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

Single Position Lateral versus Prone Transpsoas Lateral Interbody Fusion Inclusive of L4-L5: A Single Surgeon Experience Examining Early Postoperative Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure is a minimally invasive lumbar spine approach that provides indirect neural decompression, improved sagittal alignment, and a high fusion rate. Typically accompanied by posterior pedicle screw insertion, there has been interest in performing LLIF in a single position to decrease cost and time under anesthesia. However, there is a paucity of direct comparisons between single-position LLIF via prone versus lateral decubitus positioning. Therefore, this study aims to compare the outcomes of a single surgeon performing prone versus lateral single-position LLIF, inclusive of the L4-L5 level.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of a consecutive case series of patients who underwent either prone or lateral, single-position LLIF by a single surgeon. All cases involved the L4-L5 level. Demographic data, perioperative details, clinical outcomes, and preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis were recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients underwent lateral and 16 patients underwent prone single-position LLIF. Demographics and average interbody size were similar between groups. Operative time, change in lumbar lordosis, and length of hospital stay did not differ between the 2 positions. Both groups performed similarly in terms of preoperative and postoperative visual analog score pain score and complications. Patients who underwent lateral position LLIF ambulated farther on postoperative day 1 (250 feet vs. 200 feet, P = 0.015). Average time to follow up was 53 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates promising preliminary results indicating that single-position LLIF performs well, even at the L4-L5 level, in both the prone and lateral positions.

Early Experience with Prone Lateral Interbody Fusion in Deformity Correction: A Single-Institution Experience

Background/Objectives: Lateral spine surgery offers effective minimally invasive deformity correction, but traditional approaches often involve separate anterior, lateral, and posterior procedures. The prone lateral technique streamlines this process by allowing single-position access for lateral and posterior surgery, potentially benefiting from the lordosing effect of prone positioning. While previous studies have compared prone lateral to direct lateral for adult degenerative diseases, this retrospective review focuses on the outcomes of adult deformity patients undergoing prone lateral interbody fusion. Methods: Ten adult patients underwent single-position prone lateral surgery for spine deformity correction, with a mean follow-up of 18 months. Results: Results showed significant improvements: sagittal vertical axis decreased by 2.4 cm, lumbar lordosis increased by 9.1°, pelvic tilt improved by 3.3°, segmental lordosis across the fusion construct increased by 12.2°, and coronal Cobb angle improved by 6.3°. These benefits remained consistent over the follow-up period. Correlational analysis showed a positive association between improvements in PROs and SVA and SL. When compared to hybrid approaches, prone lateral yielded greater improvements in SVA. Conclusions: Prone lateral surgery demonstrated favorable outcomes with reasonable perioperative risks. However, further research comparing this technique with standard minimally invasive lateral approaches, hybrid, and open approaches is warranted for a comprehensive evaluation.

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.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Following Prone Lateral Single-Position Approach to Same-Day Circumferential Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate surgical characteristics and postoperative 2-year results of the PL approach to spinal fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Prone-lateral(PL) single positioning has recently gained popularity in spine surgery due to lower blood loss and operative time but has yet to be examined for other notable outcomes, including realignment and patient-reported measures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included circumferential spine fusion patients with a minimum one-year follow-up. Patients were stratified into groups based on undergoing PL approach versus same-day staged (Staged). Mean comparison tests identified differences in baseline parameters. Multivariable logistic regression, controlling for age, levels fused, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were used to determine the influence of the approach on complication rates, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes up to two years.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-two patients were included of which 72(59%) were same-day staged and 50(41%) were PL. PL patients were older with lower body mass index (both P <0.05). Patients undergoing PL procedures had lower estimated blood loss and operative time (both P <0.001), along with fewer osteotomies (63% vs. 91%, P <0.001). This translated to a shorter length of stay (3.8 d vs. 4.9, P =0.041). PL procedures demonstrated better correction in both PT (4.0 vs. -0.2, P =0.033 and pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (-3.7 vs. 3.1, P =0.012). PL procedures were more likely to improve in GAP relative pelvic version (OR: 2.3, [1.5-8.8]; P =0.003]. PL patients suffered lesser complications during the perioperative period and greater improvement in NRS-Back (-6.0 vs. -3.3, P =0.031), with less reoperations (0.0% vs. 4.8%, P =0.040) by two years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing PL single-position procedures received less invasive procedures with better correction of pelvic compensation, as well as earlier discharge. The prone lateral cohort also demonstrated greater clinical improvement and a lower rate of reoperations by two years following spinal corrective surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level-III.

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.

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.

Radiographic alignment outcomes after the single-position prone transpsoas approach: a multi-institutional retrospective review of 363 cases

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper was to evaluate the changes in radiographic spinopelvic parameters in a large cohort of patients undergoing the prone transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was performed for all patients who underwent lateral lumber interbody fusion via the single-position prone transpsoas (PTP) approach. Spinopelvic parameters from preoperative and first upright postoperative radiographs were collected, including lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and pelvic tilt (PT). Functional indices (visual analog scale score), and patient-reported outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index) were also recorded from pre- and postoperative appointments.

RESULTS

Of the 363 patients who successfully underwent the procedure, LL after fusion was 50.0° compared with 45.6° preoperatively (p < 0.001). The pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) was 10.5° preoperatively versus 2.9° postoperatively (p < 0.001). PT did not significantly change (0.2° ± 10.7°, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PTP approach allows significant gain in lordotic augmentation, which was associated with good functional results at follow-up.

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 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.