Accuracy of the lateral cage placement under intraoperative C-arm fluoroscopy in oblique lateral interbody fusion

A Comprehensive Analysis of Potential Complications after Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion : A Review of Postoperative Magnetic Resonance Scans in Over 400 Cases

OBJECTIVE

This study focuses on identifying potential complications following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) through routine magnetic resonance (MR) scans.

METHODS

From 650 patients who underwent OLIF from April 2018 to April 2022, this study included those with MR scans taken 1-week post-operatively, and only for indirect decompression patients. The analysis evaluated postoperative MR images for hematoma, cage insertion angles, and indirect decompression efficiency. Patient demographics, post-operatively symptoms, and complications were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Out of 401 patients enrolled, most underwent 1- or 2-level OLIF. Common findings included approach site hematoma (65.3%) and contralateral psoas hematoma (19%). The caudal level OLIF was related with less orthogonality and deep insertion of cage. Incomplete indirect decompression occurred in 4.66% of cases but did not require additional surgery. Rare but symptomatic complications included remnant disc rupture (four cases, 1%) and synovial cyst rupture (four cases, 1%).

CONCLUSION

This study has identified potential complications associated with OLIF, including approach site hematoma, contralateral psoas hematoma, cage malposition risk at caudal levels, and radiologically insufficient indirect decompression. Additionally, it highlights rare, yet symptomatic complications such as remnant disc rupture and synovial cyst rupture. These findings contribute insights into the relatively under-explored area of OLIF complications.

The Impact of Navigation in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Study of Historical Aspects, Current Techniques and Future Directions

Background/Objectives: We sought to improve accuracy while minimizing radiation hazards, improving surgical outcomes, and preventing potential complications. Despite the increasing popularity of these systems, a limited number of papers have been published addressing the historical evolution, detailing the areas of use, and discussing the advantages and disadvantages, of this increasingly popular system in lumbar spine surgery. Our objective was to offer readers a concise overview of navigation system history in lumbar spine surgeries, the techniques involved, the advantages and disadvantages, and suggestions for future enhancements to the system. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted, focusing on the development and implementation of navigation systems in lumbar spine surgeries. Our sources include PubMed-indexed peer-reviewed journals, clinical trial data, and case studies involving technologies such as computer-assisted surgery (CAS), image-guided surgery (IGS), and robotic-assisted systems. Results: To develop more practical, effective, and accurate navigation techniques for spine surgery, consistent advancements have been made over the past four decades. This technological progress began in the late 20th century and has since encompassed image-guided surgery, intraoperative imaging, advanced navigation combined with robotic assistance, and artificial intelligence. These technological advancements have significantly improved the accuracy of implant placement, reducing the risk of misplacement and related complications. Navigation has also been found to be particularly useful in tumor resection and minimally invasive surgery (MIS), where conventional anatomic landmarks are lacking or, in the case of MIS, not visible. Additionally, these innovations have led to shorter operative times, decreased radiation exposure for patients and surgical teams, and lower rates of reoperation. As navigation technology continues to evolve, future innovations are anticipated to further enhance the capabilities and accessibility of these systems, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes in lumbar spine surgery. Conclusions: The initial limited utilization of navigation system in spine surgery has further expanded to encompass almost all fields of lumbar spine surgeries. As the cost-effectiveness and number of trained surgeons improve, a wider use of the system will be ensured so that the navigation system will be an indispensable tool in lumbar spine surgery. However, continued research and development, along with training programs for surgeons, are essential to fully realize the potential of these technologies in clinical practice.

Defining cage subsidence in anterior, oblique, and lateral lumbar spine fusion approaches: a systematic review of the literature

One of the most common complications of lumbar fusions is cage subsidence, which leads to collapse of disc height and reappearance of the presenting symptomology. However, definitions of cage subsidence are inconsistent, leading to a variety of subsidence calculation methodologies and thresholds. To review previously published literature on cage subsidence in order to present the most common methods for calculating and defining subsidence in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) approaches. A search was completed in PubMed and Embase with inclusion criteria focused on identifying any study that provided descriptions of the method, imaging modality, or subsidence threshold used to calculate the presence of cage subsidence. A total of 69 articles were included in the final analysis, of which 18 (26.1%) reported on the ALIF approach, 22 (31.9%) on the OLIF approach, and 31 (44.9%) on the LLIF approach, 2 of which reported on more than one approach. ALIF articles most commonly calculated the loss of disc height over time with a subsidence threshold of > 2 mm. Most OLIF articles calculated the total amount of cage migration into the vertebral bodies, with a threshold of > 2 mm. LLIF was the only approach in which most articles applied the same method for calculation, namely, a grading scale for classifying the loss of disc height over time. We recommend future articles adhere to the most common methodologies presented here to ensure accuracy and generalizability in reporting cage subsidence.

