Lumbar Lordosis Correction with Interbody Fusion: Systematic Literature Review and Analysis

Analyzing the L4-5 Segmental Alignment Change of Two Minimally Invasive Prone-Based Interbody Fusions

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE

Restoration of lumbar lordosis (LL) is a principal objective during spinal fusion procedures, traditionally focusing on achieving an LL within 10° of the pelvic incidence (PI). Recent studies have demonstrated a relatively constant L4-S1 alignment of 35-40° at L4-S1 and at least 15° at L4-5, regardless of PI. Based on these results, this study was created to examine the success rate of achieving a minimum of 15° at L4-5 through two differing prone-based techniques: Prone Lateral (pLLIF) and Trans Foraminal Interbody Fusion (TLIF).

METHODS

One hundred patients with a primary single-level L4-5 interbody fusion (50 pLLIF and 50 TLIF) were retrospectively analyzed. Pre and post-operative radiographs were measured to examine the segmental change at each level in the lumbar spine and calculate the success rate for achieving a minimum L4-5 segmental lordosis of 15° at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

The overall success rate of achieving an L4-5 segmental alignment >15° at the final follow-up was 70%. Prone LLIF was significantly more likely than TLIF to achieve this goal, achieving L4-5 > 15° 84% of the time vs TLIFs 56% (P = 0.002). Prone LLIF demonstrated an average L4-5 increase of 5.6 ± 5.9° which was larger than the mean increase for TLIF 0.4 ± 3.8° (P < 0.001). In both techniques, there was an inverse correlation between pre-operative L4-5 angle and L4-5 angle change.

CONCLUSION

Prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion demonstrates a high success rate for achieving a post-operative L4-5 angle >15° and achieves this at a higher rate than TLIF.

What is the early fate of adjacent segmental lordosis compensation at L3-4 and L5-S1 following a lateral versus transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion at L4-5?

INTRODUCTION

Degenerative spondylolisthesis causes translational and angular malalignment, resulting in a loss of segmental lordosis. This leads to compensatory adjustments in adjacent levels to maintain balance. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are common techniques at L4-5. This study compares compensatory changes at adjacent L3-4 and L5-S1 levels six months post LLIF versus TLIF for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4-5.

METHODS

A retrospective study included patients undergoing L4-5 LLIF or TLIF with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation (no posterior osteotomy) for grade 1 spondylolisthesis. Pre-op and 6-month post-op radiographs measured segmental lordosis (L3-L4, L4-L5, L5-S1), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence (PI), along with PI-LL mismatch. Multiple regressions were used for hypothesis testing.

RESULTS

113 patients (61 LLIF, 52 TLIF) were studied. TLIF showed less change in L4-5 lordosis (mean = 1.04°, SD = 4.34) compared to LLIF (mean = 4.99°, SD = 5.53) (p = 0.003). L4-5 angle changes didn't correlate with L3-4 changes, and no disparity between LLIF and TLIF was found (all p > 0.16). In LLIF, greater L4-5 lordosis change predicted reduced compensatory L5-S1 lordosis (p = 0.04), while no significant relationship was observed in TLIF patients (p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

LLIF at L4-5 increases lordosis at the operated level, with compensatory decrease at L5-S1 but not L3-4. This reciprocal loss at adjacent L5-S1 may explain inconsistent improvement in lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) post L4-5 fusion.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes following 120 consecutive patients undergoing prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

The prone transpsoas approach is a single-position alternative to traditional lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Earlier prone LLIF studies have focused on technique, feasibility, perioperative efficiencies, and immediate postoperative radiographic alignment. This study was undertaken to report longer-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, and to identify learnings from experiential evolution of the prone LLIF procedure.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing prone LLIF for any indication at one institution were included (n = 120). Demographic, diagnostic, treatment, and outcomes data were captured via prospective institutional registry. Retrospective analysis identified 31 'pre-proceduralization' and 89 'post-proceduralization' prone LLIF approaches, enabling comparison across early and later cohorts.

