Stand-alone minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion: Multicenter clinical outcomes

Oblique lateral internal fusion combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in severe lumbar spinal stenosis: clinical and radiographic outcome

BACKGROUND

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been a popular technique for treating lumbar degenerative diseases. Previous studies have shown its efficiency in lumbar spinal stenosis; yet, only a few studies have investigated its application to severe lumbar spinal stenosis. Herein, we investigated the clinical and radiographic outcome of OLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws in the treatment of severe lumbar spinal stenosis.

METHODS

A total of 15 patients who underwent OLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws were retrospectively analysed. All patients were diagnosed with severe lumbar stenosis (Schizas grade C or D) through preoperative magnetic resonance image (MRI) and received OLIF combined with percutaneous pedicle screw surgery. Clinical outcomes, including visual analogue scale (VAS)-back and VAS-leg scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), as well as mean disc height (DH), mean foraminal height (FH), segmental lumbar lordosis (SLL) and cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, were analysed before and after surgery and at the last follow-up. Intraoperative data, complications and fusion rate were also investigated.

RESULTS

OLIF combined with percutaneous pedicle screws was performed on 18 segments in 15 patients. Mean follow-up was 23.1 ± 4.6 months (range 15-29 months). VAS-back, VAS-leg, and ODI scores were significantly improved at the last follow-up. DH increased from 8.86 ± 3.06 mm before surgery to 13.31 ± 2.14 mm after; at the last follow-up, DH was 11.69 ± 1.87 mm. FH increased from 17.85 ± 2.26 mm before surgery to 22.09 ± 1.36 mm after; at the last follow-up, FH was 20.41 ± 0.99 mm. CSA of the spinal canal increased from 30.83 ± 21.15 mm2 before surgery to 74.99 ± 33.65 mm2 after the operation and 81.22 ± 35.53 mm2 at the last follow-up. The segmental LL before surgery, after surgery and at last follow-up was 20.27 ± 6.25 degrees, 20.83 ± 6.52 degrees and 19.75 ± 5.87 degrees, respectively. All patients have gained fusion at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

OLIF with percutaneous pedicle screws could achieve satisfactory clinical and radiographic effects through indirect compression by increasing DH, FH and CSA of the spinal canal in severe lumbar stenosis patients.

Durability of stand-alone anterolateral interbody fusion in staged minimally invasive circumferential scoliosis surgery with delayed posterior instrumentation due to medical necessity

PURPOSE

Circumferential minimally invasive scoliosis surgeries are often staged, wherein anterior and/or lateral lumbar interbody fusion is followed by percutaneous posterior fixation days later. This study examines the impact on outcomes when posterior augmentation was delayed due to unexpected medical issues following the first stage, anterolateral procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients undergoing minimally invasive circumferential deformity corrections from 2006 to 2019. Patients in whom planned posterior fixation was postponed due to medical necessity or safety concerns were identified. Perioperative surgical metrics and radiographic parameters were collected.

RESULTS

Three of the six patients initially scheduled for circumferential fusion never underwent posterior augmentation due to symptomatic improvement (2.3, 5, and 10.7 years of follow-up). The other three underwent posterior fixation once medically optimized after an average interval of 4.7 months (range 3.2-7.8 months) due to persistent symptoms. It was also observed that the average coronal malalignment in the postoperative period was 5.1 cm in the group requiring further fixation and only 1.6 cm in the group which did not.

CONCLUSION

In select cases, the indirect decompression and stability conferred by minimally invasive anterolateral arthrodesis alone may afford adequate pain relief to delay or even avoid posterior fixation in patients with adult spinal deformity.

Early Radiological Assessment of Static and Expandable Cages in Lateral Single Position for Indirect Decompression- Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the postoperative alignment of static and expandable cages in lateral single-position (LSP) for indirect decompression in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

We included sixty-seven patients who underwent LSP-LLIF for lumbar degenerative disease. We performed radiological assessments preoperatively and two weeks postoperatively using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. We divided the patients into the expandable cage group (23 patients) and the static cage group (44 patients). We measured disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and foraminal area (FA) from computed tomography images and the area of the dural sac from magnetic resonance imaging. We recorded surgical outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Both static and expandable cages demonstrated improvements in DH, SL, FA, and dural sac expansion. However, we found no statistically significant differences in the average change in DH (4.4 ± 2.1 mm vs. 4.2 ± 1.8 mm, P = 0.685), the average change in SL (1.0 ± 4.4° vs. 1.9 ± 3.6°, P = 0.310), or FA change (32.5 ± 31.7 mm2 vs. 34.9 ± 29.5 mm2, P = 0.966) between the expandable and static cage groups. We also found no statistically significant difference in dural sac enlargement between the two groups. We observed no significant differences in operation time, estimated blood loss, or length of hospital stay between the two groups. No severe adverse events or additional surgeries were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In LSP-LLIF without facet joint resection or other posterior techniques, static and expandable cages showed comparable effectiveness in achieving increased DH, SL, FA, and indirect decompression.

Biomechanical Comparison of Multilevel Stand-Alone Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion With Posterior Pedicle Screws: An In Vitro Study

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) allows placement of large interbody cages while preserving ligamentous structures important for stability. Multiple clinical and biomechanical studies have demonstrated the feasibility of stand-alone LLIF in single-level fusion. We sought to compare the stability of 4-level stand-alone LLIF utilizing wide (26 mm) cages with bilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation.

METHODS

Eight human cadaveric specimens of L1-5 were included. Specimens were attached to a universal testing machine (MTS 30/G). Flexion, extension, and lateral bending were attained by applying a 200 N load at a rate of 2 mm/sec. Axial rotation of ± 8° of the specimen was performed at 2°/sec. Three-dimensional specimen motion was recorded using an optical motion-tracking device. Specimens were tested in 4 conditions: (1) intact, (2) bilateral pedicle screws and rods, (3) 26-mm stand-alone LLIF, (4) 26-mm LLIF with bilateral pedicle screws and rods.

RESULTS

Compared to the stand-alone LLIF, bilateral pedicle screws and rods had 47% less range of motion in flexion-extension (p < 0.001), 21% less in lateral bending (p < 0.05), and 20% less in axial rotation (p = 0.1). The addition of bilateral posterior instrumentation to the stand-alone LLIF resulted in decreases of all 3 planes of motion: 61% in flexion-extension ( p < 0.001), 57% in lateral bending (p < 0.001), 22% in axial rotation (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Despite the biomechanical advantages associated with the lateral approach and 26 mm wide cages, stand-alone LLIF for 4-level fusion is not equivalent to pedicle screws and rods.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Various Fixation Options for Adjacent Segment Degeneration: A Finite Element Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is a common phenomenon after lumbar fusion. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) may provide an alternative treatment method for ASD. This study used finite element analysis to evaluate the biomechanical effects of LLIF with various fixation options and identify an optimal surgical strategy for ASD.

METHODS

A validated L1-S1 finite element model was modified for simulation. Six finite element models of the lumbar spine were created and were divided into group 1 (L4-5 posterior lumbar interbody fusion [PLIF] + L3-4 LLIF) and group 2 (L5-S1 PLIF + L4-5 LLIF). Each group consisted of 1) cage-alone, 2) cage + lateral screw fixation (LSF), and 3) cage + bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) models. The range of motion, intradiscal pressure, and facet loads of adjacent segments as well as interbody cage stress were analyzed.

RESULTS

The stress on the LLIF cage-superior endplate interface was highest in the cage-alone model followed by the cage + LSF model and cage + BPSF model. The increase in range of motion, intradiscal pressure, and facet loads at the adjacent segment was highest in the cage + BPSF model followed by the cage + LSF model and cage-alone model. However, the biomechanical effect on the adjacent segment seemed similar in the cage-alone and cage + LSF models.

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF with BPSF is recommended when performing LLIF surgery for ASD after L4-5 and L5-S1 PLIF. Considering cage subsidence and biomechanical effects on the adjacent segment, LLIF with LSF may be a suboptimal option for ASD surgery.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion - clinical outcomes, fusion rates and complications with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2

BACKGROUND

The authors report an Australian experience of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with respect to clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complications, with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and other graft materials.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of LLIF patients 2011-2021. LLIFs performed lateral decubitus by four experienced surgeons past their learning curve. Graft materials classified rhBMP-2 or non-rhBMP-2. Patient-reported outcomes assessed by VAS, ODI, and SF-12 preoperatively and postoperatively. Fusion rates assessed by CT postoperatively at 6 and 12 months. Complications classified minor or major. Clinical outcomes and complications analysed and compared between rhBMP-2 and non-rhBMP-2 groups.

RESULTS

A cohort of 343 patients underwent 437 levels of LLIF. Mean age 67 ± 11 years (range 29-89) with a female preponderance (65%). Mean BMI 29kg/m2 (18-56). Most common operated levels L3/4 (36%) and L4/5 (35%). VAS, ODI and SF-12 improved significantly from baseline. Total complication rate 15% (53/343) with minor 11% (39/343) and major 4% (14/343). Ten patients returned to OR (2-wound infection, 8-further instrumentation and decompression). Most patients (264, 77%) received rhBMP-2, the remainder a non-rhBMP-2 graft material. No significant differences between groups at baseline. No increase in minor or major complications in the rhBMP-2 group compared to the non-rhBMP-2 group respectively; (10.6% vs 13.9% [p = 0.42], 2.7% vs 8.9% [p < 0.01]). Fusion rates significantly higher in the rhBMP-2 group at 6 and 12 months (63% vs 40%, [p < 0.01], 92% vs 80%, [p < 0.02]).

