Mini-open oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) approach for multi-level discectomy and fusion involving L5-S1: Preliminary experience

Oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5-S1: feasibility, surgical approach window, incision line, and influencing factors

PURPOSE

The primary aim of this study was to describe the feasibility, surgical approach window (SAW), and incision line (IL) for oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5-S1 (OLIF51) using computed tomography (CT). A secondary aim was to identify associations among approach characteristics and demographic and anthropometric factors.

METHODS

We performed a radiographic study of 50 male and 50 female subjects who received abdominal CT imaging. SAW was measured as the distance from the midline to the medial border of the iliac vessel. IL was measured at the skin surface corresponding to the distance between the center of the disc space and SAW lateral margin. OLIF51 feasibility was defined as the existence of at least a 1-cm SAW without retraction of soft tissues.

RESULTS

For the left side, the OLIF51 SAW and IL were 12.1 ± 4.6 and 175.1 ± 55.3 mm. For the right side, these measures were 10.0 ± 4.3 and 185.0 ± 52.5 mm. Correlations of r = 0.648 (p < 0.001) and r = 0.656 (p < 0.001) were observed between weight and IL on the left and right sides, respectively. OLIF51 was not feasible 23% of the time.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the largest CT study to determine the feasibility of performing an OLIF51. Without the use of retraction, OLIF51 is not feasible 23% of the time. Left-sided OLIF51 allows for a larger surgical approach window and smaller incision compared to the right side. Larger incisions are required for adequate surgical exposure in patients with higher weight.

Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments.

METHODS

The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria.

RESULTS

The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes.

Access to the Lumbosacral Spine: A Current View

The surgical approach to the lumbosacral spine has been the subject of experimental and scientific anatomical studies since the Hippocratic era. However, it was in the 20th century that, with the evolution of asepsis and antibiotic therapy, spine surgery began to evolve at breakneck speed, and the various possibilities of access roads became objects of development and discussion. As a result, pathologies of the lumbosacral spine can be accessed in different ways and positions, from the traditional posterior approach in the prone position to the anterior, oblique, lateral, and endoscopic approaches. The current article brings state-of-the-art access routes to the lumbosacral spine. This article objective is to elucidate the possibilities of accesses the lumbar spine for any purposes, as decompression, fusion, tumour resections, reconstruction or deformity correction, despites type of implants or implants positioning.

Bilateral duplicated inferior vena cava associated with aberrant internal iliac and gonadal veins: A case-based narrative review

BACKGROUND

The left side anterior retroperitoneal approach is preferred for the management of lumbosacral spine disorders as there is reduced risk for vascular injury. The presence of multiple and uncommon venous variations on either side of the spine, like the bilateral duplicated inferior vena cava (DIVC), may complicate surgery in this region. The current study describes two rare cases of bilateral duplicated inferior vena cava associated with internal iliac and gonadal veins.

METHODS

The cases were identified during routine human dissections of the posterior abdominal wall of 89 (45 males, 44 females) individuals. The course, relations and morphometry of each duplicated inferior vena cava were examined and recorded.

RESULTS

Two (2.2%) of the 89 (1 male, 1 female) dissected individuals showed the presence of bilateral duplicated infrarenal segments of the inferior vena cava. In both cases, the pre-aortic trunk (vein) was the largest and the left inferior vena cava was the smallest. Both cases of bilateral DIVC presented with anomalous interiliac communicating veins, internal iliac veins, and drainage sites of the left gonadal veins.

CONCLUSIONS

The duplicated inferior vena cava may present with associated venous anomalies like those related to the gonadal and internal iliac veins. Knowledge of the duplicated inferior vena cava and its associated venous anomalies may be essential for accurately identifying and diagnosing vascular dysfunction and improving radiological interpretation across multiple surgical specialities.

Lateral access minimally invasive spine surgery in adult spinal deformity

Background

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and percutaneous posterior approach for screw fixation (PPS) is the latest minimal invasive treatment for spinal deformity in adult patients (ASD). This study aims to design and highlight key points for ASD correction.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analyzed 54 patients who had undergone OLIF with PPS for ASD from October 2019 to January 2022 (average 71.5 ± 6.2 years-old, male 4, female 50) with a mean follow-up period of 29.2 months. Clinical outcomes are expressed by values including the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain. The imagistic assessment was also performed preoperatively and at 12, and 24 months postoperatively. For OLIF51, CT- MRI fusion images were obtained before surgery.

Results

Postoperative ODI and VAS were 30.5 ± 18.9% and 31.2 ± 6.9 mm, respectively. The average operating time and blood loss during the surgical exposure was 490.9 ± 85.4 min and 1195.2 ± 653.8 ml. Preoperative SVA, PI-LL, and PT were 96.5 ± 55.9 mm, 39.3 ± 22.1°, 34.5 ± 11.0°, respectively. Postoperatively, SVA and PT became normal (24.1 ± 39.0 mm, 17.1 ± 10.3°) and PI-LL was ideal (2.4 ± 12.6°). Postoperative ODI and VAS were 30.5 ± 18.9% and 31.2 ± 6.9 mm. For OLIF51, the results revealed gain in L5-S1 lordosis and intervertebral disc height 9.4° and 4.2 mm respectively. The complications consisted of PJK in 21 cases (38.9%), rod breakage in 5 cases (9.3%), deep or superficial wound infection in 2 cases (3.7%).

