic changes postoperatively. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to evaluate the clinical efficacy.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent LLIF-LSUP showed shorter operating time, less length of hospital stay and lower blood loss than MIS-TLIF. No statistical difference was found between the 2 groups in screw placement accuracy, overall complications, VAS, and ODI. Compared with MIS-TLIF-BPS, LLIF-LSUP had a significant improvement in sagittal parameters including DH, FH, LLA, and SLA. The CSA of MIS-TLIF-BPS was significantly increased than that of LLIF-LSUP. The fusion rate of LLIF-LSUP was significantly higher than that of MIS-TLIF-BPS at the follow-up of 3 months postoperatively, but there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups at the follow-up of 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months.

CONCLUSION

The overall clinical outcomes and complications of LLIF-LSUP were comparable to that of MIS-TLIF-BPS in this series. Compared with MIS-TLIF-BPS, LLIF-LSUP for lumbar spondylolisthesis represents a significantly shorter operating time, hospital stay and lower blood loss, and demonstrates better radiological outcomes to maintain lumbar lordosis, and reveal an overwhelming superiority in the early fusion rate.

The anatomical positioning change of retroperitoneal organs in prone and lateral position: an assessment for single-prone position lateral lumbar surgery

PURPOSE

There are reports that performing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in a prone, single position (single-prone LLIF) can be done safely in the prone position because the retroperitoneal organs reflect anteriorly with gravity. However, only a few study has investigated the safety of single-prone LLIF and retroperitoneal organ positioning in the prone position. We aimed to investigate the positioning of retroperitoneal organs in the prone position and evaluate the safety of single-prone LLIF surgery.

METHODS

A total of 94 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The anatomical positioning of the retroperitoneal organs was evaluated by CT in the preoperative supine and intraoperative prone position. The distances from the centre line of the intervertebral body to the organs including aorta, inferior vena cava, ascending and descending colons, and bilateral kidneys were measured for the lumbar spine. An "at risk" zone was defined as distance less than 10 mm anterior from the centre line of the intervertebral body.

RESULTS

Compared to supine preoperative CTs, bilateral kidneys at the L2/3 level as well as the bilateral colons at the L3/4 level had statistically significant ventral shift with prone positioning. The proportion of retroperitoneal organs within the at-risk zone ranged from 29.6 to 88.6% in the prone position.

CONCLUSIONS

The retroperitoneal organs shifted ventrally with prone positioning. However, the amount of shift was not large enough to avoid risk for organ injuries and substantial proportion of patients had organs within the cage insertion corridor. Careful preoperative planning is warranted when considering single-prone LLIF.

Minimally invasive lateral single-position surgery for multilevel degenerative lumbar spine disease: feasibility and perioperative results in a single Latin-American spine center

INTRODUCTION

Within advances in minimally invasive spine surgery, the implementation of lateral single position (LSP) increases efficiency while limiting complications, avoiding intraoperative repositioning and diminishing surgical time. Most literature describes one-level instrumentation of the lumbar spine; this study includes the use of LSP for multilevel degenerative disease.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the article is to analyze initial clinical results and complications in the use of LSP for multiple level instrumentation in adults with lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

A retrospective early clinical series was performed for patients who had multiple level instrumentation in LSP between August 2019 and September 2022 at the Hospital Universitario San Ignacio in Bogota, Colombia. Inclusion criteria were patients older than 18 years with symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease, undergoing any combination of multilevel anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and pedicle screw fixation.

RESULTS

Forty patients with an average age of 61.3 years were included, with diagnosis of multilevel degenerative spondylotic changes. Four-, three- and two-level interventions were performed in 52.5, 35 and 12.5%, respectively. Average time per level was 68.9 min, and length of hospital stay had an average of 2.4 days, with all patients starting ambulation within the first postoperative day.

CONCLUSION

Procedural time and blood loss were similar to those reported in literature. No severe lesions, postoperative infections or reinterventions took place. Although it was a small number of patients and further clinical trials are needed, LSP for multiple levels is apparently safe with adequate outcomes which may improve efficiency in the operating room.

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.

Single-Position Transpsoas Corpectomy and Posterior Instrumentation in the Thoracolumbar Spine for Different Clinical Scenarios

BACKGROUND

The concept of single-position spine surgery has been gaining momentum because it has proven to reduce operative time, blood loss, and hospital length of stay with similar or better outcomes than traditional dual-position surgery. The latest development in single-position spine surgery techniques combines either open or posterior pedicle screw fixation with transpsoas corpectomy while in the lateral or prone positioning.

OBJECTIVE

To provide, through a multicenter study, the results of our first patients treated by single-position corpectomy.

METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent corpectomy and instrumentation in the lateral or prone position without repositioning between the anterior and posterior techniques. Data regarding demographics, diagnosis, neurological status, surgical details, complications, and radiographic parameters were collected. The minimum follow-up for inclusion was 6 months.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were finally included in our study (24 male patients and 10 female patients), with a mean age of 51.2 (SD ± 17.5) years. Three-quarter of cases (n = 27) presented with thoracolumbar fracture as main diagnosis, followed by spinal metastases and primary spinal infection. Lateral positioning was used in 27 cases, and prone positioning was used in 7 cases. The overall rate of complications was 14.7%.