CONCLUSION

LLIF is a safe and efficacious procedure. rhBMP-2 in LLIF produced earlier and higher fusion rates compared to available non-rhBMP-2 graft substitutes.

Multimodality Intraoperative Neuromonitoring in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of Alerts in 628 Patients

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of private neuromonitoring databases.

OBJECTIVES

To review neuromonitoring alerts in a large series of patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and determine whether alerts occurred more frequently when more lumbar levels were accessed or more frequently at particular lumbar levels.

METHODS

Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) databases were reviewed and patients were identified undergoing LLIF between L1 and L5. All cases in which at least one IONM modality was used (motor evoked potentials (MEP), somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEP), evoked electromyography (EMG)) were included in this study. The type of IONM used and incidence of alerts were collected from each IONM report and analyzed. The incidence of alerts for each IONM modality based on number of levels at which at LLIF was performed and the specific level an LLIF was performed were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 628 patients undergoing LLIF across 934 levels were reviewed. EMG was used in 611 (97%) cases, SSEP in 561 (89%), MEP in 144 (23%). The frequency of IONM alerts for EMG, SSEP and MEPs did not significantly increase as the number of LLIF levels accessed increased. No EMG, SSEP, or MEP alerts occurred at L1-L2. EMG alerts occurred in 2-5% of patients at L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 and did not significantly vary by level (P = .34). SSEP and MEP alerts occurred more frequently at L4-L5 versus L2-L3 and L3-L4 (P < .03).

CONCLUSIONS

IONM may provide the greatest utility at L4-L5, particularly MEPs, and may not be necessary for more cephalad LLIF procedures such as at L1-L2.

Biomechanical evaluation of two-level oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with posterior four-screw fixation：A finite element analysis

OBJECTIVE

By constructing the three-dimensional finite element model of two-level OLIF lumbar spine, the aim of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of posterior four-screw fixation for treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative diseases from the perspective of biomechanics.

METHODS

An intact L3-S1 segment nonlinear lumbar finite element model (M0) was constructed from the CT scanning data of a healthy adult. After verification, two-level OLIF procedure were simulated, and three patterns of finite element analysis models were constructed: two-level stand-alone OLIF group (M1), two-level OLIF + four-screw fixation group (M2) and two-level OLIF + six-screw fixation group (M3). Range of motion, stress of the cage, and stress of fixation were evaluated in the different models.

RESULTS

Under various motion modes，the ROM of M2 and M3 were significantly lower than those of M1. The ROM reduction of M2 relative to M1 was much greater than that of M3 relative to M2. Moreover, the peak von Mises stresses of endplates in M2 were almost the same as those in M3. In terms of the maximum stresses of cages, M2 and M3 were essentially identical. Besides, the maximum stresses of posterior instrumentation in M2 and M3 were similar, which were mainly concentrated at the root of pedicle screws.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences between M2 and M3 from the biomechanical analysis. In two-level OLIF, posterior four-screw fixation can replace six-screw fixation, which reduces surgical trauma and decreases economic burden of patients, and will be a cost-effective alternative.

Biomechanical Performances of an Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Cage in Models with Different Bone Densities: A Finite Element Analysis

Study Design

Finite element models of the L3-S1 vertebrae were reconstructed using computed tomography scans.

Objective

We compared the biomechanical performances of an oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) cage in different bone density mode.

Summary of Background Data

Low bone density is an els.key factor limiting the use of stand-alone OLIF cage.

Methods

Four models-intact (M0), normal bone density with OLIF (M1), bone mass loss with OLIF (M2), and osteoporotic with OLIF (M3)-were created based on 3-dimensional scans. Flexion, extension, and lateral bending movements (each lasting 10 N·m) were performed on the superior surface of the L3 vertebra with a compressive preload of 500 N. Range of motion (ROM), peak stresses in the L4-5 cortical endplates, cage stress, and adjacent intervertebral disk stress were evaluated.

Results

ROMs during different physiological movements were similar to those reported by previous researchers. Compared with that in M0, L4-5 ROMs of all movements decreased in M1, M2 and M3, most evidently in M3. Stress distribution in the cortical endplates rose to 7.8% in M1 and M2, even 16.2% in M3. Cage stress increased by less than 8.1% in M1 and M2, but by 25.3% in M3, especially in the movements of extension and right rotation. Compared with that in M0, L3-4 and L5-S1 intervertebral disk stress increased with bone density in all the other models, by up to 69.8% and 98.3%, respectively. As osteoporosis worsened, stress in the adjacent intervertebral disk also increased.

Conclusion

Stand-alone OLIF in M3 is not recommended because of the risk of cage subsidence. OLIF in M1 and M2 achieved similar results in various lumbar spine movements. In M1 and M2 model (T >  - 2.5), the L4-L5 showed reduced mobility in all directions, increased rigidity, limited cage displacement, lessened deformation, and better stability.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of stand-alone oblique lateral interbody fusion in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Open fusion and posterior instrumentation has traditionally been the treatment for adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS). However, minimally invasive treatment such as oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) technique was developed as a new therapeutic method for the treatment of ADS. In addition, it is associated with decreased blood loss and shorter operative time without posterior instrument. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of stand-alone OLIF for the treatment of ADS in terms of clinical and radiological results.

METHODS

A total of 30 patients diagnosed with ADS who underwent stand-alone OLIF in our hospital from July 2017 to September 2018 were enrolled in the study. Scores from the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) obtained preoperatively and at the final follow-up were compared. Radiography and computed tomography were performed preoperatively and at the final follow-up. The coronal cobb angle, lumbar lordosis, disc height, sacral slope, pelvic incidence and Pelvic tilt were recorded at each time point.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 30 patients with a mean age of 64.5 ± 10.8 years and mean follow-up of 19.3 ± 4.2 months. The mean operative time was 96.8 ± 29.4 minutes and the mean estimated blood loss volume was 48.7 ± 9.4 ml. The mean coronal Cobb angle was corrected from 15.0° ± 3.7° preoperatively to 7.2° ± 3.1° postoperatively and 7.2° ± 3.3° at final follow-up (P < 0.0001). Lumbar lordosis significantly improved from 32.2° ± 11.3° preoperatively to 40.3° ± 11.8° postoperatively and 40.7° ± 11.0° at final follow-up (P < 0.01). The respective mean sacral slope and pelvic tilt improved from 26.1° ± 8.1° and 25.1° ± 6.9° preoperatively to 34.3° ± 7.4° and 19.2° ± 5.7° at final follow-up (P < 0.001). The mean disc height (defined as the mean of the anterior and posterior intervertebral disc heights) increased from 0.7 ± 0.3 cm preoperatively to 1.1 ± 0.2 cm at final follow-up (P < 0.0001). The interbody fusion rate on CT was 93.3%. The mean VAS pain score improved from 5.3 ± 0.6 before surgery to 2.3 ± 0.6 at final follow-up (P < 0.001). The mean ODI improved from 29.9% ± 6.8% preoperatively to 12.8% ± 2.4% at final follow-up (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone OLIF is an effective and safe option for treating ADS in carefully selected patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100052419).

Predictors and tactics for revision surgery in lateral lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to analyze the factors affecting the revision of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), and to summarize the complications and decision-making strategies for revision surgery after LLIF.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 21 cases suffered from a revision surgery after LLIF in our department from May 2017 to June 2020, with a mean follow-up of 14 months (12-25months). We collected X-ray plain films, CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and medical records of all patients undergoing LLIF surgery, then analyzed the reasons for revision and summarized the revision strategies in different situations. We analysed correlations between revision surgery and several factors, including age, body mass index (BMI), sex, bone quality, mode of internal fixation, spinal stenosis, postperative foraminal stenosis, disc height. Then we brought the different indicators into logistic regression to find out the risk factors of revision after LLIF. All these patients were evaluated by Quality-of-life outcomes. Univariate statistical analysis was performed using T-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests and Chi square tests.

RESULTS

Of the 209 cases of LLIF, 21 patients underwent postoperative revision. All revision surgeries were successfully completed. The reasons for revision included vascular injury, unsatistactory implant placement, internal spinal instrumentation failure, cage migration, indirect decompression failure and infection. Indirect decompression failure was the most common indications for revision. Clinical status was apparently improved in ODI scores and VAS scores. Revision surgery did not impact long-term effect and satisfaction. Postoperative foraminal stenosis is a positive predictor for a revision surgical procedure.

CONCLUSION

Patients with postoperative foraminal stenosis are at higher risk of undergoing revision surgery after lateral lumbar interbody fusion. The correct choice of revision surgery can achieve satisfactory clinical results.

Impact of cage position on biomechanical performance of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis

Background

This study aimed to compare the biomechanical performance of various cage positions in stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion(SA LLIF).

Methods

An intact finite element model of the L3-L5 was reconstructed. The model was verified and analyzed. Through changing the position of the cage, SA LLIF was established in four directions: anterior placement(AP), middle placement(MP), posterior placement(PP), oblique placement(OP). A 400 N vertical axial pre-load was imposed on the superior surface of L3 and a 10 N/m moment was applied on the L3 superior surface along the radial direction to simulate movements of flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Various biomechanical parameters were evaluated for intact and implanted models in all loading conditions, including the range of motion (ROM) and maximum stress.

