Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis

Feasibility of Multilevel Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in a Patient With an Intrapelvic Kidney: A Case Report

CASE

We present a 64-year-old woman with loss of lumbar lordosis with a preoperative computed tomography scan demonstrating the presence of an intrapelvic kidney with aberrant vasculature. A 2-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion with a 2-level oblique interbody fusion was planned. An anterior approach was successfully used to access the anterior spine without damaging the pelvic kidney.

CONCLUSION

Anatomic variations, both congenital and acquired, can pose significant challenges to surgeons during their dissection. We present a case where multilevel anterior interbody cage placement can be safely performed, even in a patient whose anatomy is complicated by an intrapelvic kidney.

Reduction of spondylolisthesis and restoration of lumbar lordosis after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)

BACKGROUND

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established surgical treatment option for various diseases of the lumbar spine, including spondylolisthesis. This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative correction of spondylolisthesis and restoration of lumbar and segmental lordosis after ALIF.

METHODS

Patients with spondylolisthesis who underwent ALIF between 2013 and 2019 were retrospectively assessed. We assessed the following parameters pre-and postoperatively (6-months follow-up): Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), L4/S1 lordosis, and degree of spondylolisthesis.

RESULTS

96 patients were included. In 84 cases (87.50%), additional dorsal instrumentation was performed. The most frequent diagnosis was isthmic spondylolisthesis (73.96%). VAS was reduced postoperatively, from 70 to 40, as was ODI (50% to 32%). LL increased from 59.15° to 64.45°, as did SL (18.95° to 28.55°) and L4/S1 lordosis (37.90° to 44.00°). Preoperative spondylolisthesis was 8.90 mm and was reduced to 6.05 mm postoperatively. Relative spondylolisthesis was 21.63% preoperatively and 13.71% postoperatively. All clinical and radiological improvements were significant (all p < 0.001). No significant difference considering the lordosis values nor spondylolisthesis was found between patients who underwent ALIF surgery without dorsal instrumentation and patients who received additional dorsal instrumentation. Venous laceration was the most frequent complication (10.42%).

CONCLUSIONS

With ALIF, good clinical results and safe and effective reduction of spondylolisthesis and restoration of lordosis can be achieved. Additional dorsal instrumentation does not significantly affect postoperative lordosis or spondylolisthesis. Individual vascular anatomy must be reviewed preoperatively before considering ALIF.

Multilevel tandem spondylolisthesis associated with a reduced "safe zone" for a transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) on psoas anatomy and the L4-5 safe zone during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

In this retrospective, single-institution analysis, patients managed for low-back pain between 2016 and 2021 were identified. Inclusion criteria were adequate lumbar MR images and radiographs. Exclusion criteria were spine trauma, infection, metastases, transitional anatomy, or prior surgery. There were three age and sex propensity-matched cohorts: 1) controls without DS; 2) patients with single-level DS (SLDS); and 3) patients with multilevel, tandem DS (TDS). Axial T2-weighted MRI was used to measure the apical (ventral) and central positions of the psoas relative to the posterior tangent line at the L4-5 disc. Lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and PI-LL mismatch were measured on lumbar radiographs. The primary outcomes were apical and central psoas positions at L4-5, which were calculated using stepwise multivariate linear regression including demographics, spinopelvic parameters, and degree of DS. Secondary outcomes were associations between single- and multilevel DS and spinopelvic parameters, which were calculated using one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction for between-group comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 230 patients (92 without DS, 92 with SLDS, and 46 with TDS) were included. The mean age was 68.0 ± 8.9 years, and 185 patients (80.4%) were female. The mean BMI was 31.0 ± 7.1, and the mean age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (aCCI) was 4.2 ± 1.8. Age, BMI, sex, and aCCI were similar between the groups. Each increased grade of DS (no DS to SLDS to TDS) was associated with significantly increased PI (p < 0.05 for all relationships). PT, PI-LL mismatch, center psoas, and apical position were all significantly greater in the TDS group than in the no-DS and SLDS groups (p < 0.05). DS severity was independently associated with 2.4-mm (95% CI 1.1-3.8 mm) center and 2.6-mm (95% CI 1.2-3.9 mm) apical psoas anterior displacement per increased grade (increasing from no DS to SLDS to TDS).

CONCLUSIONS

TDS represents more severe sagittal malalignment (PI-LL mismatch), pelvic compensation (PT), and changes in the psoas major muscle compared with no DS, and SLDS and is a risk factor for lumbar plexus injury during L4-5 LLIF due to a smaller safe zone.

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).

Factors Affecting Slip Reduction in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Fixation for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVES

Reduction of translational/angular slip is a favorable radiological result in spinal fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis, although its clinical significance remains controversial. Few studies have investigated slip reduction and associated factors in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

This study involved a retrospective analysis of 56 operated levels of 52 consecutive patients who underwent OLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis and had more than 1-year of regular follow-up. Translational/angular slip, anterior/posterior disc height, and spinopelvic parameters were measured preoperatively, postoperatively at 6-weeks, and at the last follow-up. Demographic, radiological, and surgical parameters were analyzed to determine factors associated with the amount of slip reduction.