CONCLUSION

This is the first multicenter series of patients who underwent single-position corpectomy and fusion. This technique has shown to be safe and effective to treat a variety of spinal conditions with a relatively low rate of complications. More series are required to validate this technique as a possible standard approach when thoracolumbar corpectomies are indicated.

The Prone Lateral Approach for Lumbar Fusion-A Review of the Literature and Case Series

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion is an evolving procedure in spine surgery allowing for the placement of large interbody devices to achieve indirect decompression of segmental stenosis, deformity correction and high fusion rates through a minimally invasive approach. Traditionally, this technique has been performed in the lateral decubitus position. Many surgeons have adopted simultaneous posterior instrumentation in the lateral position to avoid patient repositioning; however, this technique presents several challenges and limitations. Recently, lateral interbody fusion in the prone position has been gaining in popularity due to the surgeon's ability to perform simultaneous posterior instrumentation as well as decompression procedures and corrective osteotomies. Furthermore, the prone position allows improved correction of sagittal plane imbalance due to increased lumbar lordosis when prone on most operative tables used for spinal surgery. In this paper, we describe the evolution of the prone lateral approach for interbody fusion and present our experience with this technique. Case examples are included for illustration.

Prone Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: Case Series With an Operative Video Using Fluoroscopy-Based Instrument Tracking Guidance

BACKGROUND

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion has inherent limitations, such as the necessity to reposition the patient. To overcome this limitation, the prone transpsoas (PTP) approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion has been developed.

OBJECTIVE

To report clinical and radiographic outcome measures of a series of patients who underwent PTP at our hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients who underwent PTP for degenerative lumbar spine disease between September 2019 and August 2021. A thorough analysis of clinical and radiographic outcome measures for these patients was conducted.

RESULTS

Our search resulted in the identification of 15 consecutive patients. Four patients were operated using the assistance of fluoroscopy-based instrument tracking. Overall, the mean follow-up duration was 11.9 ± 7.9 months. Radiographically, the PTP approach resulted in significant postoperative improvement of lumbar lordosis ( P = .03) and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis ( P &lt; .005). No significant difference was found postoperatively in other regional sagittal alignment parameters, including pelvic tilt, sacral slope, or pelvic incidence. Clinically, the patients' Oswestry Disability Indices ( P = .002) and Short Form Survey-12 Physical Scores improved significantly ( P = .01). The estimated mean blood loss for patients who underwent the PTP procedure was 137.7 ± 96.4 mL, the mean operative time was 212.5 ± 77.1 minutes, and the mean hospital stay was 2.7 ± 1.4 days. One patient each had superficial wound infection, transient paralytic ileus, transient pulmonary embolism, transient urinary retention, or required revision lumbar surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the PTP approach is associated with significant improvement in radiographic and clinical outcomes.

Comparison of Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation and Lateral Fixation in the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Degenerative Disease Patients with Osteopenia or Osteoporosis

OBJECTIVE

Nowadays, with the increasing proportion of osteoporosis in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases, doctors are facing the choice of intraoperative internal fixation methods. The purpose of this study was to compare and assess the clinical results of posterior bilateral pedicle screw fixation and lateral fixation in the extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) in patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis.

METHODS

The retrospective review was performed on 67 degenerative lumbar diseases patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis who underwent XLIF in our hospital from January 2018 to July 2021. Patients in this study were classified into lateral screw (LS) group, lateral self-locking plate (LP) group, and bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) group. The functional evaluation factors containing Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) of leg pain, and VAS of low back pain, radiological factors such as disc height (DH), lumbar lordotic (LL) angle, segmental lordotic (SL) angle, cage subsidence degree and interbody fusion degree were compared.

RESULTS

Primary outcomes: no differences were observed with regards to the incidence of complications among LS, LP and BS group (P < 0.05). The JOA and leg pain VAS were significantly improved after operation (P < 0.05) and all groups demonstrated similar improvements in the leg pain VAS and JOA score (P > 0.05). When comparing VAS of leg pain and JOA scores, no differences were identified among LS, LP and BPS groups (P > 0.05). There are four thigh sensory complaint, one hip flexor weakness and one thigh pain occurred and no death was observed. There were significantly better DH, LL angle, SL angle, cage subsidence degree and interbody fusion degree in the BPS group than in LS and LP groups 1 year after surgery (P < 0.05). The DH loss ratio, LL angle loss ratio, SL angle loss ratio in the BPS group was significantly lower than in the LP and LS groups (P < 0.05). The 12-month SL angle improvement rate in the BPS group was significantly higher than in the LP and LS groups (20.20 ± 14.69, 0.73 ± 4.68, 6.20 ± 12.31, P < 0.05).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

the BPS patients had significantly worse intraoperative blood loss and operation time than LS and LP patients (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In lumbar diseases patients with osteopenia or osteoporosis, the bilateral pedicle screw fixation has better orthopedic effect than lateral internal fixation, and can better maintain the stability of the spine in the long-term follow-up, which is a better choice in XLIF surgery.

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.