Results

In the SA LLIF models, the ROM of L4-5 was reduced by 84.21–89.03% in flexion, 72.64–82.26% in extension, 92.5-95.85% in right and left lateral bending, and 87.22–92.77% in right and left axial rotation, respectively. Meanwhile, ROM of L3-4 was mildly increased by an average of 9.6% in all motion directions. Almost all stress peaks were increased after SA LLIF, including adjacent disc, facet joints, and endplates. MP had lower stress peaks of cage and endplates in most motion modes. In terms of the stress on facet joints and disc of the cephalad segment, MP had the smallest increment.

Conclusion

In our study, SA LLIF risked accelerating the adjacent segment degeneration. The cage position had an influence on the distribution of endplate stress and the magnitude of facet joint stress. Compared with other positions, MP had the slightest effect on the stress in the adjacent facet joints. Meanwhile, MP seems to play an important role in reducing the risk of cage subsidence.

Assessing the differences in operative and patient-reported outcomes between lateral approaches for lumbar fusion: a systematic review and indirect meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Anterior-to-psoas lumbar interbody fusion (ATP-LIF), more commonly referred to as oblique lateral interbody fusion, and lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LTP-LIF), also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion, are the two commonly used lateral approaches for performing a lumbar fusion procedure. These approaches help overcome some of the technical challenges associated with traditional approaches for lumbar fusion. In this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis, the authors compared operative and patient-reported outcomes between these two select approaches using available studies.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, the authors conducted an electronic search using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for studies published before May 1, 2019. Indirect meta-analysis was conducted on fusion rate, cage movement (subsidence plus migration), permanent deficits, and transient deficits; results were depicted as forest plots of proportions (effect size [ES]).

RESULTS

A total of 63 studies were included in this review after applying the exclusion criteria, of which 26 studies investigated the outcomes of ATP-LIF, while 37 studied the outcomes of LTP-LIF. The average fusion rate was found to be similar between the two groups (ES 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.00 vs ES 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.97; p = 0.561). The mean incidence of cage movement was significantly higher in the ATP-LIF group compared with the LTP-LIF group (stand-alone: ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.27 vs ES 0.09, 95% CI 0.04-0.16 [p = 0.317]; combined: ES 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.32 vs ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.00-0.05 [p = 0.002]). The mean incidence of reoperations was significantly higher in patients undergoing ATP-LIF than in those undergoing LTP-LIF (ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.03 vs ES 0.04, 95% CI 0.02-0.07; p = 0.012). The mean incidence of permanent deficits was similar between the two groups (stand-alone: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06 vs ES 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.12 [p = 0.204]; combined: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06 vs ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.08 [p = 0.595]). The postoperative changes in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were both found to be higher for ATP-LIF relative to LTP-LIF (VAS: weighted average 4.11 [SD 2.03] vs weighted average 3.75 [SD 1.94] [p = 0.004]; ODI: weighted average 28.3 [SD 5.33] vs weighted average 24.3 [SD 4.94] [p < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

These analyses indicate that while both approaches are associated with similar fusion rates, ATP-LIF may be related to higher odds of cage movement and reoperations as compared with LTP-LIF. Furthermore, there is no difference in rates of permanent deficits between the two procedures.

Indirect decompression via oblique lumbar interbody fusion is sufficient for treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is a popular technique for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal disease. There are no clear guidelines on whether direct posterior decompression (PD) is necessary after OLIF. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of the indirect decompression obtained from OLIF in patients with lumbar foraminal stenosis. We retrospectively reviewed 33 patients who underwent OLIF surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal disease between 1 January 2018, and 30 June 2019. The inclusion criteria included patients who were diagnosed with lumbar foraminal stenosis by preoperative MRI. The exclusion criteria included the presence of central canal stenosis, spinal infection, vertebral fractures, and spinal malignancies. The clinical results, evaluated using the visual analogue scale of back pain (VAS-Back), VAS of leg pain (VAS-Leg), and Oswestry disability index (ODI), were recorded. The radiologic parameters were also measured. The VAS-Back, VAS-Leg, and ODI showed significant improvement in both the PD and non-posterior decompression (Non-PD) groups postoperatively (all, p < 0.05). Patients in the Non-PD group showed better results than those in the PD group in the VAS-Back at 12- and 24 months postoperatively (0.00 vs. 3.00 postoperatively at 12 months, p = 0.030; 0.00 vs. 4.00 postoperatively at 24 months, p = 0.009). In addition, the ODI at 24 months postoperatively showed better improvement in the Non-PD group (8.89 vs. 24.44, p = 0.038). The disc height in both the PD and the Non-PD groups increased significantly postoperatively (all, p < 0.05), but the restoration of foraminal height was significantly different only in the Non-PD group. There was no statistically significant difference in cage position, cage subsidence, fusion grade, or screw loosening between the PD and the Non-PD groups. Indirect decompression via OLIF for lumbar foraminal stenosis showed favorable outcomes. The use of interbody cages and posterior instrumentation was sufficient for relieving symptoms in patients with lumbar foraminal stenosis. Additional direct posterior decompression may deteriorate results in the follow-up period.

Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Stand-Alone Construct for the Treatment of Adjacent-Segment Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Objective

Adjacent-segment disease (ASD) is common in patients undergone previous lumbar fusion. A typical revision treatment from posterior approach requires management of postoperative scar tissue and previously implanted instrumentation. An oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) approach allows surgeon to reduce the potential risk of posterior approach. This study aimed to analyze the clinical and radiographic efficacy of stand-alone OLIF for the treatment of lumbar adjacent-segment disease.

Methods

A total of 13 consecutive patients who underwent stand-alone OLIF for the treatment of adjacent-segment disease from December 2016 to January 2019 were reviewed. Visual analog scale (VAS) of back pain and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) before surgery and at last postoperative clinic visits were obtained. Radiography, CT and MRI before and at last follow-up after surgery was evaluated in all patients.

Results

During the study period, 13 cases were successfully treated with stand-alone OLIF. The mean follow-up was 17.7 ± 8.3 months. The back pain VAS improved from 6.2 ± 1.0 to 2.0 ± 1.1 (P < 0.01), and the leg pain VAS improved from 7.0 ± 1.9 to 1.0 ± 0.9 (P < 0.01). ODI improved from 28.0 ± 7.5 to 10.8 ± 4.0 (P < 0.01). The disc height (DH) increased from 9 ± 2 to 12 ± 2 mm (P < 0.01), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of spinal canal increased from 85 ± 26 to 132 ± 24 mm² (P < 0.01), the foraminal height increased from 17 ± 2 to 21 ± 3 mm (P < 0.01) and the CSA of foramen increased from 95 ± 25 to 155 ± 36 mm² (P < 0.01). Cage subsidence was observed in 2 cases.

Conclusions

Stand-alone OLIF provides a safe and effective alternative way to treat ASD.

CT Hounsfield Units as a predictor of reoperation and graft subsidence following standalone and multi-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion

INTRODUCTION

Standalone single and multi-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are increasingly being applied to treat degenerative spinal conditions in a less invasive fashion. Graft subsidence following LLIF is a known complication and has been associated with poor bone mineral density (BMD). Previous research has demonstrated the utility of CT Hounsfield Units (HU) as a surrogate for BMD. This study aims to investigate the relationship between CT HU and subsidence and reoperation after standalone and multi-level LLIF.

METHODS

A prospectively-maintained single-institution database was retrospectively reviewed for LLIF patients from 2017-2020 including single and multi-level standalone cases with or without supplemental posterior fixation. Data on demographics, graft parameters, BMD on DEXA, preoperative mean segmental CT HU, and postoperative subsidence and reoperation, were collected. Three-foot standing radiographs were used to measure preoperative global sagittal alignment and disc height, and subsidence at last follow-up. Subsidence was classified using the Marchi grading system corresponding to disc height loss: Grade 0: 0-24%; I: 25-49%; II: 50-74%; III: 75-100%.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine LLIF patients met study criteria, with mean follow-up 19.9 ± 13.9 months. Among the 54 patients who underwent single-level LLIF, mean segmental HU was 152.0 ± 8.7 in 39 patients with Grade 0 subsidence, 136.7 ± 10.4 in nine with Grade I subsidence, 133.9 ± 23.1 in three with Grade II subsidence, and 119.9 ± 30.9 in three with Grade III subsidence (p=0.032). In the 96 instrumented levels in 35 patients who underwent multi-level LLIF, 85 had Grade 0 subsidence, 9 Grade I, 1 Grade II, and 1 Grade III, with no differences in HU. In multivariate logistic regression, increased CT HU was independently associated with a decreased risk of reoperation in both single-level and multi-level LLIF (OR:0.98, 95%CI:0.97-0.99, p=0.044; and OR:0.97, 95%CI: 0.94-0.99, p=0.017, respectively). Overall BMD on DEXA was not associated with graft subsidence nor reoperation. Using a receiver-operating-characteristic curve to establish separation between patients requiring reoperation and those that did not, the determined threshold HU for single-level LLIF was 131.4 (sensitivity 0.62, specificity 0.65), and for multi-level was 131.0 (sensitivity 0.67, specificity 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower CT HU are independently associated with an increased risk of graft subsidence following single-level LLIF. In addition, lower CT HU significantly increased the risk of reoperation in both single and multi-level LLIF with a critical threshold of 131 HU. Preoperative CT HU may provide a more robust gauge of local bone quality and the likelihood of graft subsidence requiring reoperation following LLIF, than overall BMD.