RESULT

The mean follow-up duration was 30.4 ± 12.9 months (range, 12 to 61). The mean decrease in translational slip was 5.7 ± 2.1 mm (13.6 ± 5.5%) and the mean increase in angular slip was 7.9 ± 7.1° at the last follow-up (both P < 0.001). The amount of slip reduction was greater in female sex, age < 65 years, use of a 12° cage, cage position from the anterior disc margin of < 7 mm, and cases with posterior decompression (laminectomy with inferior facetectomy).

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF showed satisfactory translational/angular slip reduction in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Surgical techniques for optimal reduction include the use of a large angle cage, anterior cage placement, and resection of the inferior facet.

Revision Surgery for Adjacent Segment Degeneration After Fusion for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: Is there a Correlation with Roussouly Type?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is an association between revision surgery rates for adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) and Roussouly type after L4-5 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Revision surgery for ASD is known to occur after spinal fusion; however, it is unclear whether rates of ASD are associated with certain Roussouly types.

METHODS

Patients who underwent L4-5 TLIF for spondylolisthesis at the University of California San Francisco from January 2006 to December 2016 with minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively analyzed by Roussouly type. Revision surgery for ASD was noted and correlated by Roussouly type. Spinopelvic parameters were also measured for correlation. A value of P < 0.05 was significant.

RESULTS

There were 174 patients who met inclusion criteria, (59 males and 115 females). The average age was 62.3 (25-80) years. A total of 132 patients had grade I spondylolisthesis, and 42 had grade II. Mean follow-up was 45.2 months (24-497). A total of 22 patients (12.6%) underwent revision surgery for ASD after L4-5 TLIF. When classified by Roussouly type, revision surgery rates for ASD were: 1, 14.3%; 2, 22.6%; 3, 4.9%; and 4, 15.6% (P = 0.013). Type 3 spines with normal PI-LL (8.85° ± 6.83°) had the lowest revision surgery rate (4.9%), and type 2 spines with PI-LL mismatch (11.06° ± 8.81°) had the highest revision surgery rate (22.6%), a four-fold difference (P = 0.013). The PI-LL mismatch did not change significantly in each type postoperatively (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

We found that there may be a correlation between Roussouly type and revision surgery for ASD after L4-5 TLIF for spondylolisthesis, with type 2 spines having the highest rate. Spinopelvic parameters may also correlate with revision surgery for ASD after L4-5 TLIF.Level of Evidence: 4.

Management of degenerative spondylolisthesis: development of appropriate use criteria

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Outcomes of treatment in care of patients with spinal disorders are directly related to patient selection and treatment indications. However, for many disorders, there is absence of consensus for precise indications. With the increasing emphasis on quality and value in spine care, it is essential that treatment recommendations and decisions are optimized.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the North American Spine Society Appropriate Use Criteria was to determine the appropriate (ie reasonable) multidisciplinary treatment recommendations for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis across a spectrum of more common clinical scenarios.

STUDY DESIGN

A Modified Delphi process was used.

METHODS

The methodology was based on the Appropriate Use Criteria development process established by the Research AND Development Corporation. The topic of degenerative spondylolisthesis was selected by the committee, key modifiers determined, and consensus reached on standard definitions. A literature search and evidence analysis were completed by one work group simultaneously as scenarios were written, reviewed, and finalized by another work group. A separate multidisciplinary rating group was assembled. Based on the literature, provider experience, and group discussion, each scenario was scored on a nine-point scale on two separate occasions, once without discussion and then a second time following discussion based on the initial responses. The median rating for each scenario was then used to determine if indications were rarely appropriate (1 - 3), uncertain (4-6), or appropriate (7-9). Consensus was not mandatory.

RESULTS

There were 131 discrete scenarios. These addressed questions on bone grafting, imaging, mechanical instability, radiculopathy with or without neurological deficits, obesity, and yellow flags consisting of psychosocial and medical comorbidities. For most of these, appropriateness was established for physical therapy, injections, and various forms of surgical intervention. The diagnosis of spondylolisthesis should be determined by an upright x-ray. Scenarios pertaining to bone grafting suggested that patients should quit smoking prior to surgery, and that use of BMP should be reserved for patients who had risk factors for non-union. Across all clinical scenarios, physical therapy (PT) had an adjusted mean of 7.66, epidural steroid injections 5.76, and surgery 4.52. Physical therapy was appropriate in most scenarios, and most appropriate in patients with back pain and no neurological deficits. Epidural steroid injections were most appropriate in patients with radiculopathy. Surgery was generally more appropriate for patients with neurological deficits, higher disability scores, and dynamic spondylolisthesis. Mechanical back pain and presence of yellow flags tended to be less appropriate, and obesity in general had relatively little influence on decision making. Decompression alone was more strongly considered in the presence of static versus dynamic spondylolisthesis. On average, posterior fusion with or without interbody fusion was similarly appropriate, and generally more appropriate than stand-alone interbody fusion which was in turn more appropriate than interspinous spacers.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidisciplinary appropriate treatment criteria were generated based on the Research AND Development methodology. While there were consistent and significant differences between surgeons and non-surgeons, these differences were generally very small. This document provides comprehensive evidence-based recommendations for evaluation and treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. The document in its entirety will be found on the North American Spine Society website (https://www.spine.org/Research-Clinical-Care/Quality-Improvement/Appropriate-Use-Criteria).