Cage Obliquity and Radiological Outcomes in Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective radiological study.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine whether cage obliquity affects radiological outcomes in oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The OLIF cage enters the disk space in the oblique direction and is then turned to the true orthogonal orientation. However, orthogonal cage placement is often hindered by cage rotation limitations. Few studies have examined the degree of cage obliquity and its effects in OLIF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study involved 171 levels in 118 consecutive patients who underwent OLIF between L2-L3 and L4-L5 with a minimum two-year follow-up. Cage obliquity was divided into three groups on postoperative axial computed tomography images; cage obliquity <10° (group 1), cage obliquity ≥10° and <20° (group 2), and cage obliquity ≥20° (group 3). The radiological outcomes included anterior/posterior disk height, intervertebral disk angle, foraminal height, fusion, and cage subsidence. Postoperative complications related to cage obliquity were examined.

RESULTS

The mean cage obliquity of the 171 cages was 11.3±6.9°. Cage obliquity was greater at the L4-L5 level (13.4±6.4°) than at other levels (L2-L3 and L3-L4: 6.5±7.0° and 10.1±6.2°, respectively) ( P <0.05). There were no significant differences in radiological outcomes among the groups. There were two cases of postoperative contralateral neurological symptoms in group 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the orthogonal cage rotation in OLIF achieved adequate lateral cage placement. Although accurate cage rotation can be limited at the lower lumbar segments, radiological outcomes were not affected by cage obliquity.

Anterior spinal fusion (ALIF/OLIF/LLIF) with lumbosacral transitional vertebra: A systematic review and proposed treatment algorithm

•Key anterior approaches differences in LSTV include vascular (aortic bifurcation/iliocaval confluence), muscular (psoas) and osseus anatomy (inter-crestal tangent/pubic symphysis), when compared to non-LSTV.•There are increased surgical deviations but not significantly greater complications for anterior approaches in LSTV.•Vascular awareness while accessing L45 will be in the presence of a more cephalad ABF and ICC with sacralized L5, and access to the deeper L56 level will be in the presence of a more caudal ABF and ICC in lumbarized S1.

Biomechanical effects of an oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with posterior augmentation: a finite element analysis

Background

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is widely used to treat lumbar degenerative disc disease. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical stability of OLIF, OLIF including posterior pedicle screw and rod (PSR), and OLIF including cortical screw and rod (CSR) instrumentation through finite element analysis.

Methods

A complete L2-L5 finite element model of the lumbar spine was constructed. Surgical models of OLIF, such as stand-alone, OLIF combined with PSR, and OLIF combined with CSR were created in the L3-L4 surgical segments. Range of motion (ROM), end plate stress, and internal fixation peak stress were compared between different models under the same loading conditions.

Results

Compared to the intact model, ROM was reduced in the OLIF model under all loading conditions. The surgical models in order of increasing ROM were PSR, CSR, and stand-alone; however, the difference in ROM between BPS and CSR was less than 0.4° and was not significant under any loading conditions. The stand-alone model had the highest stress on the superior L4 vertebral body endplate under all loading conditions, whereas the end plate stress was relatively low in the BPS and CSR models. The CSR model had the highest internal fixation stress, concentrated primarily at the end of the screw.

Conclusions

OLIF alone significantly reduces ROM but does not provide sufficient stability. Addition of posterior PSR or CSR internal fixation instrumentation to OLIF surgery can significantly improve biomechanical stability of the segment undergoing surgery.

Learning Curve and Complications Experience of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion : A Single-Center 143 Consecutive Cases

OBJECTIVE

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is becoming the preferred treatment for degenerative lumbar diseases. As beginners, we performed 143 surgeries over 19 months. In these consecutive cases, we analyzed the learning curve and reviewed the complications in our experience.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study; however, complications that were well known in the previous literature were strictly recorded prospectively. We followed up the changes in estimated blood loss (EBL), operation time, and transient psoas paresis according to case accumulation to analyze the learning curve.

RESULTS

Complication-free patients accounted for 43.6% (12.9%, early stage 70 patients and 74.3%, late stage 70 patients). The most common complication was transient psoas paresis (n=52). Most of these complications occurred in the early stages of learning. C-reactive protein normalization was delayed in seven patients (4.89%). The operation time showed a decreasing trend with the cases; however, EBL did not show any significant change. Notable operation-induced complications were cage malposition, vertebral body fracture, injury to the ureter, and injury to the lumbar vein.

CONCLUSION

According to the learning curve, the operation time and psoas paresis decreased. It is important to select an appropriately sized cage along with clear dissection of the anterior border of the psoas muscle to prevent OLIF-specific complications.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Various Fixation Options: A Finite Element Analysis

Objective

The aim of the present study was to clarify the biomechanical properties of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) using different fixation methods in normal and osteoporosis spines.