Lumbar plexus safe working zones with lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Significant risk of injury to the lumbar plexus and its departing motor and sensory nerves exists with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Several cadaveric and imaging studies have investigated the lumbar plexus position with respect to the vertebral body anteroposterior plane. To date, no systematic review and meta-analysis of the lumbar plexus safe working zones for LLIF has been performed.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies reporting on the position of the lumbar plexus with relation to the vertebral body in the anteroposterior plane were identified from a PubMed database query. Quantitative analysis was performed using Welch's t test.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included, encompassing 1005 subjects and 2472 intervertebral levels. Eleven studies used supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with in vivo subjects. Seven studies used cadavers, five of which performed dissection in the left lateral decubitus position. A significant correlation (p < 0.001) existed between anterior lumbar plexus displacement and evaluation with in vivo MRI at all levels between L1-L5 compared with cadaveric measurement. Supine position was also associated with significant (p < 0.001) anterior shift of the lumbar plexus at all levels between L1-L5.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the lumbar neural components and safe working zones for LLIF. Our analysis suggests that the lumbar plexus is significantly displaced ventrally with the supine compared to lateral decubitus position, and that MRI may overestimate ventral encroachment of lumbar plexus.

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.

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.

Rapidly destructive osteoarthritis of the spine: lessons learned from the first reported case

Background

Rapidly Destructive Osteoarthritis (RDOA) has been described for the hip and shoulder joints and is characterized by a quickly developing bone edema followed by extensive remodeling and joint destruction. Confronted with a similarly evolving case of endplate edema and destruction of the disk space, we offer the first described case of spinal RDOA and illustrate the challenges it presented, along with the strategies we put in place to overcome them.

Case presentation

We present a case of spinal RDOA that, also due to the delay in the diagnoses, underwent multiple revisions for implant failure with consequent coronal and sagittal imbalance. A 37-years-old, otherwise healthy female presented with atraumatic low back pain: after initial conservative treatment, subsequent imaging showed rapidly progressive endplate erosion and a scoliotic deformity. After surgical treatment, the patient underwent numerous revisions for pseudoarthrosis, coronal and sagittal imbalance and junctional failure despite initially showing a correct alignement after each surgery. As a mechanic overload from insufficient correction of the alignement of the spine was ruled out, we believe that the multiple complications were caused by an impairment in the bone structure and thus, reviewing old imaging, diagnosed the patient with spinal RDOA. In case of spinal RDOA, particular care should be placed in the choice of extent and type of instrumentation in order to prevent re-intervention.

Conclusion

Spinal RDOA is characterized by a quickly developing edema of the vertebral endplates followed by a destruction of the disk space within months from the first diagnosis. The disease progresses in the involved segment and to the adjacent disks despite surgical therapy. The surgical planning should take the impaired bone structure account and the use of large interbody cages or 4-rod constructs should be considered to obtain a stable construct.

Lateral versus prone robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement: a CT-based comparative assessment of accuracy

OBJECTIVE

Single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SP-LLIF) has recently gained significant popularity due to increased operative efficiency, but it remains technically challenging. Robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw (RA-PPS) placement can facilitate screw placement in the lateral position. The authors have reported their initial experience with SP-LLIF with RA-PPS placement in the lateral position, and they have compared this accuracy with that of RA-PPS placement in the prone position.

METHODS

The authors reviewed prospectively collected data from their first 100 lateral-position RA-PPSs. The authors graded screw accuracy on CT and compared it to the accuracy of all prone-position RA-PPS procedures during the same time period. The authors analyzed the effect of several demographic and perioperative metrics, as a whole and specifically for lateral-position RA-PPS placement.

RESULTS

The authors placed 99 lateral-position RA-PPSs by using the ExcelsiusGPS robotic platform in the first 18 consecutive patients who underwent SP-LLIF with postoperative CT imaging; these patients were compared with 346 prone-position RA-PPSs that were placed in the first consecutive 64 patients during the same time period. All screws were placed at L1 to S1. Overall, the lateral group had 14 breaches (14.1%) and the prone group had 25 breaches (7.2%) (p = 0.032). The lateral group had 5 breaches (5.1%) greater than 2 mm (grade C or worse), and the prone group had 4 (1.2%) (p = 0.015). The operative level had an effect on the breach rate, with breach rates (grade C or worse) of 7.1% at L3 and 2.8% at L4. Most breaches were grade B (< 2 mm) and lateral, and no breach had clinical sequelae or required revision. Within the lateral group, multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that BMI and number of levels affected accuracy, but the side that was positioned up or down did not.

CONCLUSIONS

RA-PPSs can improve the feasibility of SP-LLIF. Spine surgeons should be cautious and selective with this technique owing to decreased accuracy in the lateral position, particularly in obese patients. Further studies should compare SP-LLIF techniques performed while the patient is in the prone and lateral positions.