Intraoperative Neuromonitoring and Lumbar Spinal Instrumentation: Indications and Utility

Multimodal intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) can be utilized as an adjunct to lumbar spinal instrumentation in order to aid with avoidance of neurologic complications. The most commonly utilized modalities include somatosensory-evoked potentials, motor-evoked potentials, and electromyography. Somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) allow for continuous assessment of the dorsal columns of the spinal cord and are therefore most useful during procedures with a posterior approach to the cervical and thoracic spine. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and electromyography (EMG) can be applied intermittently to assess motor nerve function. The utility of each individual modality can be largely dependent on the surgical approach. Approaches to lumbar spinal instrumentation can be generally categorized as anterior, lateral, and posterior. For lateral approaches, electromyography can be helpful in identifying neural structures crossing the surgical field to prevent injury. In posterior and anterior approaches, somatosensory-evoked potentials and motor-evoked potentials can be used to assess nerve injury during and after maneuvers for decompression and instrumentation. Additionally, during the placement of pedicle screws, direct stimulation with triggered electromyography can be used to detect the pedicle cortex's breach. The efficacy of intraoperative neuromonitoring is dependent on prompt and accurate recognition of changes in signals. This is then followed by accurate recognition of the cause for these changes and appropriate responses by the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and monitoring personnel to correct the change.

Clinical and radiological results of indirect decompression after anterior lumbar interbody fusion in central spinal canal stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Whereas the benefits of indirect decompression after lateral lumbar interbody fusion are well known, the effects of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) have not yet been verified. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological effects of indirect decompression after ALIF for central spinal canal stenosis. In this report, along with the many advantages of the anterior approach, the authors share cases with good outcomes that they have encountered.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective analysis of 64 consecutive patients who underwent ALIF for central spinal canal stenosis with instability and mixed foraminal stenosis between January 2015 and December 2018 at their hospital. Clinical assessments were performed using the visual analog scale score, the Oswestry Disability Index, and the modified Macnab criteria. The radiographic parameters were determined from pre- and postoperative cross-sectional MRI scans of the spinal canal and were compared to evaluate neural decompression after ALIF. The average follow-up period was 23.3 ± 1.3 months.

RESULTS

All clinical parameters, including the visual analog scale score, Oswestry Disability Index, and modified Macnab criteria, improved significantly. The mean operative duration was 254.8 ± 60.8 minutes, and the intraoperative bleeding volume was 179.8 ± 119.3 ml. In the radiological evaluation, radiological parameters of the cross-sections of the spinal canal showed substantial development. The spinal canal size improved by an average of 43.3% (p < 0.001) after surgery. No major complications occurred; however, aspiration guided by ultrasonography was performed in 2 patients because of a pseudocyst and fluid collection.

CONCLUSIONS

ALIF can serve as a suitable alternative to extensive posterior approaches. The authors suggest that ALIF can be used for decompression in central spinal canal stenosis as well as restoration of the foraminal dimensions, thus allowing decompression of the nerve roots.

Clinical results and complications associated with oblique lumbar interbody fusion technique

Background

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is a minimally invasive technique performed through the antero-oblique trajectory to address a wide range of lumbar pathologies. However, it can lead to complications. We reviewed the results of OLIF and discussed the effective methods to avoid such complications.

Methods

Seventy-nine consecutive patients who underwent OLIF between May 2016 and July 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into three groups: stand-alone, posterior, and lateral fixation, according to whether they were followed up with auxiliary internal fixation as well as the fixation methods. Preoperative and last follow-up visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were used to assess the improvement in the lower back and leg pain as well as neurological conditions. We analyzed intervertebral disc height (DH), segmental lumbar lordotic angle (SLL), lumbar lordotic angle (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, and the cross-section area (CSA) on axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) image in different groups. Complications, including thigh symptoms, cage subsidence, neurological injury, and vascular injury, were also noted.

Results

Seventy-nine patients were followed up postoperatively for 23.2±11.5 (range, 12-48) months. Forty-eight (61%) patients underwent stand-alone surgery (without fixation), 15 (19%) patients underwent supplemental percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (posterior fixation), and 16 (20%) patients underwent lateral vertebral instrumentation (lateral fixation). In all three groups, the VAS score and the ODI score had significantly decreased at the final follow-up compared to pre-operation. The DH, SLL, LL, CSA, PT, and PI-LL mismatch had also improved by final follow-up. The most common approach-related complication was thigh symptoms. Of the 79 patients, ipsilateral transient psoas paresis occurred in 9 (11.4%), ipsilateral transient quadriceps weakness in 2 (2.5%), and groin/thigh numbness and pain in 17 (21.5%). Cage subsidence occurred in 8 (10.1%) patients, including five cases of grade 0, one of grade I, and two of grade II. Three (3.8%) patients in this study had a vascular injury.