Does cage position affect the risk of cage subsidence after oblique lumbar interbody fusion in the osteoporotic lumbar spine: a finite element analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical effects of different cage positions with stand-alone (SA) methods and bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) in the osteoporotic lumbar spine after OLIF.

METHODS

A finite element (FE) model of an intact L3-L5 lumbar spine was constructed. After validation, an osteoporosis model (OP) was constructed by assigning osteoporotic material properties. SA models (SA1, SA2, SA3) and BPSF models (BPSF1, BPSF2, BPSF3) in which a cage was placed in the anterior, middle and posterior third of the L5 superior endplate (SEP) were constructed at the L4-L5 segment of the OP. The L4-L5 range of motion (ROM), the stress of the L5 SEP, the stress of the cage and the stress of fixation were compared among the different models.

RESULTS

According to the degree of ROM of L4-L5, the stress of the L5 SEP and the stress of the cage for most physiological motions, the SA and BPSF models were ranked as follows: SA2＜SA1＜SA3, BPSF2＜BPSF1＜BPSF3. In BPSF2, the stress of fixation was minimal in most motions. At the same cage position, the ROM of L4-L5, the stress of the L5 SEP and the stress of the cage in the BPSF models were significantly reduced compared with those in SA models; compared with SA2, BPSF2 had a maximum reduction of 83.24%, 70.71% and 73.52% in these parameters, respectively.results CONCLUSIONS: Placing the cage in the middle third of the L5 SEP for OLIF could reduce the maximum stresses of the L5 SEP, the cage and the fixation, which may reduce the risk of postoperative cage subsidence, endplate collapse and fixation fracture in the osteoporotic lumbar spine. Compared with SA OLIF, BPSF could provide sufficient stability for the surgical segment and may reduce the incidence of the aforementioned complications.

Biomechanical analysis of stand-alone lumbar interbody cages versus 360° constructs: an in vitro and finite element investigation

OBJECTIVE

Low fusion rates and cage subsidence are limitations of lumbar fixation with stand-alone interbody cages. Various approaches to interbody cage placement exist, yet the need for supplemental posterior fixation is not clear from clinical studies. Therefore, as prospective clinical studies are lacking, a comparison of segmental kinematics, cage properties, and load sharing on vertebral endplates is needed. This laboratory investigation evaluates the mechanical stability and biomechanical properties of various interbody fixation techniques by performing cadaveric and finite element (FE) modeling studies.

METHODS

An in vitro experiment using 7 fresh-frozen human cadavers was designed to test intact spines with 1) stand-alone lateral interbody cage constructs (lateral interbody fusion, LIF) and 2) LIF supplemented with posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation (360° constructs). FE and kinematic data were used to validate a ligamentous FE model of the lumbopelvic spine. The validated model was then used to evaluate the stability of stand-alone LIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages with and without supplemental posterior fixation at the L4-5 level. The FE models of intact and instrumented cases were subjected to a 400-N compressive preload followed by an 8-Nm bending moment to simulate physiological flexion, extension, bending, and axial rotation. Segmental kinematics and load sharing at the inferior endplate were compared.

RESULTS

The FE kinematic predictions were consistent with cadaveric data. The range of motion (ROM) in LIF was significantly lower than intact spines for both stand-alone and 360° constructs. The calculated reduction in motion with respect to intact spines for stand-alone constructs ranged from 43% to 66% for TLIF, 67%-82% for LIF, and 69%-86% for ALIF in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In flexion and extension, the maximum reduction in motion was 70% for ALIF versus 81% in LIF for stand-alone cases. When supplemented with posterior fixation, the corresponding reduction in ROM was 76%-87% for TLIF, 86%-91% for LIF, and 90%-92% for ALIF. The addition of posterior instrumentation resulted in a significant reduction in peak stress at the superior endplate of the inferior segment in all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone ALIF and LIF cages are most effective in providing stability in lateral bending and axial rotation and less so in flexion and extension. Supplemental posterior instrumentation improves stability for all interbody techniques. Comparative clinical data are needed to further define the indications for stand-alone cages in lumbar fusion surgery.

Development and Initial Internal Validation of a Novel Classification System for Perioperative Expectations Following Minimally Invasive Degenerative Lumbar Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective consecutive clinical cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of our study was to develop and provide an initial internal validation of a novel classification system that can help surgeons and patients better understand their postoperative course following the particular minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and approach that is utilized.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgeons and patients are often attracted to the option of minimally invasive spine surgery because of the perceived improvement in recovery time and postsurgical pain. A classification system based on the impact of the surgery and surgical approach(es) on postoperative recovery can be particularly helpful.

METHODS

Six hundred thirty-one patients who underwent MIS lumbar/thoracolumbar surgery for degenerative conditions of the spine were included. Perioperative outcomes-operative time, estimated blood loss, postsurgical length of stay (LOS), 90-day complications, postoperative day zero narcotic requirement [in Morphine Milligram Equivalent (MME)], and need for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA).

RESULTS

Postoperative LOS and postoperative narcotic use were deemed most clinically relevant, thus selected as primary outcomes. Type of surgery was significantly associated with all outcomes (P<0.0001), except intraoperative complications. Number of levels for fusion was significantly associated with operative time, in-hospital complications, 24 hours oral MME, and the need for IV PCA and LOS (P<0.0001). Number of surgical approaches for lumbar fusion was significantly associated with operative time, 24 hours oral MME, need for IV PCA and LOS (P<0.001). Based on these parameters, the following classification system ("Qureshi-Louie classification" for MIS degenerative lumbar surgery) was devised: (1) Decompression-only; (2) Fusion-1 and 2 levels, 1 approach; (3) Fusion-1 level, 2 approaches; (4) Fusion-2 levels, 2 approaches; (5) Fusion-3+ levels, 2 approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

We present a novel classification system and initial internal validation to describe the perioperative expectations following various MIS surgeries in the degenerative lumbar spine. This initial description serves as the basis for ongoing external validation.

Osteobiologics

BACKGROUND

Osteobiologics are engineered materials that facilitate bone healing and have been increasingly used in spine surgery. Autologous iliac crest bone grafts have been used historically, but morbidity associated with graft harvesting has led surgeons to seek alternative solutions. Allograft bone, biomaterial scaffolds, growth factors, and stem cells have been explored as bone graft substitutes and supplements.

OBJECTIVE

To review current and emerging osteobiologic technologies.

METHODS

A literature review of English-language studies was performed in PubMed. Search terms included combinations of "spine," "fusion," "osteobiologics," "autologous," "allogen(e)ic," "graft," "scaffold," "bone morphogenic protein," and "stem cells."

RESULTS

Evidence supports allograft bone as an autologous bone supplement or replacement in scenarios where minimal autologous bone is available. There are promising data on ceramics and P-15; however, comparative human trials remain scarce. Growth factors, including recombinant human bone morphogenic proteins (rhBMPs) 2 and 7, have been explored in humans after successful animal trials. Evidence continues to support the use of rhBMP-2 in lumbar fusion in patient populations with poor bone quality or revision surgery, while there is limited evidence for rhBMP-7. Stem cells have been incredibly promising in promoting fusion in animal models, but human trials to this point have only involved products with questionable stem cell content, thereby limiting possible conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Engineered stem cells that overexpress osteoinductive factors are likely the future of spine fusion, but issues with applying viral vector-transduced stem cells in humans have limited progress.

Saphenous Nerve Somatosensory-Evoked Potentials Monitoring During Lateral Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN.

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To clinically evaluate saphenous nerve somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) as a reliable and predictable way to detect upper lumbar plexus injury intraoperatively during lateral lumbar trans-psoas interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

Saphenous nerve SSEPs were obtained by stimulation of inferior medial thigh with needle electrodes and recording from transcranial potentials. The primary outcome was measured by testing reproducibility of SSEPs at baseline, changes during the procedure, and relevance to standard modalities. Significant SSEP changes were compared with actual postoperative nerve complications. The sensitivity and specificity of saphenous SSEPs to detect postoperative lumbar plexus nerve injury was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients were included in the study. Reliable saphenous SSEPs were recorded on the LLIF approach side in 52/62 patients. Persistent saphenous SSEP reduction of amplitude of >50% in 6 cases was observed during expansion of the tubular retractor or during the procedure. Two of 6 patients postoperatively had femoral nerve sensory deficits, and 5 of 6 patients had mild femoral nerve motor weakness, all of which resolved at an average of 12 weeks postoperatively (range 2-24 weeks). One patient had saphenous SSEP changes but demonstrated intraoperative recovery and had no postoperative clinical deficits. Saphenous SSEPs demonstrated 52% to 100% sensitivity and 90% to 100% specificity for detecting postoperative femoral nerve complications.

CONCLUSION

Saphenous SSEPs can be used to detect electrophysiological changes to prevent femoral nerve injury during LLIF. Intraoperative SSEP recovery after amplitude reduction or loss may be a prognostic factor for final clinical outcome.

Indirect decompression via oblique lateral interbody fusion for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study with direct decompression transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Previous studies have shown that oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) can improve neurological symptoms via "indirect decompression." However, data are lacking in terms of its benefits when compared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and/or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approach, especially in patients with severe central canal stenosis.

PURPOSE

To investigate the clinical outcome of OLIF without posterior decompression versus conventional TLIF and/or PLIF in severe lumbar stenosis diagnosed on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Fifty-one patients who underwent OLIF and 41 patients who underwent conventional TLIF and/or PLIF.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical outcome score by Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and radiographic outcomes (disc height and fusion rate on computed tomography scan).