Outpatient outcomes of patients with femoral nerve neurapraxia after prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5

OBJECTIVE

Single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) improves the efficiency of staged minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. However, laterally approaching the lumbar spine, especially L4-5 with the patient in the prone position, could increase the risk of complications and presents unique challenges, including difficult ergonomics, psoas migration, and management of the nearby lumbar plexus. The authors sought to identify postoperative femoral neurapraxia after single-position prone LLIF at L4-5 to better understand how symptoms evolve over time.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis examined a prospectively maintained database of LLIF patients who were treated by two surgeons (J.S.U. and J.D.T.). Patients who underwent single-position prone LLIF at L4-5 and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis were included if they had at least 6 weeks of follow-up. Outpatient postoperative neurological symptoms were analyzed at 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up evaluations.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (16 women [55%]; overall mean ± SD age 62 ± 11 years) met the inclusion criteria. Five patients (17%) experienced complications, including 1 (3%) who had a femoral nerve injury with resultant motor weakness. The mean ± SD transpsoas retractor time was 14.6 ± 6.1 minutes, the directional anterior electromyography (EMG) threshold before retractor placement was 20.1 ± 10.2 mA, and the directional posterior EMG threshold was 10.4 ± 9.1 mA. All patients had 6-week clinical follow-up evaluations. Ten patients (34%) reported thigh pain or weakness at their 6-week follow-up appointment, compared with 3/27 (11%) at 3 months and 1/20 (5%) at 6 months. No association was found between directional EMG threshold and neurapraxia, but longer transpsoas retractor time at L4-5 was significantly associated with femoral neurapraxia at 6-week follow-up (p = 0.02). The only case of femoral nerve injury with motor weakness developed in a patient with a retractor time that was nearly twice as long as the mean time (27.0 vs 14.6 minutes); however, this patient fully recovered by the 3-month follow-up evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the largest study with the longest follow-up duration to date after single-position prone LLIF at L4-5 with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. Although 34% of patients reported ipsilateral sensory symptoms in the thigh at the 6-week follow-up evaluation, only 1 patient sustained a nerve injury; this resulted in temporary weakness that resolved by the 3-month follow-up evaluation. Thus, longer transpsoas retractor time at L4-5 during prone LLIF is associated with increased ipsilateral thigh symptoms at 6-week follow-up that may resolve over time.

Transitioning from lateral to the prone transpsoas approach: flatten the learning curve by knowing the nuances

Prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion is the newest frontier in surgical approach to the lumbar spine. Prone positioning facilitates segmental lordosis and facile posterior segmental fixation. However, even in experienced hands, transitioning from a lateral decubitus to prone position necessitates alterations to the traditional technique. In this video, the authors highlight the nuances of adopting the prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique and strategies to overcome them.

The video can be found here: https://stream.cadmore.media/r10.3171/2022.3.FOCVID2224

Postoperative spinal alignment comparison of lateral versus supine patient position L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

Over the past decade, alternative patient positions for the treatment of the anterior lumbar spine have been explored in an effort to maximize the benefits of direct anterior column access while minimizing the inefficiencies of single or multiple intraoperative patient repositionings. The lateral technique allows for access from L1 to L5 through a retroperitoneal, muscle-splitting, transpsoas approach with placement of a large intervertebral spacer than can reliably improve segmental lordosis, though its inability to be used at L5-S1 limits its overall adoption, as L5-S1 is one of the most common levels treated and where high levels of lordosis are optimal. Recent developments in instrumentation and techniques for lateral-position treatment of the L5-S1 level with a modified anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) approach have expanded the lateral position to L5-S1, though the positional effect on L5-S1 lordosis is heretofore unreported. The purpose of this study was to compare local and regional alignment differences between ALIFs performed with the patient in the lateral (L-ALIF) versus supine position (S-ALIF).

METHODS

Retrospective, multi-center data and radiographs were collected from 476 consecutive patients who underwent L5-S1 L-ALIF (n = 316) or S-ALIF (n = 160) for degenerative lumbar conditions. Patients treated at L4-5 and above with other single-position interbody fusion and posterior fixation techniques were included in the analysis. Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the groups, though L-ALIF patients were slightly older (58 vs. 54 years), with a greater preoperative mean L5-S1 disk height (7.8 vs. 5.8 mm), and with less preoperative slip (6.6 vs. 8.5 mm), respectively. 262 patients were treated with only L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 while the remaining 214 patients were treated with either L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 along with fusions at other thoracolumbar levels. Lumbar lordosis (LL), L5-S1 segmental lordosis, L5-S1 disk space height, and slip reduction in L5-S1 spondylolisthesis were measured on preoperative and postoperative lateral X-ray images. LL was only compared between single-level ALIFs, given the variability of other procedures performed at the levels above L5-S1.

RESULTS

Mean pre- to postoperative L5-S1 segmental lordosis improved 39% (6.6°) and 31% (4.9°) in the L-ALIF and S-ALIF groups, respectively (p = 0.063). Mean L5-S1 disk height increased by 6.5 mm (89%) in the L-ALIF and 6.4 mm (110%) in the S-ALIF cohorts, (p = 0.650). Spondylolisthesis, in those patients with a preoperative slip, average reduction in the L-ALIF group was 1.5 mm and 2.2 mm in the S-ALIF group (p = 0.175). In patients treated only at L5-S1 with ALIF, mean segmental alignment improved significantly more in the L-ALIF compared to the S-ALIF cohort (7.8 vs. 5.4°, p = 0.035), while lumbar lordosis increased 4.1° and 3.6° in the respective groups (p = 0.648).

CONCLUSION

Use of the lateral patient position for L5-S1 ALIF, compared to traditional supine L5-S1 ALIF, resulted in at least equivalent alignment and radiographic outcomes, with significantly greater improvement in segmental lordosis in patients treated only at L5-S1. These data, from the largest lateral ALIF dataset reported to date, suggest that-radiographically-the lateral patient position can be considered as an alternative to traditional ALIF positional techniques.