Conclusions

OLIF is a minimally invasive and effective technique for dealing with degenerative lumbar diseases. However, it should also be noted that this approach carries risks of complications.

Retrospective radiographic analysis of anterior lumbar fusion for high grade lumbar spondylolisthesis

BACKGROUND

High-grade spondylolisthesis (>50% slippage) is infrequently encountered in adults and frequently requires surgical treatment. The optimal surgical treatment is controversial with limited literature guidance as to optimal approach to treatment. An observational study to examine the technique and radiographic outcomes of adult patients treated with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior percutaneous instrumentation for high-grade spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

ALIF was performed in 5 consecutive patients (3/5 female, 2/5 male) aged 29-67 years old who presented with low back pain and L5 radiculopathy. All patients failed conservative treatment and were treated with L4-5 and L5-S1 ALIF followed by posterior percutaneous L4-S1 pedicle screw and rod fixation. Pre- and postoperative clinical data was collected including L5-S1 posterior disk height in millimeters, millimeters of spondylolisthesis at L5-S1, degrees of segmental lordosis (L4-S1), lumbar lordosis (L1-S1), and lumbar lordosis pelvic incidence (LL-PI) mismatch.

RESULTS

Six weeks following surgery, no patient reported residual L5 radicular symptoms. At last follow up, patient satisfaction, according to Modified Macnab Criteria, was excellent in 4/5 patients and good in 1/5 patient. In the 4 patients with greater than 1 year radiographic follow up, fusion rate was 100% on computed tomography (CT). Mean increase in posterior disk height was 12.5 mm (range, 11.4-13.5 mm). Mean reduction in spondylolisthesis was 58.7% (range, 20.2-100%). Mean segmental (L4-S1) and overall (L1-S1) lumbar lordosis increased by 23.6% (range, 6.5-41.7%) and 16.6% (2.5-31.5%), respectively. Following surgery, LL-PI mismatch decreased from a mean of 16.4 to 10.2 degrees.

CONCLUSIONS

ALIF with posterior percutaneous instrumentation is a safe and effective treatment for high-grade lumbosacral spondylolisthesis in properly selected adults. This technique improves lumbar sagittal parameters and reduces spondylolisthesis. The indirect neural decompression from simultaneous disk height restoration and spondylolisthesis reduction may be associated with lower neurological injury rate compared to posterior-only. Future prospective study is needed to validate this hypothesis.

Implications of sagittal alignment and complication profile with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior posterior lumbar fusion

Background

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is commonly utilized in lumbar degenerative pathologies. Standalone ALIF (ST-ALIF) systems were developed to avoid added morbidity, surgical time, and cost of anterior and posterior fusion (APF). Controversy exists in the literature about which of these two techniques yields superior clinical and radiographic outcomes, and few studies have directly compared them. This study seeks to compare ST-ALIF and APF in terms of sagittal correction and surgical complications.

Methods

Ninty-two consecutive ALIF cases performed from 2013-2018 were retrospectively reviewed and separated into 2 groups. Radiographic measurements were performed on pre- and post-operative radiographs, including segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL). Surgical complications were determined. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test of homogeneity, Fisher's exact test, and independent sample t-test. Comparisons between groups were deemed statistically significant at the P<0.05 threshold.

Results

Fifty-seven ST-ALIF, 35 APF were identified. There were no differences in age, gender, BMI, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), preoperative diagnosis, or surgical level between the 2 cohorts. Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) was utilized in 24.6% of ST-ALIF versus none of APF (P=0.001). No differences were detected in SL, LL, and PI-LL mismatch. ST-ALIF cohort had significantly greater risk of subsidence and revision surgery versus APF (12.3% vs. 0%, RD 95% CI: 3.8-20.8%, P=0.042). Recurrent spondylolisthesis occurred in 5 ST-ALIF cases, 3 cases with implant failure, and 2 nonunions versus none in the APF group.

Conclusions

ST-ALIF was associated with significantly greater subsidence and revision surgery versus APF. Careful patient selection is paramount when considering ST-ALIF. The potential for revision surgery may offset the potential benefit in avoiding posterior fusion. Despite the greater risk of subsidence, sagittal alignment was not significantly affected.

Interbody Fusions in the Lumbar Spine: A Review

BACKGROUND

Lumbar interbody fusion is among the most common types of spinal surgery performed. Over time, the term has evolved to encompass a number of different approaches to the intervertebral space, as well as differing implant materials. Questions remain over which approaches and materials are best for achieving fusion and restoring disc height.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We reviewed the literature on the advantages and disadvantages of various methods and devices used to achieve and augment fusion between the disc spaces in the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Using search terms specific to lumbar interbody fusion, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar and identified 4993 articles. We excluded those that did not report clinical outcomes, involved cervical interbody devices, were animal studies, or were not in English. After exclusions, 68 articles were included for review.