MATERIALS/METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 51 patients who underwent OLIF with supplemental percutaneous pedicle screws (55 levels; OLIF group) and 41 patients who underwent conventional TLIF and/or PLIF (47 levels; TPLIF group). The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac was measured preoperatively in OLIF and TPLIF groups, but postoperatively only in the OLIF group. All patients were diagnosed with severe stenosis based on Schizas classification (Grade C or D) on magnetic resonance imaging. We compared radiographic and clinical outcome scores (JOA score) between the 2 groups at 1 year of follow-up. The radiographic evaluation included the fusion status and disc height on computed tomography scan. Surgical data and perioperative complications were also investigated.

RESULTS

The baseline demographic data of the 2 groups were equivalent in preoperative diagnosis, JOA score, and disc height and/or angle. The cross-sectional area significantly increased postoperatively, which confirmed indirect decompressive effect in the OLIF group. The JOA score improved in both groups at the 1-year follow up (76.6% vs. 73.5% improvement rate in the OLIF and TPLIF groups, respectively). The fusion rate at the 1-year follow-up was higher in the OLIF group than in the TPLIF group (87.2% vs. 57.4%). The disc height restoration was also better in the OLIF group. The operative data demonstrated less estimated blood loss and operative time in the OLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF and conventional TLIF and/or PLIF demonstrated comparable short-term clinical outcomes in the treatment of severe degenerative lumbar stenosis. However, the surgical and radiographic outcomes were better in the OLIF group. Surgeons should choose an appropriate approach on a case by case basis, recognizing the perioperative complications specific to each fusion procedure.

An In Vitro Biomechanical Evaluation of a Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Device With Integrated Lateral Modular Plate Fixation

STUDY DESIGN

In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVE

Biomechanically characterize a novel lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) implant possessing integrated lateral modular plate fixation (MPF).

METHODS

A human lumbar cadaveric (n = 7, L1-L4) biomechanical study of segmental range-of-motion stiffness was performed. A ±7.5 Nċm moment was applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation using a 6 degree-of-freedom kinematics system. Specimens were tested first in an intact state and then following iterative instrumentation (L2/3): (1) LLIF cage only, (2) LLIF + 2-screw MPF, (3) LLIF + 4-screw MPF, (4) LLIF + 4-screw MPF + interspinous process fixation, and (5) LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation. Comparative analysis of range-of-motion outcomes was performed between iterations.

RESULTS

Key biomechanical findings: (1) Flexion/extension range-of-motion reduction with LLIF + 4-screw MPF was significantly greater than LLIF + 2-screw MPF (P < .01). (2) LLIF with 2-screw and 4-screw MPF were comparable to LLIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lateral bending and axial rotation range-of-motion reduction (P = 1.0). (3) LLIF + 4-screw MPF and supplemental interspinous process fixation range-of-motion reduction was comparable to LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation in all directions (P ≥ .6).

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF with 4-screw MPF may provide inherent advantages over traditional 2-screw plating modalities. Furthermore, when coupled with interspinous process fixation, LLIF with MPF is a stable circumferential construct that provides biomechanical utility in all principal motions.

Lumbar Intervertebral Spacer With Cement Augmentation of Endplates and Integrated Screws as a Fixation Device in an Osteoporotic Model: An In Vitro Kinematic and Load-to-Failure Study

BACKGROUND

Integrated lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) devices have been shown to successfully stabilize the spine and avoid complications related to posterior fixation. However, LLIF has increased subsidence risk in osteoporotic patients. Cement augmentation through cannulated pedicle screws enhances pedicle fixation and cage-endplate interface yet involves a posterior approach. Lateral application of cement with integrated LLIF fixation has been introduced and requires characterization. The present study set out to evaluate kinematic and load-to-failure properties of a novel cement augmentation technique with an integrated LLIF device, alone and with unilateral pedicle fixation, compared with bilateral pedicle screws and nonintegrated LLIF (BPS + S).

METHODS

Twelve specimens (L3-S1) underwent discectomy at L4-L5. Specimens were separated into 3 groups: (1) BPS + S; (2) polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) augmentation, integrated LLIF, and unilateral pedicle screws (PMMA + UPS + iS); and (3) PMMA and integrated LLIF (PMMA + iSA) without posterior fixation. Flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were applied. A compressive load was applied to L4-L5 segments until failure. An analysis was performed (P < .05).

RESULTS

Operative constructs significantly reduced motion relative to intact specimens in all motion planes (P < .05). BPS + S provided the most stability, reducing motion by 71.6%-86.4%, followed by PMMA + UPS + iS (68.1%-79.4%) and PMMA + iSA (62.9%-81.9%); no significant differences were found (P > .05). PMMA + UPS + iS provided the greatest resistance to failure (2290 N), followed by PMMA + iSA (1970 N) and BPS + S (1390 N); no significant differences were observed (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Cement augmentation of vertebral endplates via the lateral approach with integrated LLIF moderately improved cage-endplate strength compared to BPS + S in an osteoporotic model; unilateral pedicle fixation further improved failure load. Reconstruction before and after application of unilateral pedicle screws and rods was biomechanically equivalent to anteroposterior reconstruction. Overall, initial results suggest that integrated LLIF with cement augmentation may be a viable alternative in the presence of osteoporosis.

Three- and 4-Level Lumbar Arthrodesis Using Adjunctive Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation: A Multicenter Retrospective Evaluation of Fusion Rates and a Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

The incidence of 3- and 4-level lumbar arthrodesis is rising due to an aging population, and fusion rates affect clinical success in this population. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) stimulation is used as an adjunct to increase fusion rates following multilevel arthrodesis. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the fusion rates for subjects who underwent 3- and 4-level lumbar interbody arthrodesis following PEMF treatment.

METHODS

In this retrospective, multicenter study, patient charts that listed 3- or 4-level lumbar arthrodesis with adjunctive use of a PEMF device were evaluated. Inclusion criteria included patients who were diagnosed with lumbar degenerative disease, spinal stenosis, and/or spondylolisthesis (grade 1 or 2). A radiographic evaluation of fusion status was performed at 12 months by the treating physicians. Fusion rates were stratified by graft material, surgical interbody approach, and certain clinical risk factors for pseudoarthrosis.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were identified who had a 12-month follow-up. The radiographic fusion rate was 92.7% (51 patients) at 12 months. There were no significant differences in fusion rates for patients treated with allograft or autograft, for patients with different interbody approaches, or for those with or without certain clinical risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

With modern fusion techniques and PEMF, the overall fusion rate was high following 3- and 4-level lumbar arthrodesis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

PEMF may be a useful adjunct for treatment of patients with surgical risk factors, such as multilevel arthrodesis, and clinical risk factors.

Posterior fixation can further improve the segmental alignment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with oblique lumbar interbody fusion

Background

For patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, whether additional posterior fixation can further improve segmental alignment is unknown, compared with stand-alone cage insertion in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) procedure. The aim of this study was to compare changes of the radiographical segmental alignment following stand-alone cage insertion and additional posterior fixation in the same procedure setting of OLIF for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Methods

A retrospective observational study. Selected consecutive patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis underwent OLIF procedure from July 2017 to August 2019. Five radiographic parameters of disc height (DH), DH-Anterior, DH-Posterior, slip ratio and segmental lordosis (SL) were measured on preoperative CT scans and intraoperative fluoroscopic images. Comparisons of those radiographic parameters prior to cage insertion, following cage insertion and following posterior fixation were performed.

Results

A total of thirty-three patients including six males and twenty-seven females, with an average age of 66.9 ± 8.7 years, were reviewed. Totally thirty-six slipped levels were assessed with thirty levels at L4/5, four at L3/4 and two at L2/3. Intraoperatively, with only anterior cage support, DH was increased from 8.2 ± 1.6 mm to 11.8 ± 1.7 mm (p < 0.001), DH-Anterior was increased from 9.6 ± 2.3 mm to 13.4 ± 2.1 mm (p < 0.001), DH-Posterior was increased from 6.1 ± 1.9 mm to 9.1 ± 2.1 mm (p < 0.001), the slip ratio was reduced from 11.1 ± 4.6% to 8.3 ± 4.4% (p = 0.020) with the slip reduction ratio 25.6 ± 32.3%, and SL was slightly changed from 8.7 ± 3.7° to 8.3 ± 3.0°(p = 1.000). Following posterior fixation, the DH was unchanged (from 11.8 ± 1.7 mm to 11.8 ± 2.3 mm, p = 1.000), DH-Anterior and DH-Posterior were slightly changed from 13.4 ± 2.1 mm and 9.1 ± 2.1 mm to 13.7 ± 2.3 mm and 8.4 ± 1.8 mm respectively (P = 0.861, P = 0.254), the slip ratio was reduced from 8.3 ± 4.4% to 2.1 ± 3.6% (p < 0.001) with the slip reduction ratio 57.9 ± 43.9%, and the SL was increased from 8.3 ± 3.0° to 10.7 ± 3.6° (p = 0.008).

Conclusions

Compared with stand-alone cage insertion, additional posterior fixation provides better segmental alignment improvement in terms of slip reduction and segmental lordosis in OLIF procedures in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Fusion rate for stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is used to treat multiple conditions, including spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disorders, adjacent segment disease, and degenerative scoliosis. Although many advocate for posterior fixation with LLIF, stand-alone LLIF is increasingly being performed. Yet the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF is unknown.