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.

Anatomical positional changes in the lateral lumbar interbody fusion

INTRODUCTION

ALIFs and LLIFs are now becoming more utilized for adult spinal disease. As technologies advance, so do surgical techniques, with surgeons now modifying traditional supine-ALIF and lateral-LLIF to lateral-ALIF and prone-LLIF approaches to allow for more efficient surgeries. The objective of this study is to characterize the anatomical changes in the surgical corridor that occur with changes in patient positioning.

METHODS

MRIs of ten healthy volunteers were evaluated in five positions: supine, prone with hips flexed, prone with hips extended, lateral with hips flexed, and lateral with hips extended. All lateral scans were in the left lateral decubitus position. The anatomical changes of the psoas muscles, inferior vena cava, aorta, iliac vessels were assessed with relation to fixed landmarks on the disc spaces from L1 to S1.

RESULTS

The most anteriorly elongated ipsilateral to approach psoas when compared to supine was seen in lateral-flexed position (- 5.82 mm, p < 0.001), followed by lateral-extended (- 2.23 mm, p < 0.001), then prone-flexed (- 1.40 mm, p = 0.014), and finally supine and prone-extended (- 0.21 mm, p = 0.643). The most laterally extending or "thickest" psoas was seen in prone-flexed (- 1.40 mm, p = 0.004) and prone-extended (- 1.17 mm, p = 0.002). The psoas was "thinnest" in lateral-extended (2.03 mm, p < 0.001) followed by lateral-flexed (1.11 mm, p = 0.239). The contralateral psoas did not move as anteriorly as the ipsilateral. 3D volumetric analysis showed that the greatest changes in the psoas occur at its proximal and distal poles near T12-L1 and L4-S1. In lateral-flexed compared to prone-extended, the IVC moves medially to the left (p < 0.001). The aorta moves laterally to the left (p = 0.005). The venous structures appeared more full and open in the lateral positions and flattened in the supine and prone positions. The arteries remain in full calibre.

CONCLUSION

The MRI anatomical evaluation shows that the psoas, and therefore lumbar plexus, and vasculature move significantly with changes in positioning. This is important for preoperative planning for proper intraoperative execution from preoperative supine MRI. Understanding that the psoas and vessels move the most anteriorly in the lateral-flexed position and to a least degree in the prone-extended is essential for safe and efficient utilization of techniques such as the traditional LLIF, traditional ALIF, prone-LLIF.

Effects of thigh extension on the position of the femoral nerve: application to prone lateral transpsoas approaches to the lumbar spine

Some authors have suggested that thigh extension during the prone lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine provides the theoretical advantage of providing posterior shift of the psoas muscle and plexus and is responsible for its lower rates of nerve injury. We aimed to elucidate the effects of surgical positioning on the femoral nerve within the psoas muscle via a cadaveric study. In the supine position, 10 fresh frozen adult cadavers had a metal wire secured to the pelvic segment of the femoral nerve and then extended proximally along with its L2 contribution. Fluoroscopy was then used to identify the wires on the femoral nerves in a neutral position and with the thigh extended and flexed by 25 and 45°. Additionally, a lateral incision was made in the anterolateral abdominal wall to mimic a lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine, and measurements were made of the amount of movement in the vertical plane of the femoral nerve from neutral to then 25 and 45° of thigh flexion and extension. On fluoroscopy, the femoral nerves moved posteriorly at a mean of 10.1 mm with thigh extension. Femoral nerve movement could not be detected at any degree of this range of flexion of the thigh. Extension of the thigh to about 30° can move the femoral nerve farther away from the dissection plane by approximately one centimeter. This hip extension not only places the femoral nerve in a more advantageous position for lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedures but also helps to promote accentuation of lumbar lordosis.

Single position lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recently, a single position lumbar fusion has been described in which both the anterior or lateral interbody fusion as well as posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation are performed in a single position.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to present and analyze the current evidence for single position lumbar fusion.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Prospective or retrospective studies published in English that assessed outcomes of single position lumbar fusion surgery for patients with lumbar degenerative disease, spondylolisthesis, or radiculopathy were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, X-Ray exposure time, and postoperative outcomes including leg numbness or pain, leg weakness, lumbar lordosis, and segmental lordosis.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two separate meta-analyses were performed. The first compared single position (SP) surgery, both lateral and prone, to dual position or flipped (F) surgery. The second meta-analysis compared lateral single position (LSP) surgery to prone single position (PSP) surgery. Variables were included if (1) they were a mean with a reported standard deviation or (2) if they were a categorical variable. For calculating standard error of the mean, we used sample size, mean, and standard deviation. A random effects model was used. The heterogeneity among studies was assessed with a significance level of <0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles were included for analysis. Three studies were prospective nonrandomized studies, while 18 were retrospective. Seven articles studied lateral single position only, 10 articles compared lateral single position to traditional repositioning surgery, three articles studied prone single position surgery, and one article compared prone single position surgery to traditional repositioning surgery. A detailed review is provided for all 21 articles. Seventeen studies were included for meta-analysis comparing the SP versus F groups, for a total of 942 patients in the SP group and 254 in the F group. Mean operative time was significantly less for the SP group compared with the F group (SP: 127.5±7.9, F: 188.7±15.5, p<.001). Average hospital length of stay was 2.87±0.3 days in the SP group and 6.63±0.6 days in the F group (p<.001). Complication rates did not significantly differ between groups. Pedicle screws placed in the lateral position had a higher rate of complication as compared with those placed in a prone position (L: 10.2±2%, P: 1.6±1%, p=.015). Seventeen studies were included in the LSP versus PSP analysis, including 13 in the LSP group and four in the PSP group, with a total of 785 patients in the LSP group and 85 patients in the PSP group. Operative time and X-Ray exposure was significantly less in the LSP compared with the PSP group (117.1±5.5 minutes vs. 166.9±21.9 minutes, p<.001; 43.7±15.5 minutes vs. 171.0±25.8 minutes, p<.001). Postoperative segmental lordosis was greater in the prone single position group (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Single position surgery decreases operative times and hospital length of stay, while maintaining similar complication rates and radiographic outcomes. PSP surgery was found to be longer in duration and have increased radiation exposure time compared with LSP, while increasing postoperative segmental lordosis.