Conclusion

Clinical and imagistic results of OLIF and PPS for ASD were excellent. The radiographic measurements revealed that OLIF51 created good L5-S1 lordosis and significant L5-S1 disc height. CT-MRI fusion images were very useful for evaluating vascular anatomy for OLIF51.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion with internal fixations in the treatment for cross-segment degenerative lumbar spine disease (L2-3 and L4-5) finite element analysis

Multi-segmental lumbar degenerative disease, including intersegmental disc degeneration, is found in clinical practice. Controversy still exists regarding the treatment for cross-segment degeneration. Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) with several internal fixations was used to treat cross-segment lumbar degenerative disease. A whole lumbar spine model was extracted from CT images of the whole lumbar spine of patients with lumbar degeneration. The L2-3 and L4-5 intervertebral spaces were fused with OLIF using modeling software, the Pedicle screws were performed on L2-3 and L4-5, and different internal fixations were performed on L3-4 in Finite Element (FE) software. Among the six 10 Nm moments of different directions, the L3-4 no surgery (NS) group had the relatively largest Range of Motion (ROM) in the whole lumbar spine, while the L2-5 Long segmental fixation (LSF)group had the smallest ROM and the other groups had similar ROM. The ROM in the L1-2 and L5-S1 was relatively close in the six group models, and the articular cartilage stress and disc stress on the L1-2 and L5-S1 were relatively close. In contrast, the L3-4 ROM differed relatively greatly, with the LSF ROM the smallest and the NS ROM the largest, and the L3-4 Coflex (Coflex) group more active than the L3-4 Bacfuse (Bacfuse) group and the L3-4 translaminar facet screw fixation (TFSF) group. The stress on the articular cartilage and disc at L3-4 was relatively greater in the NS disc and articular cartilage, and greater in the Coflex group than in the Bacfuse and TFSF groups, with the greatest stress on the internal fixation in the TFSF group, followed by the Coflex group, and relatively similar stress in the Bacfuse, LSF, and NS groups. In the TFSF group, the stress on the internal fixation was greater than the yield strength among different directional moments of 10 Nm, which means it is unsuitable to be an internal fixation. The LSF group had the greatest overall ROM, which may lead to postoperative low back discomfort. The NS group has the greatest overall ROM, but its increased stress on the L3-4 disc and articular cartilage may lead to accelerated degeneration of the L3-4 disc and articular cartilage. The Coflex and Bacfuse groups had a reduced L3-4 ROM but a greater stress on disc compared to the LSF group, which may lead to disc degeneration in the long term. However, their stress on the articular cartilage was relatively low. Coflex and Bacfuse can still be considered better surgical options.

Comparison of C-Arm-Free Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion L5-S1 (OLIF51) with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion L5-S1 (TLIF51) for Adult Spinal Deformity

Background and Objectives: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery, L5-S1 lordosis is very important factor. The main objective of the research is to retrospectively compare symptomatic presentation and radiological presentation in the sequelae of oblique lumbar inter-body spinal fusion at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for ASD. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 54 patients who underwent corrective spinal fusion for ASD between October 2019 and January 2021. Thirteen patients underwent OLIF51 (average 74.6 years old, group O) and 41 patients underwent TLIF51 (average 70.5 years old, group T). Mean follow-up period was 23.9 months for group O and 28.9 months for group T, ranging from 12 to 43 months. Clinical and radiographic outcomes are assessed using values including visual analogue scale (VAS) for back pain and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Radiographic evaluation was also collected preoperatively and at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Results: Surgical time in group O was less than that in group T (356 min vs. 492 min, p = 0.003). However, intraoperative blood loss of both groups were not significantly different (1016 mL vs. 1252 mL, p = 0.274). Changes in VAS and ODI were similar in both groups. L5-S1 angle gain and L5-S1 height gain in group O were significantly better than those of group T (9.4° vs. 1.6°, p = 0.0001, 4.2 mm vs. 0.8 mm, p = 0.0002). Conclusions: Clinical outcomes were not significantly different in both groups, but surgical time in OLIF51 was significantly less than that in TLIF51. The radiographic outcomes showed that OLIF51 created more L5-S1 lordosis and L5-S1 disc height compared with TLIF 51.

OLIF versus MI-TLIF for patients with degenerative lumbar disease: Is one procedure superior to the other? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) for degenerative lumbar disease.

METHODS

We searched relevant studies in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases comprehensively from inception to March 2022. The data were extracted from included studies, including operation indications, radiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes. Random or fixed-effects models were used in all meta-analyses according to the between-study heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 30 studies, including 2,125 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Our study found similar disk height, length of hospital stay, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index(ODI) between the two groups. However, the OLIF showed an advantage in restoring lumbar lordotic angle compared with MI-TLIF, with the pooled mean change of 17.73° and 2.61°, respectively. Additionally, the operative time and blood loss in the OLIF group appeared to be less compared with the MI-TLIF group. Regarding complications, the rates of the two groups were similar (OLIF 14.0% vs. MI-TLIF 10.0%), but the major complications that occurred in these two procedures differed significantly.

CONCLUSION

The results of disk height, length of hospital stay, VAS, and ODI between the OLIF and MI-TLIF groups were similar. And the OLIF was superior in restoring lumbar lordotic angle, operative time, and blood loss. However, the OLIF group's complication rate was higher, although not significantly, than that in the MI-TLIF group.

Characteristics and hotspots of the 50 most cited articles in the field of pre-psoas oblique lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

In the past decade, the field of pre-psoas oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has developed rapidly, and with it, the literature on OLIF has grown considerably. This study was designed to analyze the top 50 articles in terms of the number of citations through bibliometric research to demonstrate the research characteristics and hotspots of OLIF.