Methods

Normal and osteoporosis intact finite element models of L₁–S₁ were established based on CT images of a healthy male volunteer. Group A was the normal models and group B was the osteoporosis model. Each group included four subgroups: (i) intact; (ii) stand‐alone cage (Cage); (iii) cage with lateral plate and two lateral screws (LP); and (iv) cage with bilateral pedicle screws and rods (BPSR). The L₃–L₄ level was defined as the surgical segment. After validating the normal intact model, compressive load of 400 N and torsional moment of 10 Nm were applied to the superior surface of L₂ to simulate flexion, extension, left bending, right bending, left rotation, and right rotation motions. Surgical segmental range of motion (ROM), cage stress, endplate stress, supplemental fixation stress, and stress distribution were analyzed in each group.

Results

Cage provided the minimal reduction of ROM among all motions (normal, 82.30%–98.81%; osteoporosis, 92.04%–97.29% of intact model). BPSR demonstrated the maximum reduction of ROM (normal, 43.94%–61.13%; osteoporosis, 45.61%–62.27% of intact model). The ROM of LP was between that of Cage and BPSR (normal, 63.25%–79.72%; osteoporosis, 70%–87.15% of intact model). Cage had the minimal cage stress and endplate stress. With the help of LP and BPSR fixation, cage stress and endplate stress were significantly reduced in all motions, both in normal and osteoporosis finite element models. However, BPSR had more advantages. For cage stress, BPSR was at least 75.73% less than that of Cage in the normal model, and it was at least 80.10% less than that of Cage in the osteoporosis model. For endplate stress, BPSR was at least 75.98% less than that of Cage in the normal model, and it was at least 78.06% less than that of Cage in the osteoporosis model. For supplemental fixation stress, BPSR and LP were much less than the yield strength in all motions in the two groups. In addition, the comparison between the two groups showed that the ROM, cage stress, endplate stress, and supplemental fixation stress in the normal model were less than in the osteoporosis model when using the same fixation option of OLIF.

Conclusion

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion with BPSR provided the best biomechanical stability both in normal and osteoporosis spines. The biomechanical properties of the normal spine were better than those of the osteoporosis spine when using the same fixation option of OLIF.

Lateral and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Current Concepts and a Review of Recent Literature

PURPOSE

To review the relevant recent literature regarding minimally invasive, lateral, and oblique approaches to the anterior lumbar spine, with a particular focus on the operative and postoperative complications.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on Pubmed and Web of Science using combinations of the following keywords and their acronyms: lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), anterior-to-psoas approach (ATP), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and minimally invasive surgery (MIS). All results from January 2016 through January 2019 were evaluated and all studies evaluating complications and/or outcomes were included in the review.

RECENT FINDINGS

Transient neurological deficit, particularly sensorimotor symptoms of the ipsilateral thigh, remains the most common complication seen in LLIF. Best available current literature demonstrates that approximately 30-40% of patients have postoperative deficits, primarily of the proximal leg. Permanent symptoms are less common, affecting 4-5% of cases. Newer techniques to reduce this rate include different retractors, direct visualization of the nerves, and intraoperative neuromonitoring. OLIF may have lower deficit rates, but the available literature is limited. Subsidence rates in both LLIF and OLIF are comparable to ALIF (anterior lumbar interbody fusion), but further study is required. Supplemental posterior fixation is an active area of investigation that shows favorable biomechanical results, but additional clinical studies are needed. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion techniques continue to advance rapidly. As these techniques continue to mature, evidence-based risk-stratification systems are required to better guide both the patient and clinician in the joint decision-making process for the optimal surgical approach.

Spondylolisthesis with Uncommon Congenital Deformity of L4-L5 Vertebral Fusion Treated by Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis and management of congenital anomalies of the spine can be a challenge because of their complex presentations. We present an uncommon case of congenital deformity of the spine with L4-L5 vertebral fusion, mimicking a single vertebra, and L3 spondylolisthesis treated by oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF).

CASE DESCRIPTION

A 69-year-old woman presented with increasing lower back pain radiating to the left leg, with aggravation of symptoms for the past 6 months, causing difficulty in walking. She also complained of paresthesia along the L3-L5 dermatomes in both legs, with more prominence on the left side. Imaging revealed fusion deformity of the L4-L5 vertebrae, as well as degenerative spondylolisthesis at the L3-L4 level. After treatment with OLIF, the patient had an uneventful recovery period. Comparisons were made between the preoperative and 6-month follow-up visual analog scale and the Oswestry Disability Index scores. The patient showed significant improvement in the scores, as well as in her symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF is a promising technique that can be applied in the management of degenerative disk diseases and also for deformities that may be formidable to treat by adopting the traditional posterior approach.