Comparison of prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine disease: A retrospective radiographic propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

This is the first study to compare the prone transpsoas (PTP) approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) through an analysis of radiographic and clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of data for patients who underwent the PTP approach or TLIF for degenerative lumbar spine disease was conducted. Propensity score matching was completed through the utilization of a linear regression model with the classification of surgery (PTP vs. TLIF) being used as the indicator (dependent variable) and the radiographic outcomes as covariates (independent variables). Both cohorts (PTP and TLIF) were propensity score matched according to preoperative radiographic parameters using a 1-to-1 ratio to the nearest neighbor. Eleven patients in the TLIF group were matched to an equal number of patients in the PTP group who had similar propensity scores to perform a thorough analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

The PTP approach significantly improved the lumbar lordosis angle, pelvic tilt, and the pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis value when compared to TLIF (p < 0.05). Clinically, the PTP group improved significantly in terms of the Oswestry Disability Index (p < 0.05). That approach also significantly minimized blood loss and hospital stay (p < 0.05). Furthermore, significantly more cages were placed anteriorly in the PTP group than in the TLIF group (p < 0.05). However, the PTP group had a significantly longer duration of radiation exposure (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The PTP approach resulted in greater improvement in postoperative radiographic measurements as well as patient-reported outcomes.

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.

Role of Robotics in Adult Spinal Deformity

Robotic-assisted adult deformity surgery has played a rapidly expanding role since its introduction. As robotic spine technologies improve, the potential to limit complications and morbidity is vast. The improvements in instrumentation accuracy combined with the ability to maintain that accuracy in multiple positions allow creative surgical approaches and techniques that can limit operative time, blood loss, and improve outcomes. In the years to come, robotic-assisted spine surgery and navigation will likely play an expanding role that continues to be defined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5, expert opinion.

Single-position prone lateral transpsoas approach: early experience and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) via a transpsoas approach is a workhorse minimally invasive approach for lumbar arthrodesis that is often combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation. There has been increasing interest in performing single-position surgery, allowing access to the anterolateral and posterior spine without requiring patient repositioning. The feasibility of the transpsoas approach in patients in the prone position has been reported. Herein, the authors present a consecutive case series of all patients who underwent single-position prone transpsoas LLIF performed by an individual surgeon since adopting this approach.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of a consecutive case series of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) who underwent single-position prone LLIF for any indication between October 2019 and November 2020. Pertinent operative details (levels, cage use, surgery duration, estimated blood loss, complications) and 3-month clinical outcomes were recorded. Intraoperative and 3-month postoperative radiographs were reviewed to assess for interbody subsidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight of 29 patients (97%) underwent successful treatment with the prone lateral approach over the study interval; the approach was aborted in 1 patient, whose data were excluded. The mean (SD) age of patients was 67.9 (9.3) years; 75% (21) were women. Thirty-nine levels were treated: 18 patients (64%) had single-level fusion, 9 (32%) had 2-level fusion, and 1 (4%) had 3-level fusion. The most commonly treated levels were L3-4 (n = 15), L2-3 (n = 12), and L4-5 (n = 11). L1-2 was fused in 1 patient. The mean operative time was 286.5 (100.6) minutes, and the mean retractor time was 29.2 (13.5) minutes per level. The mean fluoroscopy duration was 215.5 (99.6) seconds, and the mean intraoperative radiation dose was 170.1 (94.8) mGy. Intraoperative subsidence was noted in 1 patient (4% of patients, 3% of levels). Intraoperative lateral access complications occurred in 11% of patients (1 cage repositioning, 2 inadvertent ruptures of anterior longitudinal ligament). Subsidence occurred in 5 of 22 patients (23%) with radiographic follow-up, affecting 6 of 33 levels (18%). Postoperative functional testing (Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36, visual analog scale-back and leg pain) identified significant improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-surgeon consecutive case series demonstrates that this novel technique is well tolerated and has acceptable clinical and radiographic outcomes. Larger patient series with longer follow-up are needed to further elucidate the safety profile and long-term outcomes of single-position prone LLIF.

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.

