Single position spinal surgery for the treatment of grade II spondylolisthesis: A technical note

Single-position anterior and lateral lumbar fusion in the supine position: a novel technique for multi-level arthrodesis

OBJECTIVE

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are common techniques that typically require staged procedures when performed in combination. Interest is emerging in single-position surgery to increase operative efficiency. We report a novel surgical technique, supine extended reach (SupER) lateral fusion, to perform ALIF and LLIF with the patient in a single supine position.

METHODS

A man in his fifties presented with degenerative levoscoliosis, spondylolisthesis, sagittal-plane deformity, and progressive low back pain. He was offered L3-S1 anterolateral fusion.

RESULTS

With the patient supine, a left abdominal paramedian incision was performed to gain anterior retroperitoneal access, and standard L5-S1 and L4-5 ALIFs were performed. The anterior incision was used for direct visualization, retraction, and bimanual dissection. A left lateral incision was then made to perform an L3-4 LLIF. The patient subsequently underwent a second-stage L3-S1 posterior percutaneous fixation. The patient tolerated the procedures well, without complications. Postoperative radiograph findings confirmed acceptable implant positioning. The patient was discharged home in stable condition and was doing well at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This case description is the first report of the SupER technique, which allows incorporation of anterior and lateral fusion constructs at adjacent levels without changing patient positioning. Many surgeons believe the ALIF to be the most powerful technique for achieving lordosis, and this technique enables concomitant lateral access in a supine position. It can also be used as an alternative strategy when anterior access to the disc space is unobtainable. Further clinical investigation of this technique is warranted.

Setting for single position surgery: survey from expert spinal surgeons

PURPOSE

To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field.

METHODS

Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique.

CONCLUSION

A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

Supine lateral lumbar interbody fusion: cadaveric proof of principle for simultaneous anterior and lateral approaches

BACKGROUND

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are commonly performed in separate stages with a change in patient positioning to provide arthrodesis in the lumbar spine. Interest has recently emerged in performing these approaches as a single-stage surgery with the patient in the lateral decubitus position. The objective of this study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of performing minimally invasive anterolateral fixation in a single supine position.

METHODS

Two fresh-frozen cadavers were used and placed supine. Standard minimally invasive anterior access was obtained by the approach surgeon. An ALIF was performed at L5-S1 using standard techniques. A lateral incision was marked over the L4-5 disc space using fluoroscopy. Direct palpation and bimanual dissection were achieved through the same anterior incision, allowing access to the retroperitoneal space. Dilator and retractor docking was performed under fluoroscopic guidance. Direct visualization of the docking hardware through the anterior incision was used to ensure the safety of peritoneal contents and vasculature. The LLIF was then performed using standard techniques at L4-5.

RESULTS

Plain radiographs confirmed acceptable positioning of both the ALIF and LLIF grafts. No injury to the cadaveric peritoneum, vasculature, or lumbar plexus was observed. A slightly enlarged anterior incision also permitted retroperitoneal access and visualization of the L3-4 disc space.

CONCLUSION

This cadaver feasibility study demonstrates that combined minimally invasive ALIF and LLIF procedures may be performed as a single-stage with the patient in the supine position. Clinical consideration and study of this approach are warranted.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The current state of navigation in robotic spine surgery

The advent and widespread adoption of pedicle screw instrumentation prompted the need for image guidance in spine surgery to improve accuracy and safety. Although the conventional method, fluoroscopy, is readily available and inexpensive, concerns regarding radiation exposure and the drive to provide better visual guidance spurred the development of computer-assisted navigation. Contemporaneously, a non-navigated robotic guidance platform was also introduced as a competing modality for pedicle screw placement. Although the robot could provide high precision trajectory guidance by restricting four of the six degrees of freedom (DOF), the lack of real-time depth control and high capital acquisition cost diminished its popularity, while computer-assisted navigation platforms became increasingly sophisticated and accepted. The recent integration of real-time 3D navigation with robotic platforms has resulted in a resurgence of interest in robotics in spine surgery with the recent introduction of numerous navigated robotic platforms. The currently available navigated robotic spine surgery platforms include the ROSA Spine Robot (Zimmer Biomet Robotics formerly Medtech SA, Montpellier, France), ExcelsiusGPS^® (Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA), Mazor X spine robot (Medtronic Navigation Louisville, CO; Medtronic Spine, Memphis, TN; formerly Mazor Robotics, Caesarea, Israel) and TiRobot (TINAVI Medical Technologies, Beijing, China). Here we provide an overview of these navigated spine robotic platforms, existing applications, and potential future avenues of implementation.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

Single-position options for combined anterior and posterior fusion in the lumbar spine have been suggested to reduce the surgical time and improve the efficiency of operating room. Previous reports have focused on lateral decubitus single-position surgery. The goal of this study is to describe and evaluate the feasibility and safety of prone single-position extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) with posterior fixation.

METHODS

Design Pilot prospective non-randomized controlled study. Seven patients who underwent prone single-position XLIF and posterior fixation were evaluated (Pro-XLIF). A control group (Std-XLIF) was composed of ten patients who underwent XLIF in lateral decubitus and posterior fixation in prone position. All patients underwent interbody XLIF fusion at one level and posterior procedures at one or more levels. Duration of surgery, blood loss, complications, X-ray use and clinical outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

No major complications were observed in either group. Oswestry Disability Index, back pain and leg pain were improved in the Pro-XLIF group from 48.5, 7.7 and 8.5 to 14.5, 1.71 and 2.71, respectively, and in the Std-XLIF group from 50.8, 5.7 and 7.2 to 22.5, 3.7 and 2.5. The Pro-XLIF group had a longer time of preparation before incision (39 vs 26 min, ns), equal duration of the anterior procedure (65 vs 59 min, ns), shorter duration of surgery (133 vs 182 min, ns) and longer X-ray exposure time (102 vs 92 s, ns). The surgical technique is described.

CONCLUSIONS

Prone single-position XLIF is feasible and safe. In this preliminary report, the results are comparable to the standard technique. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Robotic spine surgery: Ushering in a new era

The endeavour to make spine surgery safe with reproducible, consistent outcomes has led to growing interest and research in the field of intraoperative imaging, navigation and robotics. The advent of surgical robot systems in spine surgery is relatively recent - with only a few systems approved for commercial use. At present, pedicle screw insertion remains the primary application of robotic systems in spine surgery. The purported advantages of robot-assisted pedicle screw insertion over other conventional techniques are its increased accuracy, reproducible consistency and reduced radiation exposure. Many of these claims have been supported or refuted by individual studies - and high quality evidence for the same is lacking. Robotic spine surgery also has its share of limitations which include increased operative time, considerable learning curve and technical pitfalls unique to the robotic systems. The applications of robotic spine surgery are evolving and expanding to spinal deformity, spine oncology and needle-based interventional treatments. This review provides an overview of the evolution and current status of robotic spine surgery along with an evidence-based discussion of its current applications in spine surgery.