Endoscope-Assisted Extreme-Lateral Interbody Fusion: Preliminary Experience and Technical Note

Efficacy and Safety of the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) Technique in Spine Surgery: Meta-Analysis of 1409 Patients

(1) Objectives: The objective of this study was to quantify the exact clinical-radiological efficacy and safety of the extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) technique in spinal surgery; (2) Methods: A meta-analysis was performed using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Collaboration Library. Studies focusing on patients surgically treated with XLIF were included. The outcomes were as follows: visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), radiological outcomes, and adverse events. Cohort studies and case series were also included. Clinical outcomes were assessed at 12 months of age. Data were combined using Review Manager 5.4 and WebPlotDigitizer 13.1.4; (3) Results: Nineteen studies with a pool of 1409 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Leg pain VAS and back pain VAS significantly improved at 12 months (SMD 2.75, 95% CI 0.59-4.90; SMD 4.54, 95% CI 1.39-7.69). ODI showed significant improvement (MD 32.51, 95% CI 24.01-41.00) at 12 months. Disc height increased significantly (SMD -2.73, 95% CI -3.58 to -1.88). Lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis were significantly corrected postoperatively (MD -2.44, 95% CI -3.45 to -1.43; MD -2.55, 95% CI -3.61 to -1.48). The fusion rates at 12 months ranged from 85.0% to 93.3%. The most frequent complications were transient neurological conditions (2.2%), hardware failure (1.9%), and transient pain (1.8%). The most frequent serious complications were nerve root injury (1.0%), gastrointestinal impairment (0.7%), and vertebral fractures (0.6%); (4) Conclusions: This is the first meta-analysis of the specific use of XLIF in spinal surgery. This study demonstrates that the XLIF technique in spine surgery is associated with good clinical and radiological results and a low complication rate.

Characterizing and Improving Nomenclature for Reporting Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques have seen impressive innovation in recent years, leading to an expansion of the LIF lexicon. This study systematically analyzes LIF nomenclature in contemporary literature and proposes a standardized classification system for reporting LIF terminology.

METHODS

A search query was conducted through the PubMed database using "lumbar fusion OR lumbar interbody fusion." A total of 1455 articles were identified, and 605 references to LIF were recorded. Following a systematic review of the terminology, we developed a LIF reporting guidelines that capture the existing LIF nomenclature while avoiding redundant or ambiguous terminology.

RESULTS

The most referenced anatomical approaches were transforaminal (43.0%), followed by posterior (25.0%), lateral (19.7%), and anterior (10.9%). Overall, there were 72 unique ways to describe LIF. Unique prefixes were recorded by approach (posterior: 26; lateral: 13; anterior: 3). Forty unique prefixes/suffixes overlapped in their usage. "MI" (14.4%), "MIS" (38.1%), and "MISS" (0.6%) all referenced a minimally invasive approach. "O" (12.5%), "CO" (1.3%), and "TO" (1.3%) all described open techniques. "Endo" (0.6%), "Endoscopic-assisted" (1.3%), and "PE" (1.9%) all referenced endoscopic-assisted procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The current LIF nomenclature contains many unique LIF terms that were found to be inconsistently defined, redundant, or ambiguous. We propose the standardization of a 4-part naming system which highlights the crucial parts of LIF: (1) intraoperative repositioning, (2) patient position, (3) anatomical approach, and (4) orientation of the surgical corridor to the psoas muscles.

Standardizing Lumbar Interbody Fusion Nomenclature

STUDY DESIGN

This article is a research methodology study.

OBJECTIVE

We summarize current ambiguities and inaccuracies regarding lumbar interbody fusion nomenclature and propose a standardized reporting method to improve the clarity of future research and communication among spine surgeons and researchers.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lumbar interbody fusion techniques have seen an impressive degree of refinement over recent years. This innovation has ushered in a plethora of naming conventions for these new surgical approaches. Many of the current trends in naming lumbar fusion techniques are, however, redundant and contradictory, creating unnecessary confusion in the field.

METHODS

Following an extensive literature review, we developed a 4-part naming convention that highlights the crucial features of lumbar fusion surgical procedures.