Simultaneous Robotic Single Position Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Bilateral Sacropelvic Fixation in Lateral Decubitus

Single position lateral fusion reduces the need for a secondary surgery and robotic guidance allows for potentially higher accuracy of screw placement. We expand the role of robotics with a simultaneous workflow where 2 surgeons can work in single position surgery and discuss the technical feasibility of placement of S2-alar-iliac (S2AI) screws in the lateral position. A 70-year-old male presented with chronic back pain and bilateral leg pain with the left side worse than the right. He subsequently underwent an L3–S1 oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with a minimally invasive L3-ilium robotic posterior spinal fixation simultaneously in single lateral position with S2AI screws. The software planning requisite of robotics allowed for a preoperative plan where lumbar cortical screws were used to line up with bilateral S2AI screws. Intraoperatively, the OLIF was performed anterior to the patient which allowed for a second surgeon to perform the posterior stage of screw placement simultaneously in overlapping fashion during OLIF exposure. Once all screws were placed, the OLIF discectomy and cage placement were completed. As the OLIF incision is closed, rodding proceeds posteriorly with subsequent closure simultaneously as well. Operative time from skin incision to skin closure was 3 hours and 47 minutes. We present here a novel technical report on the recommended workflow of simultaneous robotic single position surgery OLIF and demonstrate the feasibility of placement of sacroiliac fixation in the lateral decubitus position. We believe this technique to be minimally invasive, effective, with the benefit of shortening valuable operating room case time.

Prone transpsoas lumbar corpectomy: simultaneous posterior and lateral lumbar access for difficult clinical scenarios

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar corpectomy with interbody fusion has been well described via a transpsoas approach in the lateral position, as has lumbar interbody fusion with posterior fixation in the prone position. However, no previous report has described the use of both an open posterior approach and a lateral transpsoas approach simultaneously in the prone position. Here, the authors describe their technique of performing transpsoas lumbar corpectomy in the prone position in order to have simultaneous posterior and lateral access for difficult clinical scenarios, and they report their early clinical experience.

METHODS

The surgical technique for simultaneous posterior and lateral transpsoas access to the lumbar spine was reviewed and described in detail. The cases of 2 patients who underwent simultaneous posterior and lateral access in the prone position for complex lumbar pathology were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical presentation, preoperative radiographs, postoperative course, and postoperative radiographs were reviewed.

RESULTS

The first patient presented after previous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion that was complicated by significant subsidence of the intervertebral cage, vertebral body split fracture, rotational instability, and resulting spinal stenosis. A simultaneous posterior and lateral transpsoas approach in the prone position allowed for removal of the previous cage, lumbar corpectomy, and rigid posterior fixation with direct decompression. The second patient had a significant pathologic burst fracture secondary to a plasmacytoma with retropulsion, resulting in vertebra plana and significant canal stenosis. Simultaneous approaches allowed for complete resection of the plasmacytoma, restoration of lumbar alignment, rigid fixation, and direct posterior decompression. There were no short-term complications, and both patients had resolution of their preoperative symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous posterior and lateral transpsoas access to the lumbar spine in the prone position is a previously unreported technique that allows a safe surgical approach to difficult clinical scenarios.

Navigation and Robotic-Assisted Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique, Feasibility, Safety, and Case Series

BACKGROUND

Single-position prone lateral interbody fusion is a recently introduced technical modification of the minimally invasive retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Several technical descriptions of single-position prone LLIF have been published with traditional fluoroscopy for guidance. However, there has been no investigation of either three-dimensional computed tomography-based navigation for prone LLIF or integration with robotic assistance platforms with the prone lateral technique. This study evaluated the feasibility and safety of spinal navigation and robotic assistance for single-position prone LLIF.

METHODS

Retrospective review of medical records and a prospectively acquired database for a single center was performed to examine immediate and 30-day clinical and radiographic outcomes for consecutive patients undergoing single-position prone LLIF with spinal navigation and/or robotic assistance.

RESULTS

Nine patients were treated, 4 women and 5 men. Mean age was 65.4 years (range, 46-75 years), and body mass index was 30.2 kg/m² (range, 24-38 kg/m²). The most common surgical indication was adjacent segment disease (44.4%), followed by pseudarthrosis (22.2%), spondylolisthesis (11.1%), degenerative disc disease (11.1%), and recurrent stenosis (11.1%). Postoperative approach-related complications included pain-limited bilateral hip flexor weakness (4/5) and pain-limited left knee extension weakness (4/5) in 1 patient (11.1%) and right lateral thigh numbness and dysesthesia in 1 patient (11.1%). All cages were placed within quarters 2-3, signifying the middle portion of the disc space. There were no instances of misguidance by navigation.

CONCLUSIONS

Integration of spinal navigation and robotic assistance appears feasible, accurate, and safe as an alternative to fluoroscopic guidance for single-position LLIF.

Single-Position Prone Lateral Interbody Fusion Improves Segmental Lordosis in Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

OBJECTIVE

Single-position surgery in prone position is a novel technique for lateral interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation. We performed a radiographic comparison of patients treated for spondylolisthesis using the prone lateral (PL) transpsoas approach versus the traditional dual position (DP) approach (lateral decubitus then prone).

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients with spondylolisthesis were treated using the PL approach (n = 15) versus the dual position approach (n = 15). Radiographic factors in the groups were retrospectively compared.