METHOD

Searching the Web of Science database yielded the 50 most cited publications in the OLIF field as of July 10, 2022. The publications were ranked according to the number of citations. The following sources were evaluated: the year of publications, the number of citations, authors, countries, institutions, journals, research topics, and keyword hotspots.

RESULTS

The most productive period was from 2017 to 2020, with 41 articles. The number of citations varied from 10 to 140, with an average of 35.52, and 1,776 citations were found. World Neurosurgery published the most articles (12), China produced the most articles (16), and the Catholic University of Korea produced the most studies (6). The corresponding author who produced the most articles was J.S. Kim (5), and the first author who produced the most publications was S. Orita (3). The main research topics were anatomical morphology, surgical techniques, indications, outcomes, and complications. The top 10 most cited keywords were "complications," "decompression," "spine," "surgery," "outcomes," "transpsoas approach," "spondylolisthesis," "anterior," "disease," and "injury."

CONCLUSIONS

Certain articles can be distinguished from others using citation analysis as an accurate representation of their impact due to their long-term effectiveness and peer recognition. With these publications, researchers are provided with research priorities and hotspots through influential literature in the field of OLIF.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) approach for L5-S1: Preliminary experience

Study Design

Technical report.

Objective

Evaluate technical feasibility of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) at the L5-S1 level and provide an elaborate description of the surgical technique.

Summary of Background Data

With the development of surgical techniques, the indications for oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) surgery have been broadened to the L5/S1 segment. However, this technique also has limitations. Different from OLIF, the L5/S1 segment used to be considered the main contraindication for XLIF. To date, no authors have reported the application of XLIF at the L5/S1 level.

Methods

Only patients whose preoperative lumbar MRI showed the position of the psoas major muscles and blood vessels at the L5/S1 level were similar to those seen at supra-L5 levels were seleted. By folding the operating table, the iliac crest was moved downward to expose the L5/S1 intervertebral space during the operation. The remaining surgical procedures were consistent with routine XLIF surgery.

Results

8 patients successfully underwent XLIF at the L5/S1 level. The L5/S1 disk spaces were always exposed sufficiently for disk preparation and cage insertion. The post operative radiographs showed a satisfactory L5/S1 reconstruction with good cage position. Only 1 patient (12.5%) felt thigh numbness, and the symptoms gradually resolved after surgery and were no longer present in a month. There were no cases of psoas hematoma, retrograde ejaculation or vascular injury. The postoperative VAS score showed that all the patients achieved satisfactory results.

Conclusions

XLIF at L5-S1 is feasible in strictly selected cases after thorough preoperative preparation and careful intraoperative procedures. However, we did not recommend XLIF as a routine surgical option at the L5/S1 level.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with different internal fixations for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a finite element analysis

Background

Little is known about the biomechanical performance of different internal fixations in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Here, finite element (FE) analysis was used to describe the biomechanics of various internal fixations and compare and explore the stability of each fixation.

Methods

CT scans of a patient with lumbar degenerative disease were performed, and the l3-S1 model was constructed using relevant software. The other five FE models were constructed by simulating the model operation and adding different related implants, including (1) an intact model, (2) a stand-alone (SA) model with no instrument, (3) a unilateral pedicle screw model (UPS), (4) a unilateral pedicle screw contralateral translaminar facet screw model (UPS-CTFS), (5) a bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) model, and (6) a cortical bone trajectory screw model (CBT). Various motion loads were set by FE software to simulate lumbar vertebral activity. The software was also used to extract the range of motion (ROM) of the surgical segment, CAGE and fixation stress in the different models.

Results

The SA group had the greatest ROM and CAGE stress. The ROM of the BPS and UPS-CTFS was not significantly different among motion loadings. Compared with the other three models, the BPS model had lower internal fixation stress among loading conditions, and the CBT screw internal fixation had the highest stress among loads.

Conclusions

The BPS model provided the best biomechanical stability for OLIF. The SA model was relatively less stable. The UPS-CTFS group had reduced ROM in the fusion segments, but the stresses on the internal fixation and CAGE were relatively higher in the than in the BPS group; the CBT group had a lower flexion and extension ROM and higher rotation and lateral flexion ROM than the BPS group. The stability of the CBT group was poorer than that of the BPS and LPS-CTFS groups. The CAGE and internal fixation stress was greater in the CBT group.

The Effect of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Program on Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Disease at Short-Term Follow-Up

Purpose

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) approach has been increasingly frequently performed in recent years. However, neither studies of OLIF approach nor the researches of the application of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in spinal surgery are relatively rare. Here, our study is aimed at investigating the therapeutic effects of the application of OLIF compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) approach combined with ERAS in dealing with this disorder at short-term follow-up. Material and Methods. Thirty-eight patients who undergone OLIF and forty patients who undergone TLIF with pedicle screws were included in our study. The concept of ERAS was applied in the perioperative period of the patients. Preoperative and postoperative laboratory test indexes of blood were examined and evaluated in all individuals. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), and Clinical Symptom Score of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) were used in preoperative evaluation and postoperative follow-up. Satisfaction survey was also performed after surgery.

Result

The postoperative results of red blood count, C-reaction protein, D-dimer, and albumin were still within the reference ranges in most of the patients. It was shown that objective evaluations including VAS score, ODI index, and JOA score were significantly improved after OLIF and TLIF surgery. The follow-up of 6 months after surgery showed that VAS, ODI, and JOA were improved more in the OLIF group than that in the TLIF group. The overall satisfaction (satisfied and very satisfied) was 95% and 97.4% in the TLIF group and the OLIF group, respectively, and there was no difference between the two groups.