RESULTS

Posterior approaches have advantages, such as providing 360° support through a single incision, but can result in retraction injury and do not always restore lordosis or correct deformity. Anterior approaches allow for the largest implants and good correction of deformities but can result in vascular, urinary, psoas muscle, or lumbar plexus injury and may require a second posterior procedure to supplement fixation. Titanium cages produce improved osteointegration and fusion rates but also increase subsidence caused by the stiffness of titanium relative to bone. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has an elasticity closer to that of bone and shows less subsidence than titanium cages, but as an inert compound PEEK results in lower fusion rates and greater osteolysis. Combination PEEK-titanium coating has not yet achieved better results. Expandable cages were developed to increase disc height and restore lumbar lordosis, but the data on their effectiveness have been inconclusive. Three-dimensionally (3D)-printed cages have shown promise in biomechanical and animal studies at increasing fusion rates and reducing subsidence, but additive manufacturing options are still in their infancy and require more investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

All of the approaches to spinal fusion have plusses and minuses that must be considered when determining which to use, and newer-technology implants, such as PEEK with titanium coating, expandable, and 3D-printed cages, have tried to improve upon the limitations of existing grafts but require further study.

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

Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity with Sagittal Imbalance Using Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Can We Predict How Much Lordosis Correction Is Possible?

Study Design

Prospective, single-center study.

Purpose

The current trend of operative treatment for adult spinal deformity (ASD) is combined anterior-posterior staged surgery. When anterior surgery was first performed, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) was employed; this method became increasing popular. This study aimed to determine the lordosis correction that can be achieved using OLIF and assess whether we can preoperatively predict the lordosis correction angle achieved using OLIF.

Overview of Literature

Many previous studies on OLIF have shown improved clinical and radiologic outcomes. With the increase in the popularity of OLIF, several surgeons have started using larger cages to attain greater lordosis correction. Moreover, some studies have reported complications of OLIF because of immoderate cage insertion. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective study that attempted to determine whether it is possible to predict the lordosis correction angle achieved with OLIF preoperatively, using fullextension lateral view (FELV).

Methods

Forty-six patients with ASD were enrolled. All the operations were performed by a single surgeon in two stages (first, anterior and second, posterior) with a 1-week interval. Radiological evaluation was performed by comparing the Cobb’s angle of the segmental and regional lordosis obtained using preoperative and postoperative simple radiography (including the FELV) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Results

Regional lordosis (L1–S1) in the whole-spine standing lateral radiograph was −3.03°; however, in the supine lateral MRI, it was 20.92°. The regional lordosis of whole-spine standing lateral and supine lateral (MRI) was significantly different. In the FELV, regional lordosis was 25.72° and that in the postoperative supine lateral (MRI) was 25.02°; these values were not significantly different.

Conclusions

Although OLIF offers many advantages, it alone plays a limited role in ASD treatment. Lordosis correction using OLIF as well as lordosis determined in the FELV was possible. Hence, our results suggest that FELV can help predict the lordosis correction angle preoperatively and thus aid the selection of the appropriate technique in the second staged operation.

Fusion Assessment by MRI in Comparison With CT in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Study

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluation of fusion status following anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and compare agreement and confidence in assessing fusion or its absence on MRI to the current standard computed tomography (CT).

METHODS

A prospective follow up of patients undergoing surgery by 2 spine surgeons between 2012 and 2015 at a single institution. Fusion was assessed at different time points in these patients by 2 independent musculoskeletal radiologists. Fusion was analyzed in coronal and sagittal planes using both imaging modalities, with confidence being attributed on a scale of 0 to 3. Assessors were blinded to patient data.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients (25 levels) with mean follow-up of 10.2 months (range 2.4-20.3 years) and age of 41 years (range 20.7-61.5 years) were assessed. MRI within the interbody cage in coronal (κ = .58) and sagittal (κ = .50) planes had the highest interobserver agreement. CT anterior to the cage in coronal (κ = .48) and sagittal (κ = .44) planes, as well as within the cage in coronal (κ = .50) and sagittal planes (κ = .44) showed moderate agreement. Confidence anterior to the interbody cage using MRI scan was reduced when compared with remaining angles and imaging modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates that MRI may be a useful tool in the assessment of fusion following ALIF with results comparable to CT, and that it may have a useful role in select patients especially considering marked radiation exposure reduction.

Outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease in patients under or over 65 years of age

Background

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) offers the solution to problems of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). However, OLIF technique for degenerative spinal diseases of elderly patients has been rarely reported. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical and radiological results of OLIF technique for degenerative spinal diseases in patients under or over 65 years of age.

Methods

Sixty-three patients who underwent OLIF procedure were enrolled, including 29 patients who were less than 65 years of age and 34 patients who were over 65 years of age. Fusion rate, change of disc height and lumbar lordotic angle, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), return to daily activity, patient’s satisfaction rate (PSR), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to assess clinical and functional outcomes.