PURPOSE

Determine the fusion rate for stand-alone LLIF.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We queried Cochrane, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for literature on stand-alone LLIF fusion rate with a publication cutoff of April 2020. LLIF surgery was considered stand-alone when not paired with supplemental posterior fixation. Cohort fusion rate differences were calculated and tested for significance (p<0.05). All reported means were pooled.

RESULTS

A total of 2,735 publications were assessed. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria, including 736 patients and 1,103 vertebral levels. Mean age was 61.7 years with BMI 26.5 kg/m². Mean fusion rate was 85.6% (range, 53.0%-100.0%), which did not differ significantly by number of levels fused (1-level, 2-level, and ≥3-level). Use of rhBMP-2 was reported in 39.3% of subjects, with no difference in fusion rates between studies using rhBMP-2 (87.7%) and those in which rhBMP-2 was not used (83.9%, odds ratio=1.37, p=0.448). Fusion rate did not differ with the addition of a lateral plate, or by underlying diagnosis. All-complication rate was 42.2% and mean reoperation rate was 11.1%, with 2.3% reoperation due to pseudarthrosis. Of the studies comparing stand-alone to circumferential fusion, pooled fusion rate was found to be 80.4% versus 91.0% (p=0.637).

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone LLIF yields high fusion rates overall. The wide range of reported fusion rates and lower fusion rates in studies involving subsequent surgical reoperation highlights the importance of proper training in this technique and employing a rigorous algorithm when indicating patients for stand-alone LLIF. Future research should focus on examining risk factors and patient-reported outcomes in stand-alone LLIF.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Review of Surgical Technique and Postoperative Multimodality Imaging Findings

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) approach is a minimally invasive surgery that can be used as an alternative to traditional lumbar interbody fusion techniques. LLIF accesses the intervertebral disk through the retroperitoneum and psoas muscle to avoid major vessels and visceral organs. The exposure of retroperitoneal structures during LLIF leads to unique complications compared with other surgical approaches. An understanding of the surgical technique and its associated potential complications is necessary for radiologists who interpret imaging before and after LLIF. Preoperative imaging must carefully assess the location of anatomic structures, including major retroperitoneal vasculature, lumbar nerve roots, lumbosacral plexus, and the genitofemoral nerve, relative to the psoas muscle. Multiple imaging modalities can be used in postoperative assessment including radiographs, CT, CT myelography, and MRI. Of these, CT is the preferred modality, because it can assess a range of complications relating to both the retroperitoneal exposure and the spinal instrumentation, as well as bone integrity and fusion status. This article describes surgical approaches for lumbar interbody fusion, comparing the approaches' indications, contraindications, advantages, and disadvantages; reviews the surgical technique of LLIF and relevant anatomic considerations; and illustrates for interpreting radiologists the normal postoperative findings and potential postsurgical complications of LLIF.

Biomechanical Analysis of an Interspinous Process Fixation Device with In Situ Shortening Capabilities: Does Spinous Process Compression Improve Segmental Stability?

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize the biomechanical implications of spinous process compression, via in situ shortening of a next-generation interspinous process fixation (ISPF) device, in the context of segmental fusion.

METHODS

Seven lumbar cadaveric spines (L1-L4) were tested. Specimens were first tested in an intact state, followed by iterative instrumentation at L2-3 and subsequent testing. The order followed was 1) stand-alone ISPF (neutral height); 2) stand-alone ISPF (shortened in situ from neutral height; shortened); 3) lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) + ISPF (neutral); 4) LLIF + ISPF (shortened); 5) LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation; 6) LLIF + bilateral pedicle screw fixation. A 7.5-Nm moment was applied in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation via a kinematic test frame. Segmental range of motion (ROM) and lordosis were measured for all constructs. Comparative analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Statistically significant flexion/extension ROM reductions: all constructs versus intact condition (P < 0.01); LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + USPF versus ISPF (neutral) (P = 0.049); bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) versus stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus LLIF + unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) (P < 0.01). Significant lateral bending ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (neutral and shortened) versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P < 0.01); LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral and shortened) (P < 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P < 0.01). Significant axial rotation ROM reductions: LLIF + ISPF (shortened) and LLIF + UPSF versus intact condition and stand-alone ISPF (neutral) (P ≤ 0.01); LLIF + BPSF versus intact condition and all constructs (P ≤ 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In situ shortening of an adjustable ISPF device may support increased segmental stabilization compared with static ISPF.

The association between lower Hounsfield units on computed tomography and cage subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

One vexing problem after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery is cage subsidence. Low bone mineral density (BMD) may contribute to subsidence, and BMD is correlated with Hounsfield units (HUs) on CT. The authors investigated if lower HU values correlated with subsidence after LLIF.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients undergoing single-level LLIF with pedicle screw fixation for degenerative conditions at the University of California, San Francisco, by 6 spine surgeons was performed. Data on demographics, cage parameters, preoperative HUs on CT, and postoperative subsidence were collected. Thirty-six–inch standing radiographs were used to measure segmental lordosis, disc space height, and subsidence; data were collected immediately postoperatively and at 1 year. Subsidence was graded using a published grade of disc height loss: grade 0, 0%–24%; grade I, 25%–49%; grade II, 50%–74%; and grade III, 75%–100%. HU values were measured on preoperative CT from L1 to L5, and each lumbar vertebral body HU was measured 4 separate times.

RESULTS

After identifying 138 patients who underwent LLIF, 68 met the study inclusion criteria. All patients had single-level LLIF with pedicle screw fixation. The mean follow-up duration was 25.3 ± 10.4 months. There were 40 patients who had grade 0 subsidence, 15 grade I, 9 grade II, and 4 grade III. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, or smoking. There were no significant differences in cage sizes, cage lordosis, and preoperative disc height. The mean segmental HU (the average HU value of the two vertebrae above and below the LLIF) was 169.5 ± 45 for grade 0, 130.3 ± 56.2 for grade I, 100.7 ± 30.2 for grade II, and 119.9 ± 52.9 for grade III (p < 0.001). After using a receiver operating characteristic curve to establish separation criteria between mild and severe subsidence, the most appropriate threshold of HU value was 135.02 between mild and severe subsidence (sensitivity 60%, specificity 92.3%). After univariate and multivariate analysis, preoperative segmental HU value was an independent risk factor for severe cage subsidence (p = 0.017, OR 15.694, 95% CI 1.621–151.961).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower HU values on preoperative CT are associated with cage subsidence after LLIF. Measurement of preoperative HU values on CT may be useful when planning LLIF surgery.

Indirect decompression with lateral interbody fusion for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: minimum 1-year MRI follow-up

OBJECTIVE

The use of indirect decompression surgery for severe canal stenosis remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of lateral interbody fusion (LIF) without posterior decompression in degenerative lumbar spinal spondylosis with severe stenosis on preoperative MRI.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series from a single academic institution. The authors included 42 patients (45 surgical levels) who were preoperatively diagnosed with severe degenerative lumbar stenosis on MRI based on the previously published Schizas classification. These patients underwent LIF with supplemental pedicle screw fixation without posterior decompression. Surgical levels were limited to L3-4 and/or L4-5. All patients satisfied the minimum 1-year MRI follow-up. The authors compared the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the thecal sac and the clinical outcome scores (Japanese Orthopaedic Association [JOA] score) preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at the 1-year follow-up. Fusion status and disc height were evaluated based on CT scans obtained at the 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The CSA improved over time, increasing from 54.5 ± 19.2 mm2 preoperatively to 84.7 ± 31.8 mm2 at 3 weeks postoperatively and to 132.6 ± 37.5 mm2 at the last follow-up (average 28.3 months) (p < 0.001). The JOA score significantly improved over time (preoperatively 16.1 ± 4.1, 3 months postoperatively 24.4 ± 4.0, and 1-year follow-up 25.7 ± 2.9; p < 0.001). The fusion rate at the 1-year follow-up was 88.8%, and disc heights were significantly restored (preoperative, 6.3 mm and postoperative, 9.6 mm; p < 0.001). Patients showing poor CSA expansion (< 200% expansion rate) at the last follow-up had a higher prevalence of pseudarthrosis than patients with significant CSA expansion (> 200% expansion rate) (25.0% vs 3.4%, p < 0.001). No major perioperative complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

LIF with indirect decompression for degenerative lumbar disease with severe canal stenosis provided successful clinical outcomes, including restoration of disc height and indirect expansion of the thecal sac. Severe canal stenosis diagnosed on preoperative MRI itself is not a contraindication for indirect decompression surgery.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: What Is the Evidence of Indirect Neural Decompression? A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

In the past decade, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has gained in popularity. A proposed advantage is the achievement of indirect neural decompression. However, evidence of the effectiveness of LLIF in neural decompression in lumbar degenerative conditions remains unclear.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We sought to extrapolate clinical and radiological results and consequently the potential benefits and limitations of LLIF in indirect neural decompression in degenerative lumbar diseases.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature in English using the 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist. Scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain were extracted, as were data on the following radiological measurements: disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal area (FA), central canal area (CA).