Conclusion

This study indicated that OLIF and TLIF approach were both rather effective therapies for patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. The effect of OLIF procedure could be better than TLIF procedure in the early stage after surgery.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lateral interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) are widely used in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. In the present study, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical and radiographic efficacy of these two procedures.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed, and the quality of retrieved studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Clinical outcomes, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, improvement in Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) effectiveness rate and complications, in addition to radiographic outcomes, including restoration of disc height, disc angle, overall lumbar lordosis, fusion rate and subsidence, were extracted and input into a fixed or random effect model to compare the efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.

RESULTS

Seven qualified studies were included. Clinically, OLIF resulted in less intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation time than MIS-TLIF. Improvement of VAS for leg pain was more obvious in the OLIF group (P < 0.0001), whereas improvement of VAS for back pain (P = 0.08) and ODI (P = 0.98) as well as JOABPEQ effectiveness rate (P = 0.18) were similar in the two groups. Radiographically, OLIF was more effective in restoring disc height (P = 0.01) and equivalent in improving the disc angle (P = 0.18) and lumbar lordosis (P = 0.48) compared with MIS-TLIF. The fusion rate (P = 0.11) was similar in both groups, while the subsidence was more severe in the MIS-TLIF group (P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

The above evidence suggests that OLIF is associated with a shorter operation time (with supplementary fixation in the prone position) and less intraoperative blood loss than MIS-TLIF and can lead to better leg pain alleviation, disc height restoration and subsidence resistance. No differences regarding back pain relief, functional recovery, complications, disc angle restoration, lumbar lordosis restoration and fusion rate were found. However, due to the limited number of studies, our results should be confirmed with high-level studies to fully compare the therapeutic efficacy of MIS-TLIF and OLIF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID:  CRD42020201903 .

Nuances of oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1: Three case reports

BACKGROUND

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion is a mini-open retroperitoneal approach that uses a wide corridor between the left psoas muscle and the aorta above L5. This approach avoids the limitations of lateral lumbar interbody fusion, is considered less invasive than anterior lumbar interbody fusion, and is similarly effective for indirect decompression and improving lordosis while maintaining a low complication profile. Including L5-S1, when required, adds to these advantages, as this allows single-position surgery. However, variations in vascular anatomy can affect the ease of access to the L5-S1 disc. The nuances of three different oblique anterolateral techniques to access L5-S1 for interbody fusion, namely, left-sided intra-bifurcation, left-sided pre-psoas, and right-sided pre-psoas approaches, are illustrated using three representative case studies.

CASE SUMMARY

Cases of three patients who underwent multilevel oblique lumbar interbody fusion including L5-S1, using one of the three different techniques, are described. All patients presented with symptomatic degenerative lumbar pathology and failed conservative management prior to surgery. The anatomical considerations that affected the decisions to utilize each approach are discussed. The pros and cons of each approach are also discussed. A parasagittal facet line objectively assesses the relationship between the left common iliac vein and the L5-S1 disc and assists in choosing the approach to L5-S1.

CONCLUSION

Oblique retroperitoneal access to L5-S1 in the lateral decubitus position is possible through three different approaches. The choice of approach to L5-S1 may be individualized based on a patient’s vascular anatomy using preoperative imaging. While most surgeons will rely on their experience and comfort level in choosing the approach, this article elucidates the nuances of each technique.

Application of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion in Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Tuberculosis in Adults

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present paper was to evaluate the safety and clinical efficacy of mini-open retroperitoneal oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) for the treatment of lumbar spinal tuberculosis.

METHODS

A total of 115 patients who suffered from lumbar spinal tuberculosis from June 2014 to December 2017 were included in this research. A total of 59 patients underwent OLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (OLIF group) and 56 patients underwent the anterior-only approach (anterior-only group). All patients were followed up for at least 24 months. Operation time, blood loss, and rate of complications were used to assess the safety of these two techniques. The visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) were used to evaluate the relief of neurological and functional symptoms. The erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were measured to investigate the activity and recurrence of spinal tuberculosis. The Cobb angle, the sagittal vertical axis of the spine (SVA), the pelvic tilt (PT), the sacral slope (SS), the pelvic incidence (PI), and postoperative Frankel classification were also used to assess the efficiency of the spine deformity correction and the recovery of long-term neurological function.

RESULTS

Most patients were successfully treated with OLIF and the anterior-only technique and attained satisfactory clinical efficiency during the 24-month follow-up period. In the perioperative period, the mean operative time (154.68 ± 23.64 min, P < 0.001), the mean blood loss (110.57 ± 87.67 mL, P < 0.001), and the mean hospital stay (9.55 ± 3.62 days, P < 0.001) of the OLIF group were all significantly lower than in the anterior-only group (172.49 ± 25.67 min, 458.56 ± 114.89 mL, and 14.89 ± 3.89 days, respectively). A total of 10 patients (16.95%) experienced complications in the OLIF group, including neurological injury, segmental artery and iliac vein lacerations, peritoneal injury, instrument failure, and infection of incisions; this rate of complications was lower than in the anterior-only group (37.50%, P = 0.013). Regard to spinal deformity correction, the Cobb angle (9.42° ± 1.72°, P = 0.032), the SVA (2.23 ± 1.07 cm, P = 0.041), the PT (14.26° ± 2.37°, P = 0.037), and the SS (39.49° ± 2.17°, P = 0.042) of the OLIF group at last follow-up were all significantly different when compared to the anterior-only group (14.75° ± 2.13°, 3.48 ± 0.76 cm, 18.58° ± 1.45°, and 36.78° ± 1.96°, respectively). The VAS and the ODI of the OLIF group at 1 week postoperatively (3.15 ± 0.48, 21.85 ± 3.78, P = 0.032, 0.037) and at the last follow-up (2.12 ± 0.35, 16.70 ± 5.25, P = 0.043, 0.035) were both lower than for the anterior-only group (5.18 ± 0.56, 29.83 ± 5.42 and 3.67 ± 0.62, 20.68 ± 6.23). The Frankel classification was improved for both OLIF and anterior-only patients; however, there were 35 cases (59.32%) classified as Frankel grade E in the OLIF group and 22 cases (39.29%, P = 0.021) in the anterior-only group CONCLUSION: The OLIF surgical technique for single lumbar (L₂ -L₅ ) spinal tuberculosis is less invasive, has lower complication rates, and is more efficient than the anterior-only approach. However, the long-term effects of this surgical technique still need to be explored.