Results

The mean NRS scores for back and leg pain decreased, respectively, from 4.6 and 5.9 to 2.3 and 1.8 in the group A (less than 65 years) and from 4.5 and 6.8 to 2.6 and 2.2 in the group B (over 65 years) at the final follow-up period. The mean ODI scores improved from 48.4 to 24.0% in the group A and from 46.5 to 25.2% in the group B at the final follow-up period. In both groups, the NRS and ODI scores significantly changed preoperatively to postoperatively (p <  0.001). However, statistical analysis yielded no significant difference in postoperative NRS/ODI scores between two groups. In both groups, the changes in the disc height, segmental lordosis, and fusion rate between the preoperative and postoperative periods were significant. The amount of change between preoperative and postoperative disc height, segmental lordosis, and whole lumbar lordosis demonstrated significant intergroup differences (p <  0.05). Overall perioperative complications occurred in 8 of 29 (27.6%) patients in the group A and in 10 of 34 (29.4%) patients in the group B. In both groups, the major complication incidence was 0 and 3%, respectively.

Conclusion

Although there was the slightly high incidence of complication associated with high rate of co-morbidities in elderly patients, OLIF for degenerative lumbar diseases in elderly patients showed favorable clinical and radiological outcomes.

Interbody Fusion Techniques in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The various lumbar interbody fusion (IBF) techniques and the evidence for their use in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) are described in this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

The existing evidence is mixed regarding the indications for and utility of IBF in DLS, but its use in the setting of pre-operative instability is most strongly supported. Anterior (ALIF), lateral (LLIF), posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), and axial (AxiaLIF) lumbar IBF approaches have been described. While the current data are limited, TLIF may be a better option than PLIF in DLS due the increased operative morbidity and peri-operative complications observed with the latter. LLIF also appears superior to PLIF in light of improved radiologic outcomes, fewer intra-operative complications, and potentially greater improvements in disability. The data comparing LLIF to TLIF are less conclusive. No studies specifically comparing ALIF or AxiaLIF to other IBF techniques could be identified. Instability may be the strongest indication for IBF in DLS. When IBF is employed, the authors' preferred technique is TLIF with posterior segmental spinal instrumentation. Further research is needed.

Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion - complications and perioperative results

OBJECTIVES

Historically, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) was related to high rates of intraoperative complications and adverse events related to interbody devices. In recent decades, there have been technical adjustments, and cages that are more suitable have emerged. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and complication rate of the use of stand-alone mini-ALIF using a self-locking cage.

METHODS

Retrospective single center study. Inclusion criteria: retroperitoneal mini-ALIF for single-level fusion (L5S1); self-locking cage; DDD/stenosis and grade I spondylolisthesis. Exclusion criteria: posterior supplementation, previous fusion/arthroplasty. Endpoints: surgery data, intraoperative and perioperative adverse events related both to surgical access and to the intersomatic device.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven cases were enrolled. Median surgical time was 90 min; median blood loss was 100 mL. The median length of stay in the ICU was zero days; median hospital stay was one day. Ten cases had an adverse event (11.5%): four major adverse events (4.6%; 3 L bleeding; DVT; retroperitoneal haematoma; incisional hernia), and seven minor events (8%; peritoneum injury; minor vascular injury; events related to the cage). No cases of retrograde ejaculation were observed. There was improvement in pain, physical restriction, and quality of life (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mini-ALIF procedure performed for single-level fusion at the distal lumbar level demonstrated low adverse event rates related to both the surgical approach and to the intersomatic device, with reduced hospital stay and satisfactory perioperative clinical results.

Posterolateral Fusion Versus Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Current surgical management of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) involves decompression of the spinal canal followed by fusion with or without interbody. The additional functional and operative benefits derived from interbody inclusion has yet to be thoroughly established with a number of recent studies producing conflicting results. Thus, we aim to compare the functional and operative outcomes after fusion against interbody fusion in the treatment of DS.

METHODS

This systematic review of the literature comparing posterolateral fusion (PLF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) outcomes in the treatment of DS was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Electronic searches of 6 databases yielded 386 articles from database inception to July 2016, which were screening against established criteria for inclusion into this study.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies, satisfied criteria and reported outcomes for 721 patients. Fusion alone was performed in 458 (63.5%) patients and interbody fusion was performed in 263 (36.5%) patients. Functional outcomes Oswestry Disability Index (P = .29) and visual analog scale (P = .13) were not statistically different between the 2 approaches. Furthermore, there was no significant inferiority between fusion alone and with interbody in terms of the operative outcomes of blood loss (P = .38), reoperation rate (P = .66), hospital stay (P = .96), complication rate (P = .78), or fusion rate (P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no statistically significant difference in functional and operative outcomes following fusion alone versus with interbody. Additional subgroup analysis of intrinsic DS features in future large, prospective, randomized controlled trials will improve the validity of these findings.

Intraoperative navigation for accurate midline placement of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and total disc replacement prosthesis

Anterior lumbar approach techniques for the management of discogenic back pain and placement of spinal instrumentation such as fusion and disc replacement prosthesis is becoming increasingly popular. To date, no studies have reported the clinical usage of spinal navigation with anterior lumber interbody fusion (ALIF) and total disk replacement (TDR). We describe a surgical procedure of a 35-year-old patient presenting with discogenic lower back pain treated with an anterior lumbar interbody fusion and total disc replacement procedure to highlight the clinical advantages of intraoperative CT spinal navigation for accurate implant placement, therefore optimising peri- and post-operative outcomes.