RESULTS

The groups were similar for age, sex, body mass index, and implant size, but there were more 15° (vs. 10°) cages inserted in the dual position group. Radiographically the groups had similar baseline spinopelvic parameters, lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis, anterolisthesis, and disc height (P > 0.05). Postoperatively the PL group demonstrated a larger improvement in segmental lordosis (5.1° vs. 2.5°, P = 0.02), but not overall LL (6.3° vs. 3.1°, P = 0.14). Both groups had similar improvements in pelvic tilt, disc height, and spondylolisthesis reduction (P > 0.05). The mean relative distance of the implant from the posterior edge of the vertebral body was greater in the PL group (26% vs. 17%, P < 0.001) indicating a tendency for more anterior cage placement. However, there was no significant correlation between the relative cage position and the increase in segmental lordosis (P = 0.35), so this result alone did not explain the relative increase in lordosis seen.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to our knowledge to demonstrate an improvement in segmental lordosis for patients with single-level spondylolisthesis using the PL approach.

Single-Position Prone Transpsoas Lateral Interbody Fusion Including L4L5: Early Postoperative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) was a revolutionary approach devised by Luiz Pimenta that allowed the surgeon to access the lumbar spine through the major psoas muscle. Although the traditional LLIF had enabled enormous advances, the technique has its drawbacks. A new concept to perform the traditional LLIF has been proposed, with the patient being prone to decubitus with slightly extended legs. Our study aims to analyze the early outcomes of patients who had undergone the prone transpsoas (PTP) for degenerative spine pathologies including the L4/5 level.

METHODS

This study was multicentric, retrospective, nonrandomized, noncomparative, and observational. Only participants who received PTP in L4/5, with no more than 3 levels of intersomatics and fixation no further than S1, were included. The primary outcomes were the onset of new neurologic deficits and postoperative complications. Also, surgery details, such as blood loss and surgery duration, were measured. Neurologic deficits were accessed at the postoperative visit, which ranged from 7 to 14 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with the majority receiving PTP only in L4/5 (66.6%). The mean surgery time was 182, with 29 minutes of mean transpsoas time. Of the patients, only 1 presented the onset of a motor deficit, while 3 patients presented a new sensory deficit. Five complications occurred, none intraoperative and 5 postoperative, with only 1 directly correlated with the access.

CONCLUSIONS

The prone transpsoas is safe and feasible for approaching the L4/5 disk, presenting with a low rate of complication and new-onset neurologic deficits.

Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Case Report and Technical Note

OBJECTIVE

The transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a commonly used technique to manage various spinal conditions. LLIF is often performed in combination with posterior lumbar instrumentation, which requires patient repositioning or staging of the procedure. Here we present a step-by-step detailed description of a prone LLIF using an intraoperative laser level to guide orthogonal insertion of instrumentation.

METHODS

A 57-year-old man with history of L4-S1 instrumentation, who developed symptomatic adjacent L3L/4 level stenosis and sagittal plane imbalance. The single position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion with posterior fixation was chosen in order to minimize operative room time and optimize lumbar lordosis (LL) correction.

RESULTS

The patient was positioned prone on a Jackson table. This position allowed for improved LL correction. A self-leveling laser line ensured ideal orthogonal use of instrumentation. The patient had improvement of symptoms immediately postoperatively and was discharged home on postoperative day 2 without complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The single position prone LLIF with posterior fixation offers a shorter operative room time by eliminating necessity to reposition the patient between stages of operation. The prone position of the patient optimizes LL correction. Further experience with this approach will allow for refining of the technique to overcome its limitations and facilitate its utilization.

Single-position prone lateral approach: cadaveric feasibility study and early clinical experience

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a useful minimally invasive technique for achieving anterior interbody fusion and preserving or restoring lumbar lordosis. However, achieving circumferential fusion via posterior instrumentation after an LLIF can be challenging, requiring either repositioning the patient or placing pedicle screws in the lateral position. Here, the authors explore an alternative single-position approach: LLIF in the prone lateral (PL) position.

METHODS

A cadaveric feasibility study was performed using 2 human cadaveric specimens. A retrospective 2-center early clinical series was performed for patients who had undergone a minimally invasive lateral procedure in the prone position between August 2019 and March 2020. Case duration, retractor time, electrophysiological thresholds, implant size, screw accuracy, and complications were recorded. Early postoperative radiographic outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

A PL LLIF was successfully performed in 2 cadavers without causing injury to a vessel or the bowel. No intraoperative subsidence was observed. In the clinical series, 12 patients underwent attempted PL surgery, although 1 case was converted to standard lateral positioning. Thus, 11 patients successfully underwent PL LLIF (89%) across 14 levels: L2–3 (2 of 14 [14%]), L3–4 (6 of 14 [43%]), and L4–5 (6 of 14 [43%]). For the 11 PL patients, the mean (± SD) age was 61 ± 16 years, mean BMI was 25.8 ± 4.8, and mean retractor time per level was 15 ± 6 minutes with the longest retractor time at L2–3 and the shortest at L4–5. No intraoperative subsidence was noted on routine postoperative imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing single-position lateral transpsoas interbody fusion with the patient prone is anatomically feasible, and in an early clinical experience, it appeared safe and reproducible. Prone positioning for a lateral approach presents an exciting opportunity for streamlining surgical access to the lumbar spine and facilitating more efficient surgical solutions with potential clinical and economic advantages.