Introducing V-Line as a New Strategy to Choose Surgical Corridor in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the L5-S1 Segment

Purpose

A retrospective imaging study assessing the availability of oblique lumbar interbody fusion at the level of L5-S1 (OLIF51) and to choose ideal surgical corridor in OLIF51 by introducing V-line.

Methods

The axial views through the center of L5-S1 disc were reviewed. We adopt 18 mm as the width of the simulated surgical corridor. The midline of the surgical corridor is at the center of L5-S1 disc. According to the traction distance of the left iliac vein (LCIV) and psoas major (PM), we defined all the subjects as V (+) (traction-difficultly LCIV), V (-) (traction-friendly LCIV), P (+) (traction-difficultly PM), and P (-) (traction-friendly PM). V-line was defined as a straight line dividing equally the simulated surgical corridor. All cases were divided into 2 groups: The V-line (+) group, more than half of the LCIV region, is located in the ventral part of V-line; the V-line (-) group, more than half of the LCIV region, is located in the dorsal part of V-line. Multiple variables regressive analysis was conducted to analyze the independent risk factors of V-line (+).

Results

V-line (+) was found in 36 (38.7%) patients and V-line (-) in 57 (61.3%). Incidence of V (+) and P (+) was 35.4% (33/93) and 30.1% (28/93), respectively. 16.1% (15/93) subjects processed V (+) and P (+) at the same time. The independent risk factor of V-line (+) were gender of male (P = 0.034, OR: 12.152) and medial position of LCIV (P < 0.001, OR: 265.085). High iliac crest was a significant independent protective factor (P = 0.001, OR: 0.750).

Conclusions

Most patients were suitable for OLIF51. V-line could assess the injury risk of LCIV. For patients who are V-line (+), mainly among males having the LCIV near the midline or the iliac crest relatively low, a surgical corridor external to the LCIV should be taken into consideration.

Inclusion of L5-S1 in oblique lumbar interbody fusion-techniques and early complications-a single center experience

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The oblique prepsoas retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) provides safe access to nearly all lumbar levels. A wide interval between the psoas and aorta allows for a safe and straightforward left-sided oblique approach to the discs above L5. Inclusion of L5-S1 in this approach, however, requires modifications in the technique to navigate the complex and variable vascular anatomy distal to the bifurcation of the great vessels. While different oblique approaches to L5-S1 have been described in the literature, to our knowledge, no previous study has provided guidance for the choice of technique.

PURPOSE

Our objectives were to evaluate our early experience with the safety of including L5-S1 in OLIF using 3 different approach techniques, as well as to compare early complications between OLIF with and without L5-S1 inclusion.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Of the 87 patients who underwent lumbar interbody fusion at 167 spinal levels via an OLIF approach, 19 included L5-S1 (group A) and 68 did not (group B).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Demographics, levels fused, indications, operative time (ORT), estimated blood loss (EBL), vascular ligation, intraoperative blood transfusion, length of stay (LOS), discharge to rehabilitation facility, and complications (intraoperative, early ≤90 days, and delayed >90 days) were retrospectively assessed and compared between the groups.

METHODS

A retrospective chart and imaging review of all consecutive patients who underwent OLIF at a single institution was performed. Indications for OLIF included symptomatic lumbar degenerative stenosis, deformity, and spondylolisthesis. The L5-S1 level, when included, was approached via one of the following 3 techniques: (1) a left-sided intrabifurcation approach; (2) left-sided prepsoas approach; and (3) right-sided prepsoas approach. Vascular anatomic variations at the lumbosacral junction were evaluated using the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and a "facet line" was proposed to assess this relationship. A minimum of 6 months of follow-up data were assessed for approach-related morbidities.

RESULTS

Demographics and operative indications were similar between the groups. The mean follow-up was 10.8 (6-36) months. ORT was significantly longer in group A than in group B (322 vs. 256.3 min, respectively; p=.001); however, no difference in ORT between the two groups was found in the subanalyses for 2- and 3-level surgeries. Differences in EBL (260 vs. 207.91 cc, p=.251) and LOS (2.76 vs. 2.48 days, p=.491) did not reach statistical significance. Ligation of the iliolumbar vein, segmental veins, median sacral vessels, or any vascular structure, as needed for adequate exposure, was required in 13 (68.4%) patients from group A and 4 (5.9%) from group B (p<.00001). Two patients suffered minor vascular injuries (1 in each group); however, no major vascular injuries were seen. Complications were not significantly different between groups A and B, or between the three approaches to L5-S1, and trended lower in the latter part of the series as the learning curve progressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of L5-S1 in OLIF is safe and feasible through three different approaches but likely involves greater operative complexity. In our early experience, inclusion of L5-S1 showed no increase in early complications. This is the first series that reports the use of 3 different oblique approaches to L5-S1. The proposed "facet line" in the preoperative MRI may guide the choice of approach.