Subsidence following anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF): a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a widely used surgical technique for disorders of the lumbar spine. One potential complication is the subsidence of disc height in the post-operative period. Few studies have reported the rate of subsidence in ALIF surgery prospectively. We prospectively evaluated the rate of subsidence in adult patients undergoing ALIF.

METHODS

Results were obtained by reviewing scans of 147 patients. Disc heights were measured on radiographic scans taken pre-operatively in addition to post-operatively immediately, at 6 weeks and at 18 months. The anterior and posterior intervertebral disc heights were measured. Subsidence was defined as greater than or equal to 2 mm loss of height.

RESULTS

A total of 15 patients (10.2%) had subsidence, with 7 being male. Each case was of delayed cage subsidence (DCS) >6 weeks postoperatively. The mean subsidence was 4.7 mm (range, 2.4-7.8). Mean anterior disc height was 8.6±0.4 mm preoperatively, which improved to 15.1±0.5 mm at latest follow-up. Mean posterior disc height was 4.7±0.2 mm preoperatively, which improved to 8.7±0.4 mm at latest follow-up. The mean lumbar lordosis (LL) angle was 42.5°±10.8° and the mean local disc angle (LDA) was 6.7°±4.0°. The 91.2% (n=114/125) of patients with appropriate radiological follow-up demonstrated fusion by latest follow-up. There was no correlation between subsidence rate with patient reported outcomes [Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Short Form 12 Item survey (SF-12)] and fusion rates. There was a significant negative correlation between LL and extent of subsidence (Pearson correlation =-0.754, P=0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, we found that the subsidence rate at follow-up was generally low following standalone ALIF for this patient series. Patient clinical outcomes and bony fusion rates were not significantly influenced by subsidence.

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With and Without an "Access Surgeon": A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of anterior lumber interbody fusion (ALIF) with and without an "access surgeon."

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Anterior approaches for spine operations have become increasingly popular but may often involve unfamiliar anatomy and territory for spine surgeons, potentially placing the patient at risk to a greater proportion of approach-related complications. Thus, many spine surgeons require or prefer the assistance of an "access surgeon" to perform the exposure. However, there has been much debate about the necessity of an "access surgeon."

METHODS

A systematic search of six databases from inception to April 2016 was performed by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was used to pool overall rates, and compare the outcomes of ALIF with an access surgeon and without.

RESULTS

A total of 58 (8028 patients) studies were included in this meta-analysis. The overall intraoperative complications were similar with and without an "access surgeon." The overall pooled rate of arterial injuries [no access 0.44% vs. access 1.16%, odds ratio (OR) 2.67, P < 0.001], retrograde ejaculation (0.41% vs. 0.96%, OR 2.34, P = 0.005), and ileus (1.93% vs. 2.26%, OR 2.45, P < 0.001) was higher with an "access surgeon." However, the overall pooled rates of peritoneal injury (0.44% vs. 0.16%, OR 0.36, P = 0.034) and neurological injury (0.99% vs. 0.11%, OR 0.11, P < 0.001) were lower with an "access surgeon." Total postoperative complications (5.95% vs. 4.08%, OR 0.67, P < 0.001) were lower with an "access surgeon" along with prosthesis complications (1.59% vs. 0.89%, OR 0.56, P < 0.001) and reoperation rates (2.28% vs. 1.31%, OR 0.57, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with no access surgeon, the use of an access surgeon was associated with similar intraoperative complication rates, higher arterial injuries, retrograde ejaculation, ileus, and lower prosthesis complications, reoperation rates, and postoperative complications. In cases wherein exposure may be difficult, support from an "access surgeon" should be available.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Evaluating Outcomes of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is an effective surgical approach for selected spinal pathologies. It avoids the morbidity and complications associated with instrumented ALIF, such as plate fixation and the traditionally used posterior approach. Despite improved disc space visualization and clearance, the associated posterior instability and increased risk of nonfusion present major challenges to this approach. The integral cage design aims to address these challenges by providing the necessary stabilization through intracorporeal screws. However, there is limited and controversial data available for stand-alone ALIF and integral cage fixation. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to evaluate recent findings on outcomes of stand-alone ALIF devices to explore areas of controversy and identify directions for future research.

METHODS

Two reviewers conducted independent, systematic literature searches for appropriate studies in 5 electronic databases as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were filtered by the use of specified selection criteria, particularly exclusion of studies with supplementary fixation to ALIF and studies published before the year 2000. A total of 17 studies met the criteria, and their data were comprehensively extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

The current literature is supportive of stand-alone ALIF due to acceptable clinical outcomes, promising fusion rates and disc height restoration. However, data and outcomes remain preliminary, and there are numerous areas of controversy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence for the efficacy and safety of stand-alone ALIF. However, the extent of improvement based on specific indications for surgery remains unclear. Further investigation utilizing more methodologically rigorous studies of long-term outcomes is necessary to address these issues.