RESULTS

In the 42 articles included, data on 2445 patients (3779 levels treated) with a mean follow-up of 14.8 ± 5.9 months were analyzed. Mean improvements in VAS back, VAS leg, and ODI scale scores were 4.1 ± 2.5, 3.9 ± 2.2, and 21.9 ± 7.2, respectively. Post-operative DH, FH, FA, and CA measurements increased by 68.6%, 21.9%, 37.7%, and 29.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Clinical results indicate LLIF as an efficient technique in indirect neural decompression. Analysis of radiological data demonstrates the effectiveness of symmetrical foraminal decompression. Data regarding indirect decompression of central canal and lateral recess are inconclusive and contradictory. Bony stenosis appears as an absolute contraindication. The role of facet joint degeneration is unclear. This systematic review provides a reference for surgeons to define the potential and limitations of LLIF in indirect neural elements decompression.

Biomechanical evaluation of strategies for adjacent segment disease after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is the extension of pedicle screws necessary?

Background

Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a well-known complication after interbody fusion. Pedicle screw-rod revision possesses sufficient strength and rigidity. However, is a surgical segment with rigid fixation necessary for ASD reoperation? This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effect of different instrumentation on lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for ASD treatment.

Methods

A validated L2~5 finite element (FE) model was modified for simulation. ASD was considered the level cranial to the upper-instrumented segment (L3/4). Bone graft fusion in LLIF with bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation occurred at L4/5. The ASD segment for each group underwent a) LLIF + posterior extension of BPS, b) PLIF + posterior extension of BPS, c) LLIF + lateral screw, and d) stand-alone LLIF. The L3/4 range of motion (ROM), interbody cage stress and strain, screw-bone interface stress, cage-endplate interface stress, and L2/3 nucleus pulposus of intradiscal pressure (NP-IDP) analysis were calculated for comparisons among the four models.

Results

All reconstructive models displayed decreased motion at L3/4. Under each loading condition, the difference was not significant between models a and b, which provided the maximum ROM reduction (73.8 to 97.7% and 68.3 to 98.4%, respectively). Model c also provided a significant ROM reduction (64.9 to 77.5%). Model d provided a minimal restriction of the ROM (18.3 to 90.1%), which exceeded that of model a by 13.1 times for flexion-extension, 10.3 times for lateral bending and 4.8 times for rotation. Model b generated greater cage stress than other models, particularly for flexion. The maximum displacement of the cage and the peak stress of the cage-endplate interface were found to be the highest in model d under all loading conditions. For the screw-bone interface, the stress was much greater with lateral instrumentation than with posterior instrumentation.

Conclusions

Stand-alone LLIF is likely to have limited stability, particularly for lateral bending and axial rotation. Posterior extension of BPS can provide reliable stability and excellent protective effects on instrumentation and endplates. However, LLIF with the use of an in situ screw may be an alternative for ASD reoperation.

Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis

Background

In the current surgical therapeutic regimen for the degenerative lumbar disease, both oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are gradually accepted. Thus, the objective of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease.

Methods

We conducted an exhaustive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to find the relevant studies about OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease. Random-effects model was performed to pool the outcomes about disc height (DH), fusion, operative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stays, complications, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI).

Results

56 studies were included in this study. The two groups of patients had similar changes in terms of DH, operative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay and the fusion rate (over 90%). The OLIF group showed slightly better VAS and ODI scores improvement. The incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF was 26.7 and 27.8% respectively. Higher rates of nerve injury and psoas weakness (21.2%) were reported for LLIF, while higher rates of cage subsidence (5.1%), endplate damage (5.2%) and vascular injury (1.7%) were reported for OLIF.

Conclusions

The two groups are similar in terms of radiographic outcomes, operative blood loss, operative time and the length of hospital stay. The OLIF group shows advantages in VAS and ODI scores improvement. Though the incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF is similar, the incidence of main complications is significantly different.

Comparison of intervertebral fusion rates of different bone graft materials in extreme lateral interbody fusion

To compare imaging indicators and clinical effects of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) using allogenic bone, autologous bone marrow + allogenic bone, and rhBMP-2 + allogenic bone as bone graft materials in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases.This was a retrospective study of 93 patients with lumbar interbody fusion who underwent the extreme lateral approach from May 2016 to December 2017. According to the different bone graft materials, patients were divided into allogenic bone groups (group A, 31 cases), rhBMP-2 + allogenic bone (group B, 32 cases), and autologous bone marrow + allogenic bone (group C, 30 cases). There were no significant differences in gender, age, lesion segment, preoperative intervertebral space height, and preoperative Oswestry Dysfunction Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores among the 3 groups (P > .05). Intervertebral space height, bone graft fusion rate, and ODI and VAS scores were compared immediately after surgery, and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery.All groups were followed up for 12 months. The intervertebral space height was significantly higher in the 3 groups immediately after surgery and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, in comparison to before surgery (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral space height among the 3 groups immediately after surgery and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery (P > .05). The fusion rate of group B and C was higher than that of groups A at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery (P < .05). In the 3 groups, the VAS and ODI scores at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery were significantly improved compared with the preoperative scores (P < .05). The VAS and ODI scores in groups B and C were significantly higher than those in group A (P < .05), but there was no significant difference between groups B and C (P > .05).The rhBMP-2 + allograft bone combination had good clinical effects and high fusion rate in XLIF.

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Multilevel Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospective data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe the clinical, radiographic, and complication-related outcomes through ≥1-year of 27 patients who underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior instrumentation to treat ≥3 contiguous levels of degenerative lumbar scoliosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Multilevel disease has traditionally been treated with open posterior fusion. Literature on multilevel LLIF is limited. We present our experience with utilizing LLIF to treat multilevel degenerative scoliosis.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes were evaluated using VAS, SF-12, and ODI. Radiographic outcomes included pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch, Cobb angle, and cage subsidence. Perioperative and long-term complications through the ≥1-year final-postoperative visit were reviewed; transient neurological disturbances were assessed independently. Demographic, comorbidity, operative, and recovery variables, including opioid use, were explored for association with primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Mean time to final-postoperative visit was 22.5 months; levels treated with LLIF per patient, 3.7; age, 66 years; and lateral operative time, 203 minutes. EBL was ≤100 mL in 74% of cases. Clinical outcomes remained significantly improved at ≥1-year. Cobb angle was corrected from 21.1 to 7.9 degrees (P<0.001), lordosis from 47.3 to 52.6 degrees (P<0.001), and mismatch from 11.4 to 6.4 degrees (P=0.003). High-grade subsidence occurred in 3 patients. Subsidence did not significantly impact primary outcomes. In total, 11.1% returned to the operating room for complication-related intervention over nearly 2-years; 37% experienced complications. Experiencing a complication was associated with having an open-posterior portion (P=0.048), but not with number of LLIF levels treated, or with clinical or radiographic outcomes. No patients experienced protracted neurological deficits; psoas weakness was associated with increased lateral operative time (P=0.049) and decreased surgeon experience (P=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent multilevel LLIF with adjunctive posterior surgery had significant clinical and radiographic improvements. Complication rates were similar compared to literature on single-level LLIF. LLIF is a viable treatment for multilevel degenerative scoliosis.

Comparison of Lumbar Laminectomy Alone, Lumbar Laminectomy and Fusion, Stand-alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Stand-alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review of the Literature

Lumbar spinal stenosis is defined as narrowing of the lumbar spinal canal, which causes compression of the spinal cord and nerves. Spinal stenosis can cause leg pain and potentially back pain that can affect the quality of life. Ultimately, surgical decompression is required to alleviate the symptoms. In this review, we first utilize several important studies to compare lumbar laminectomy alone versus lumbar laminectomy and fusion. We also compare the effectiveness of more novel surgical approaches, stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). These techniques have their own advantages and disadvantages in which many factors must be taken into account before choosing a surgical approach. In addition, the patient’s anatomy and pathology, lifestyle, and desires should be analyzed to help determine the ideal surgical strategy

An evaluation of biomaterials and osteobiologics for arthrodesis achievement in spine surgery

An increasing variety of orthobiologic materials, including autologous and allogeneic bone graft, bone marrow aspirate, demineralized bone matrix, ceramics, and growth factors are available to the spine surgeon. Although autologous bone graft remains the gold standard material, concerns for failure in achieving fusion have prompted evaluation of current and new biologic materials. As such, this review attempts to summarize the available biologic materials with their pertinent characteristics, advantages, disadvantages, and primary uses.

Orthobiologics in minimally invasive lumbar fusion

Minimally invasive (MI) spine surgery continues to gain popularity with patients and surgeons for its potential to decrease operative time and avoid complications commonly associated with open surgery. In the face of a changing surgical landscape, selecting the appropriate implant material to be used in MI lumbar fusion procedures will remain critically important. Various orthobiologic materials are available for use, including autologous and allogeneic bone graft, bone marrow aspirate (BMA), demineralized bone matrix (DBM), ceramics, and growth factors. The purpose of this review is to summarize the use and efficacy of currently available products, as well as highlight the development of novel therapeutic options.

Is there any advantage of using stand-alone cages? A numerical approach

Background

Segment fusion using interbody cages supplemented with pedicle screw fixation is the most common surgery for the treatment of low back pain. However, there is still much controversy regarding the use of cages in a stand-alone fashion. The goal of this work is to numerically compare the influence that each surgery has on lumbar biomechanics.

Methods

A non-linear FE model of the whole lumbar spine was developed to compare between two types of cages (OLYS and NEOLIF) with and without supplementary fixation. The motion of the whole spine was analysed and the biomechanical environment of the adjacent segments to the operated one was studied. Moreover, the risk of subsidence of the cages was qualitatively evaluated.