Anterior lumbar compared to oblique lumbar interbody approaches for multilevel fusions to the sacrum in adults with spinal deformity and degeneration

OBJECTIVE

In adult spinal deformity and degenerative conditions of the spine, interbody fusion to the sacrum often is performed to enhance arthrodesis, induce lordosis, and alleviate stenosis. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has traditionally been performed, but minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) may or may not cause less morbidity because less retraction of the abdominal viscera is required. The authors evaluated whether there was a difference between the results of ALIF and OLIF in multilevel anterior or lateral interbody fusion to the sacrum.

METHODS

Patients from 2013 to 2018 who underwent multilevel ALIF or OLIF to the sacrum were retrospectively studied. Inclusion criteria were adult spinal deformity or degenerative pathology and multilevel ALIF or OLIF to the sacrum. Demographic, implant, perioperative, and radiographic variables were collected. Statistical calculations were performed for significant differences.

RESULTS

Data from a total of 127 patients were analyzed (66 OLIF patients and 61 ALIF patients). The mean follow-up times were 27.21 (ALIF) and 24.11 (OLIF) months. The mean surgical time was 251.48 minutes for ALIF patients and 234.48 minutes for OLIF patients (p = 0.154). The mean hospital stay was 7.79 days for ALIF patients and 7.02 days for OLIF patients (p = 0.159). The mean time to being able to eat solid food was 4.03 days for ALIF patients and 1.30 days for OLIF patients (p < 0.001). After excluding patients who had undergone L5-S1 posterior column osteotomy, 54 ALIF patients and 41 OLIF patients were analyzed for L5-S1 radiographic changes. The mean cage height was 14.94 mm for ALIF patients and 13.56 mm for OLIF patients (p = 0.001), and the mean cage lordosis was 15.87° in the ALIF group and 16.81° in the OLIF group (p = 0.278). The mean increases in anterior disc height were 7.34 mm and 4.72 mm for the ALIF and OLIF groups, respectively (p = 0.001), and the mean increases in posterior disc height were 3.35 mm and 1.24 mm (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean change in L5-S1 lordosis was 4.33° for ALIF patients and 4.59° for OLIF patients (p = 0.829).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent multilevel OLIF and ALIF to the sacrum had comparable operative times. OLIF was associated with a quicker ileus recovery and less blood loss. At L5-S1, ALIF allowed larger cages to be placed, resulting in a greater disc height change, but there was no significant difference in L5-S1 segmental lordosis.

The effect of obesity on perioperative morbidity in oblique lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

Obese patients have been shown to have longer operative times and more complications from surgery. However, for obese patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery, these differences may not be as significant. In the lateral position, it is thought that obesity is less of an issue because gravity pulls the visceral fat away from the spine; however, this observation is primarily anecdotal and based on expert opinion. The authors performed oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and they report on the perioperative morbidity in obese and nonobese patients.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent OLIF performed by 3 spine surgeons and 1 vascular surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, from 2013 to 2018. Data collected included demographic variables; approach-related factors such as operative time, blood loss, and expected temporary approach-related sequelae; and overall complications. Patients were categorized according to their body mass index (BMI). Obesity was defined as a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, and severe obesity was defined as a BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2.

RESULTS

There were 238 patients (95 males and 143 females). There were no significant differences between the obese and nonobese groups in terms of sex, levels fused, or smoking status. For the entire cohort, there was no difference in operative time, blood loss, or complications when comparing obese and nonobese patients. However, a subset analysis of the 77 multilevel OLIFs that included L5-S1 demonstrated that the operative times for the nonobese group was 223.55 ± 57.93 minutes, whereas it was 273.75 ± 90.07 minutes for the obese group (p = 0.004). In this subset, the expected approach-related sequela rate was 13.2% for the nonobese group, whereas it was 33.3% for the obese group (p = 0.039). However, the two groups had similar blood loss (p = 0.476) and complication rates (p = 0.876).

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity and morbid obesity generally do not increase the operative time, blood loss, approach-related sequelae, or complications following OLIF. However, obese patients who undergo multilevel OLIF that includes the L5-S1 level do have longer operative times or a higher rate of expected approach-related sequelae. Obesity should not be considered a contraindication to multilevel OLIF, but patients should be informed of potentially increased morbidity if the L5-S1 level is to be included.

Long-term complications of minimally-open anterolateral interbody fusion for L5-S1

BACKGROUND

Multiple surgical techniques and approaches exist to obtain lumbar interbody fusion. Anterolateral (oblique) is a relatively recent technique. Controversy exists for its use at the L5-S1 level. We performed this study in order to show the safety and efficacy of this technique. The aim of this study was to report the long-term complications and fusion rates of minimally-open (mini-open) anterolateral interbody fusion at the L5-S1 level.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all patients who underwent mini-open anterolateral interbody fusion for L5-S1 level in our department. The data collected were the following: age, sex, surgical indication, acute (less than four weeks) and long-term complications (>3 months), fusion at six months and length of follow-up.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients (8M/9F) underwent mini-open anterolateral interbody fusion at L5-S1. The mean age was 64.5 years. The surgical indication was scoliosis in 10 cases, flat back in 4 cases, and spondylolisthesis in 3 cases. All patients underwent a complementary posterior procedure that included fixation. Mean blood loss was 252.9mL for the anterior procedure. Eight acute and minor complications occurred (anemia, delirium, and psoas paresis). Two acute complications required surgical intervention (cage displacement and hematoma). Long-term complications were observed in 2 cases and included proximal junction kyphosis and non-union. The fusion rate was evaluated at 88%. The mean follow-up period was 28.3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-open anterolateral interbody fusion at the L5-S1 level is safe and results in fusion at the same rate as anterior interbody fusion. Most acute complications are minor and resolve spontaneously.