Worker's Compensation Status and Outcomes Following Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Anterior lumbar-interbody fusion (ALIF) is a commonly performed procedure for degenerative spinal disorders with reasonable clinical and safety outcomes, although there is limited evidence regarding the impact of ALIF in patients receiving worker's compensation (WC) compared with those without. The aim of our study is to identify whether WC status affects the clinical outcome and rates of complication following ALIF surgery in a prospective cohort.

METHODS

We followed prospectively 114 consecutive patients undergoing ALIF surgery from 2012-2014. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: those with worker's compensation (WC) (n = 24) and those without (n = 90). Patients were evaluated preoperative and postoperatively. Outcome measures included Short Form-12 (SF-12), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), surgical complications, and subsidence.

RESULTS

In terms of baseline traits, the WC group had a significantly higher proportion of class III/IV obesity patients, who were younger (46.3 vs. 60.2 years) compared with non-WC. There were no significant differences in fusion rates or preoperative or postoperative disk height. No significant differences were found for hospital stay, blood loss, or operation duration. Similar rates of complications were found between WC versus non-WC cohorts. No significant difference was noted in clinical improvement between the 2 cohorts with SF-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS, or ODI (P = 0.232). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference for SF-12 PCS/MCS or ODI.

CONCLUSIONS

In our prospective cohort, there were no significant differences found between WC versus non-WC patients in terms of fusion rates, complications, clinical outcomes, or proportion of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference.

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Left-sided Inferior Vena Cava and Right-sided Aortic Arch

Spinal fusion via anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) can offer symptomatic relief to patients that suffer severe low back pain, radiculopathy, and claudication. However, a detailed working knowledge of the thoracic, abdominal, and lumbar anatomy, particularly of the vasculature, is vital. We report the case of a 68-year-old man who presented with radiculopathy and progressively worsening low back pain despite 9 months of unsuccessful conservative therapy and pain management. Preoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging revealed a rare anatomical variation, with an anomalous left-sided inferior vena cava and anomalous aorta. The patient was surgically treated with ALIF at L_4,5 and L₅ S₁ via an altered surgical window. Given the anomalous anatomy of the patient, instead of performing the procedure after mobilizing both of the transposed abdominal great vessels, the inferior vena cava and the abdominal aorta, the ALIF was uneventfully performed in the window between these vessels. There were no perioperative or postoperative complications. At 12-week postoperative follow-up, X-ray imaging demonstrated successful implantation of ALIF cages with no recurrence of symptoms. A detailed working knowledge of anatomy is important, particularly if anatomical variations are present. This has implications for preoperative surgical planning, which is integral to the safety and the success of procedures.

Evolution of Design of Interbody Cages for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is one of the surgical procedures for the relief of chronic back pain, radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease that is refractory to conservative therapy, low-grade spondylolisthesis and pseudo arthrosis. Over the past half century, both the surgical techniques and instrumentation required for ALIF have changed significantly. In particular, the designs of ALIF cage and the materials used have evolved dramatically, the common goal being to improve fusion rates and optimize clinical outcomes. The increasing popularity of ALIF is reflected by the increasing abundance of published studies reporting clinical outcomes, surgical techniques and grafting options for ALIF. Developments in cage designs include cylindrical Bagby and Kuslich, cylindrical ray, cylindrical mesh, lumbar-tapered, polyethyl-etherketone cage and integral fixation cages. Biologic implants include bone dowels and femoral ring allografts. Methods for optimization of cage design have included cage dimensions, use of novel composite cage materials and integral fixation technologies. However, the historical development and evolution of cages used for ALIF has not been extensively documented. This article therefore aims to provide an overview of the historical basis for the anterior approach, evolution in design of ALIF cage implants and potential future research directions.

Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF

Degenerative disc and facet joint disease of the lumbar spine is common in the ageing population, and is one of the most frequent causes of disability. Lumbar spondylosis may result in mechanical back pain, radicular and claudicant symptoms, reduced mobility and poor quality of life. Surgical interbody fusion of degenerative levels is an effective treatment option to stabilize the painful motion segment, and may provide indirect decompression of the neural elements, restore lordosis and correct deformity. The surgical options for interbody fusion of the lumbar spine include: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion/anterior to psoas (OLIF/ATP), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). The indications may include: discogenic/facetogenic low back pain, neurogenic claudication, radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis, lumbar degenerative spinal deformity including symptomatic spondylolisthesis and degenerative scoliosis. In general, traditional posterior approaches are frequently used with acceptable fusion rates and low complication rates, however they are limited by thecal sac and nerve root retraction, along with iatrogenic injury to the paraspinal musculature and disruption of the posterior tension band. Minimally invasive (MIS) posterior approaches have evolved in an attempt to reduce approach related complications. Anterior approaches avoid the spinal canal, cauda equina and nerve roots, however have issues with approach related abdominal and vascular complications. In addition, lateral and OLIF techniques have potential risks to the lumbar plexus and psoas muscle. The present study aims firstly to comprehensively review the available literature and evidence for different lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques. Secondly, we propose a set of recommendations and guidelines for the indications for interbody fusion options. Thirdly, this article provides a description of each approach, and illustrates the potential benefits and disadvantages of each technique with reference to indication and spine level performed.