RESULTS

Current literature regarding lumbar fusions is rife with inconsistent usage and privatization of terminology that can inadvertently result in ambiguous operative vocabulary, potentially compromising the accuracy of future research. We propose a 4-part naming system that highlights crucial features of lumbar interbody fusions, including (1) intra-operative repositioning, (2) patient position, (3) surgical technique, and (4) orientation of the surgical corridor to the psoas muscle.

CONCLUSIONS

This study raises awareness of current inconsistencies in naming conventions and proposes a standardized system for improving the clarity of lumber interbody fusion terminology for the broader spine community.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

Endoscopic Techniques for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Principles and Context

Endoscopic techniques in spine surgery are rapidly evolving, with operations becoming progressively safer and less invasive. Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) procedures comprise many spine procedures that have benefited from endoscopic assistance and minimally invasive approaches. Though considerable variation exists within endoscopic LIF, similar principles and techniques are common to all types. Nonetheless, innovations continually emerge, requiring trainees and experienced surgeons to maintain familiarity with the domain and its possibilities. We present two illustrative cases of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with a comprehensive literature review of the different approaches to endoscopic LIF procedures.

Intervertebral Disc Diseases PART 2: A Review of the Current Diagnostic and Treatment Strategies for Intervertebral Disc Disease

With an aging population, there is a proportional increase in the prevalence of intervertebral disc diseases. Intervertebral disc diseases are the leading cause of lower back pain and disability. With a high prevalence of asymptomatic intervertebral disc diseases, there is a need for accurate diagnosis, which is key to management. A thorough understanding of the pathophysiology and clinical manifestation aids in understanding the natural history of these conditions. Recent developments in radiological and biomarker investigations have potential to provide noninvasive alternatives to the gold standard, invasive discogram. There is a large volume of literature on the management of intervertebral disc diseases, which we categorized into five headings: (a) Relief of pain by conservative management, (b) restorative treatment by molecular therapy, (c) reconstructive treatment by percutaneous intervertebral disc techniques, (d) relieving compression and replacement surgery, and (e) rigid fusion surgery. This review article aims to provide an overview on various current diagnostic and treatment options and discuss the interplay between each arms of these scientific and treatment advancements, hence providing an outlook of their potential future developments and collaborations in the management of intervertebral disc diseases.

Review of Risks and Complications of Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF)

Background

Extreme lateral interbody fusions (XLIF) and Minimally Invasive (MIS) XLIF were developed to limit the vascular injuries associated with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and minimize the muscular/ soft tissue trauma attributed to transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF).

Methods

Nevertheless, XLIF/MIS XLIF pose significant additional risks and complications that include; multiple nerve injuries (e.g. lumbar plexus, ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric, genitofemoral, lateral femoral cutaneous, and subcostals (to the anterior abdominal muscles: abdominal oblique), and sympathectomy), major vascular injuries, bowel perforations/postoperative ileus, seromas, pseudarthrosis, subsidence, and reoperations.

Results

The risks of neural injury with XLIF/MIS XLIF (up to 30-40%) are substantially higher than for TLIF, PLIF, PLF, and ALIF. These neural injuries included: lumbar plexus injuries (13.28%); new sensory deficits (0-75% (21.7%-40%); permanent 62.5%); motor deficits (0.7-33.6%-40%); iliopsoas weakness (9%-31%: permanent 5%), anterior thigh/groin pain (12.5-34%), and sympathectomy (4%-12%). Additional non-neurological complications included; subsidence (10.3%-13.8%), major vascular injuries (0.4%), bowel perforations, recurrent seroma, malpositioning of the XLIF cages, a 45% risk of cage-overhang, pseudarthrosis (7.5%), and failure to adequately decompress stenosis. In one study, reviewing 20 publications and involving 1080 XLIF patients, the authors observed "Most (XLIF) studies are limited by study design, sample size, and potential conflicts of interest."

Conclusion

Many new neurological deficits and other adverse events/complications are attributed to MIS XLIF/ XLIF. Shouldn't these significant risk factors be carefully taken into consideration before choosing to perform MIS XLIF/XLIF?