Stability Evaluation of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Constructs with Various Fixation Options: A Finite Element Analysis Based on Three-Dimensional Scanning Models

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the biomechanical performance of various fixation constructs after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). This study aimed to explore the stability of various fixation options for OLIF by using finite element analysis based on three-dimensional scanning models.

METHODS

Six validated finite element models of the L3-L5 segment were reconstructed via computed tomography images, including (1) intact model, (2) stand-alone model with no instrument, (3) lateral rod-screw model, (4) lateral rod-screw plus contralateral translaminar facet screw (LRS-CTLFS) model, (5) unilateral pedicle screw model, and (6) bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) model. Models of the OLIF cage and pedicle screw were created with three-dimensional scanning to improve the accuracy of finite element analysis. Range of motion, stress of the cage, and stress of fixation were evaluated in the different models.

RESULTS

Range of motion increased from least to greatest as follows: BPS, LRS-CTLFS, unilateral pedicle screw, lateral rod-screw, stand-alone. Differences in range of motion between BPS and LRS-CTLFS were not significant for all loading cases. Compared with the other 3 models, the stress of the cage was found to be lower in BPS and LRS-CTLFS under all loading conditions, especially in BPS. Stress exerted on the fixation was the greatest in LRS-CTLFS, and the stress experienced by the translaminar facet screw was concentrated in part of the facet joint.

CONCLUSIONS

The BPS model provided the best biomechanical stability for OLIF; the stand-alone model could not provide sufficient stability. The LRS-CTLFS procedure increases the approximate stability and reduces stress at the cage-endplate interface; however, it causes an increase in screw stress.

Standalone lordotic endoscopic wedge lumbar interbody fusion (LEW-LIF™) with a threaded cylindrical peek cage: report of two cases

We report two cases of a standalone lordotic endoscopic wedge lumbar interbody fusion (LEW-LIF™) with a stress-neutral non-expandable cylindrical threaded polyether ether ketone (PEEK) interbody fusion implant. Patients underwent full-endoscopic transforaminal decompression and fusion for symptomatic lateral recess stenosis due to disc herniation, and hypertrophy of the facet joint complex and ligamentum flavum and no more than grade I spondylolisthesis. Lumbar interbody fusion with cages traditionally calls for posterior supplemental fixation with pedicle screws for added stability. A more simplified version of lumbar decompression and fusion without pedicle screws would allow treating patients suffering from stenosis and instability induced sciatica-type low back and leg pain in an outpatient ambulatory surgery center setting (ASC). This would realize a significant reduction in cost as well as the burden to the patient with decreased postoperative pain and earlier return to function. A 62-year-old female patient had surgery at L4/5 for a 6-year history of worsening right sided sciatica-type leg- and low back pain. Another 79-year-old female had the same surgical management at L4/5 for a 5-year history of unrelenting left-sided spondylolisthesis-related symptoms. Both patients had an uneventful postoperative course until the last available follow-up of 24 weeks with greater than 60% VAS and Oswestry disability index (ODI) reductions. There was no evidence of implant expulsion, subsidence, or postoperative instability. We concluded that standalone outpatient lumbar transforaminal endoscopic interbody fusion with a non-expandable threaded cylindrical cage is feasible, and favorable clinical outcomes provide proof of concept to study long-term clinical outcomes in larger groups of patients.

Usefulness of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion at L5-S1 Level Compared to Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Objective

The use of oblique lateral interbody fusion at the L5–S1 level (OLIF51) is increasing, but no study has directly compared OLIF51 and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at the L5–S1 level. We evaluated the usefulness of OLIF51 by comparing clinical and radiologic outcomes with those of TLIF at the same L5–S1 level.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed and compared 74 patients who underwent OLIF51 (OLIF51 group) and 74 who underwent TLIF at the L5–S1 level (TLIF51 group). Clinical outcomes were assessed with the visual analogue scale for back pain and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index. Mean disc height (MDH), foraminal height (FH), disc angle (DA), fusion rate, and subsidence rate were measured for radiologic outcomes.

Results

The OLIF51 group used significantly higher, wider, and larger-angled cages than the TLIF51 group (p<0.001). The postoperative MDH and FH were significantly greater in the OLIF51 group than in the TLIF51 group (p<0.001). The postoperative DA was significantly larger in the OLIF51 group than in the TLIF51 group by more than 10º (p<0.001). The fusion rate was 81.1% and 87.8% at postoperative 6 months in the OLIF51 and TLIF51 groups, respectively, and the TLIF51 group showed a higher fusion rate (p<0.05). The subsidence rate was 16.2% and 25.3% in the OLIF51 and TLIF51 groups, respectively, and the OLIF51 group showed a lower subsidence rate (p<0.05).

Conclusion

OLIF51 was more effective for the indirect decompression of foraminal stenosis, providing strong mechanical support with a larger cage, and making a greater lordotic angle with a high-angle cage than with TLIF.

The Anatomic Characteristics of the Retroperitoneal Oblique Corridor to the L1-S1 Intervertebral Disc Spaces

STUDY DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the oblique corridor to the L1-S1 intervertebral disc space between the psoas muscle and the great vessels in cadaveric specimens bilaterally and the location of genitofemoral nerve and the diaphragmatic crura relative to the oblique corridor.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Although use of oblique lumbar interbody fusion is rapidly expanding, the morphometric data related to the procedure are limited.