Results

A great ROM reduction occurred when supplementary fixation was used. This stiffening increased the stresses at the adjacent levels. It might be hypothesised that the overloading of these segments could be related with the clinically observed adjacent disc degeneration. Meanwhile, the stand-alone cages allowed for a wider movement, and therefore, the influence of the surgery on adjacent discs was much lower. Regarding the risk of subsidence, the contact pressure magnitude was similar for both intervertebral cage designs and near the value of the maximum tolerable pressure of the endplates.

Conclusions

A minimally invasive posterior insertion of an intervertebral cage (OLYS or NEOLIF) was compared using a stand-alone design or adding supplementary fixation. The outcomes of these two techniques were compared, and although stand-alone cage may diminish the risk of disease progression to the adjacent discs, the spinal movement in this case could compromise the vertebral fusion and might present a higher risk of cage subsidence.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12938-019-0684-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Complications for minimally invasive lateral interbody arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing prepsoas and transpsoas approaches

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive anterolateral retroperitoneal approaches for lumbar interbody arthrodesis have distinct advantages attractive to spine surgeons. Prepsoas or transpsoas trajectories can be employed with differing complication profiles because of the inherent anatomical differences encountered in each approach. The evidence comparing them remains limited because of poor quality data. Here, the authors sought to systematically review the available literature and perform a meta-analysis comparing the two techniques.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A database search was used to identify eligible studies. Prepsoas and transpsoas studies were compiled, and each study was assessed for inclusion criteria. Complication rates were recorded and compared between approach groups. Studies incorporating an analysis of postoperative subsidence and pseudarthrosis rates were also assessed and compared.

RESULTS

For the prepsoas studies, 20 studies for the complications analysis and 8 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the transpsoas studies, 39 studies for the complications analysis and 19 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the complications analysis, 1874 patients treated via the prepsoas approach and 4607 treated with the transpsoas approach were included. In the transpsoas group, there was a higher rate of transient sensory symptoms (21.7% vs 8.7%, p = 0.002), transient hip flexor weakness (19.7% vs 5.7%, p < 0.001), and permanent neurological weakness (2.8% vs 1.0%, p = 0.005). A higher rate of sympathetic nerve injury was seen in the prepsoas group (5.4% vs 0.0%, p = 0.03). Of the nonneurological complications, major vascular injury was significantly higher in the prepsoas approach (1.8% vs 0.4%, p = 0.01). There was no difference in urological or peritoneal/bowel injury, postoperative ileus, or hematomas (all p > 0.05). A higher infection rate was noted for the transpsoas group (3.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.01). With regard to postoperative fusion outcomes, similar rates of subsidence (12.2% prepsoas vs 13.8% transpsoas, p = 0.78) and pseudarthrosis (9.9% vs 7.5%, respectively, p = 0.57) were seen between the groups at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates vary for the prepsoas and transpsoas approaches owing to the variable retroperitoneal anatomy encountered during surgical dissection. While the risks of a lasting motor deficit and transient sensory disturbances are higher for the transpsoas approach, there is a reciprocal reduction in the risks of major vascular injury and sympathetic nerve injury. These results can facilitate informed decision-making and tailored surgical planning regarding the choice of minimally invasive anterolateral access to the spine.

The impact of adding posterior instrumentation to transpsoas lateral fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVETranspsoas lateral interbody fusion is one of the lateral minimally invasive approaches for lumbar spine surgery. Most surgeons insert the interbody cage laterally and then insert pedicle or cortical screw and rod instrumentation posteriorly. However, standalone cages have also been used to avoid posterior instrumentation. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the literature on comparison of the two approaches is sparse.METHODSThe authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature on transpsoas lateral interbody fusion by an electronic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases using PRISMA guidelines. They compared patients undergoing transpsoas standalone fusion (TP) with those undergoing transpsoas fusion with posterior instrumentation (TPP).RESULTSA total of 28 studies with 1462 patients were included. Three hundred and seventy-four patients underwent TPP, and 956 patients underwent TP. The mean patient age ranged from 45.7 to 68 years in the TP group, and 50 to 67.7 years in the TPP group. The incidence of reoperation was found to be higher for TP (0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.11) compared to TPP (0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06; p = 0.057). Similarly, the incidence of cage movement was found to be greater in TP (0.18, 95% CI 0.10-0.26) compared to TPP (0.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.05; p < 0.001). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores and postoperative transient deficits were found to be comparable between the two groups.CONCLUSIONSThese results appear to suggest that addition of posterior instrumentation to transpsoas fusion is associated with decreased reoperations and cage movements. The results of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be reevaluated in light of these results, which seem to suggest that higher reoperation and subsidence rates may be due to the use of the standalone technique.

Subsidence Rates After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The evidence regarding the consequences of subsidence with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has been sparse. The objective of this study is to calculate the incidence of subsidence and reoperation for subsidence after LLIF. A secondary outcome examined the quantitative degree of subsidence by calculating the percent change in the height of the intervertebral space secondary to interbody subsidence at various postoperative follow-up times.

METHODS

Following the MOOSE (Meta-analysis [and Systematic Review] Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines, a systematic review searched for all cohort studies that focused on subsidence rates after LLIF, including extreme lateral interbody fusions (XLIFs) and direct lateral interbody fusion. Neoplastic, infectious, and/or metabolic indications for LLIF were similarly excluded because these diseases may compromise bone quality and, thus, confound the rate of cage subsidence. Corpectomies were removed from the systematic review because 1) indications for removal of vertebral body typically reflect those excluded diseases and 2) subsidence refers to a different biomechanical process.

RESULTS

This systematic review identified a subsidence incidence with LLIF of 10.3% (N = 141/1362 patients in 14 articles) and reoperation rate for subsidence of 2.7% (N = 41/1470 patients in 16 articles). In the secondary outcome measure, the disc height decreased from 5.6% after 3 months, 6.0% after 6 months, and 10.2% after 12 months, to 8.9% after 24 months (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Subsidence after LLIF carries a nonnegligible risk that may be incorporated in surgical consent discussions in selected patients.

Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Supplemental Interspinous Process Fixation: Outcomes from a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

Background

Rigid interspinous process fixation (ISPF) has received consideration as an efficient, minimally disruptive technique in supporting lumbar interbody fusion. However, despite advantageous intraoperative utility, limited evidence exists characterizing midterm to long-term clinical outcomes with ISPF. The objective of this multicenter study was to prospectively assess patients receiving single-level anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with adjunctive ISPF.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter (11 investigators), noninferiority trial. All patients received single-level ALIF or LLIF with supplemental ISPF (n = 66) or pedicle screw fixation (PSF; n = 37) for degenerative disc disease and/or spondylolisthesis (grade ≤2). The randomization patient ratio was 2:1, ISPF/PSF. Perioperative and follow-up outcomes were collected (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months).

Results

For ISPF patients, mean posterior intraoperative outcomes were: blood loss, 70.9 mL; operating time, 52.2 minutes; incision length, 5.5 cm; and fluoroscopic imaging time, 10.4 seconds. Statistically significant improvement in patient Oswestry Disability Index scores were achieved by just 6 weeks after operation (P < .01) and improved out to 12 months for the ISPF cohort. Patient-reported 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire scores were also significantly improved from baseline to 12 months in the ISPF cohort (P < .01). A total of 92.7% of ISPF patients exhibited interspinous fusion at 12 months. One ISPF patient (1.5%) required a secondary surgical intervention of possible relation to the posterior instrumentation/procedure.

Conclusion

ISPF can be achieved quickly, with minimal tissue disruption and complication. In supplementing ALIF and LLIF, ISPF supported significant improvement in early postoperative (≤12 months) patient-reported outcomes, while facilitating robust posterior fusion.

Stand-alone lumbar cage subsidence: A biomechanical sensitivity study of cage design and placement

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Spinal degeneration and instability are commonly treated with interbody fusion cages either alone or supplemented with posterior instrumentation with the aim to immobilise the segment and restore intervertebral height. The purpose of this work is to establish a tool which may help to understand the effects of intervertebral cage design and placement on the biomechanical response of a patient-specific model to help reducing post-surgical complications such as subsidence and segment instability.

METHODS

A 3D lumbar functional spinal unit (FSU) finite element model was created and a parametric model of an interbody cage was designed and introduced in the FSU. A Drucker-Prager Cap plasticity formulation was used to predict plastic strains and bone failure in the vertebrae. The effect of varying cage size, cross-sectional area, apparent stiffness and positioning was evaluated under 500 N preload followed by 7.5 Nm multidirectional rotation and the results were compared with the intact model.

RESULTS

The most influential cage parameters on the FSU were size, curvature congruence with the endplates and cage placement. Segmental stiffness was higher when increasing the cross-sectional cage area in all loading directions and when the cage was anteriorly placed in all directions but extension. In general, the facet joint forces were reduced by increasing segmental stiffness. However, these forces were higher than in the intact model in most of the cases due to the displacement of the instantaneous centre of rotation. The highest plastic deformations took place at the caudal vertebra under flexion and increased for cages with greater stiffness. Thus, wider cages and a more anteriorly placement would increase the volume of failed bone and, therefore, the risk of subsidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Cage geometry plays a crucial role in the success of lumbar surgery. General considerations such as larger cages may be applied as a guideline, but parameters such as curvature or cage placement should be determined for each specific patient. This model provides a proof-of-concept of a tool for the preoperative evaluation of lumbar surgical outcomes.