METHODS

Twelve fresh-frozen full-torso cadaveric specimens were dissected to examine the oblique corridor to access the L1-S1 space in a static state and with mild retraction of the psoas. The level at which the genitofemoral nerve pierces from the psoas major and the diaphragmatic crura originate from the lumbar vertebral body was also investigated.

RESULTS

The mean width of oblique corridor in the static state and with mild psoas retraction, respectively, were as follows: on the right side: (L1-2) 13.33 and 16.75 mm; (L2-3) 15.42 and 21.42 mm; (L3-4) 16.58 and 22.67 mm; (L4-5) 12.75 and 21.17 mm; (L5-S1) 5.92 and 12.00 mm; on the left side: (L1-2) 16.75 and 19.67 mm; (L2-3) 18.50 and 25.33 mm; (L3-4) 20.58 and 28.00 mm; (L4-5) 18.17 and 26.08 mm; and (L5-S1) 5.83 and 12.00 mm. The level at which the genitofemoral nerve pierces from the psoas major was between L2 and L4. The diaphragmatic crura originates from L1 to L3.

CONCLUSION

The oblique corridor allows access to the L1-L5 discs from both sides, but it is larger on the left side. The corridor between the iliac vessels and the psoas for L5-S1 is difficult to be applied clinically. Mild psoas retraction can moderately enlarge the oblique corridor. The genitofemoral nerve and diaphragmatic crura may be encountered in this approach and should be carefully observed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

How I do it? Oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5S1(OLIF51)

BACKGROUND

OLIF51 retains the advantages of traditional ALIF procedure with good fusion rates and improvement in radiographic parameters and reduces its drawbacks. It has the added advantage of being a minimal access technique.

METHODS

Preoperative analysis of the vascular anatomy using CT angiography is mandatory. OLIF51 is done in right lateral position using specialized retractor blades and Thompson retractor system. The procedure is similar to OLIF at other levels except for the differences described here. The instruments are specialized for OLIF at L5S1.

CONCLUSION

OLIF51 provides an excellent alternative to traditional ALIF.

Imaging Anatomic Research of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in a Chinese Population Based on Magnetic Resonance

OBJECTIVE

To provide anatomic evidence of preoperative assessment of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) for Chinese patients.

METHODS

From the hospital picture archiving and communication system, 400 lumbar magnetic resonance imaging studies of adults performed between November 2016 and January 2017 were selected. L2-3, L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 transverse and sagittal images were studied, and anatomic parameters associated with OLIF surgery, including bare window and psoas window, were measured and recorded. SPSS software was used for data summarization, sorting, and analysis to explore the significance of various anatomic parameters.

RESULTS

OLIF surgical corridors to the L2-S1 discs were found in most magnetic resonance imaging scans studied. The size of the psoas affects the difficulty of psoas muscle traction. It is relatively easy to perform OLIF surgery in older women. Most of the human iliac arteries were bifurcated and aggregated in front of the L4-5 intervertebral disc. The lower the aggregate level of the common iliac vein, the less likely it was to have the OLIF surgical corridor in the L5-S1 segment. The most frequently used lengths for a lumbar interbody cage for OLIF for Chinese patients are 50 mm and 55 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF can be a good choice for lumbar intervertebral fusion, including L5-S1 segment, in most Chinese patients. Older women are likely to have more scope of OLIF surgery. As a routine preoperative examination, lumbar magnetic resonance imaging is of great importance to OLIF surgery preoperative assessment.

Use of an Alternative Surgical Corridor in Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion at the L5-S1 Segment: A Technical Report

STUDY DESIGN

Technical report.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the use of an alternative surgical corridor in oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) at the L5-S1 segment.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

OLIF L5-S1 is essentially performed through the central disk space between the bifurcations of the iliac vessels, which is sometimes difficult due to the vascular structures that obstruct the surgical field. Another concern is retrograde ejaculation following superior hypogastric plexus injury in male patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The alternative surgical corridor involves the lateral disk space external to the left iliac vessels. The patient position and the retroperitoneal approach are similar to those used in the conventional OLIF L5-S1. The left iliac vessels are identified and mobilized medially to the midline of the L5-S1 disk space. The vascular structures are then protected using the conventional OLIF 51 retractor system.

RESULTS

Six patients underwent OLIF L5-S1 through the alternative lateral surgical corridor. The L5-S1 disk spaces were always exposed sufficiently for disk preparation and cage insertion. The postoperative radiographs showed a satisfactory L5-S1 reconstruction with good cage position. There were no perioperative complications during the surgical access and reconstruction procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

When the central approach to the L5-S1 disk space poses a risk of vascular or superior hypogastric plexus injury, use of a lateral approach external to the left iliac vessels can be an alternative method to perform OLIF L5-S1.

Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review

Lumbar interbody fusion involves insertion of a structural graft into an intervertebral disc space to promote bony arthrodesis. It is a well-established surgical strategy for multiple spinal disorders ranging from degenerative conditions to trauma, neoplastic diseases, and deformities requiring correction. Since the inception of lumbar interbody fusion, the most established techniques have been two posterior approaches, the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Within the past 15 years, multiple anterolateral approaches to the spine have become widely adopted. These approaches can be performed minimally invasively and spare disruption of the paraspinal muscles and posterior spinal column while enabling wide exposure of the disc space for insertion of interbody grafts much larger than PLIF and TLIF instrumentation. This review highlights three minimally invasive anterolateral approaches: the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), the transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), and prepsoas or anterior to the psoas oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Relevant topics for discussion and comparison include patient selection, surgical techniques, outcomes, and complications for the three surgical approaches.