RESULTS

187 instrumented LLIF levels were performed. Operative time, retraction time, LLIF blood loss, and hospital stay averaged 150 min, 17 min, 50 ml, and 2.2 days, respectively. 79% of cases were without complication. Postoperative hip flexion weakness was identified in 14%, transient lower extremity weakness in 12%, and sensory deficits in 10%. At last follow-up, back pain, worst-leg pain, Oswestry, and EQ-5D health state improved by 55%, 46%, 48%, and 51%, respectively. 99% improved or maintained sagittal alignment with an average 6.5° segmental lordosis gain at LLIF levels. Only intra-psoas retraction time differed between pre- and post-proceduralization; proceduralization saved an average 3.4 min/level (p = 0.0371).

CONCLUSIONS

The largest single-center prone LLIF experience with the longest follow-up to-date shows that it results in few complications, quick recovery, improvements in pain and function, high patient satisfaction, and improved sagittal alignment at an average one year and up to four years postoperatively.

Lateral-PLIF for spinal arthrodesis: concept, technique, results, complications, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery represents an effective option to treat degenerative conditions in the lumbar spine. To reduce the drawbacks of the classical technique, we developed a variant, so-called Lateral-PLIF, which we then evaluated through a prospective consecutive series of patients.

METHODS

All adult patients treated at our institute with single or double level Lateral-PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease from January to December 2017 were prospectively collected. Exclusion criteria were patients < 18 years of age, traumatic patients, active infection, or malignancy, as well as unavailability of clinical and/or radiological follow-up data. The technique consists of insert the cages bilaterally through the transition zone between the central canal and the intervertebral foramen, just above the lateral recess. Pre- and postoperative (2 years) questionnaires and phone interviews (4 years) assessed pain and functional outcomes. Data related to the surgical procedure, postoperative complications, and radiological findings (1 year) were collected.

RESULTS

One hundred four patients were selected for the final analysis. The median age was 58 years and primary symptoms were mechanical back pain (100, 96.1%) and/or radicular pain (73, 70.2%). We found a high fusion rate (95%). A statistically significant improvement in functional outcome was also noted (ODI p < 0.001, Roland-Morris score p < 0.001). Walking distance increased from 812 m ± 543 m to 3443 m ± 712 m (p < 0.001). Complications included dural tear (6.7%), infection/wound dehiscence (4.8%), and instrument failure (1.9%) but no neurological deterioration.

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral-PLIF is a safe and effective technique for lumbar interbody fusion and may be considered for further comparative study validation with other techniques before extensive use to treat lumbar degenerative disease.

Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Increases Operative Efficiency and Maintains Safety in Revision Lumbar Spinal Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Multi-centre retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without patient repositioning. This study examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF against traditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning.

METHOD

A multi-centre retrospective cohort study involving patients undergoing 1 to 4 level LLIF surgery was performed at 4 institutions in the US and Australia. Patients were included if their surgery was performed via either: P-LLIF with revision posterior fusion; or L-LLIF with repositioning to prone. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications, and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at P <0.05.

RESULTS

101 patients undergoing revision LLIF surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs. 2.66 L-LLIF, P =0.469) and number of LLIF levels (1.35 vs. 1.39, P =0.668) was similar between groups.Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group (151 vs. 206 min, P =0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150mL P-LLIF vs. 182mL L-LLIF, P =0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay in the P-LLIF group (2.7 vs. 3.3d, P =0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in complications between groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment measurements.

CONCLUSION

P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency when compared to L-LLIF for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with placement of steerable banana cage: A single-center retrospective analysis of radiographic parameters of success

INTRODUCTION

The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is among the most utilized methods for the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. The TLIF has advanced significantly with several iterative changes since its inception in the early 1980s, with the advent of several generations of interbody types, shapes, and materials. Steerable curvilinear interbodies are among the most recent innovations in this space and may offer biomechanical advantages, namely in preservation of lumbar and segmental lordosis. While radiographic parameters have been investigated for other cage shapes and lumbar interbody fusion techniques, no study has investigated postoperative radiographic outcomes specific to TLIFs done with curvilinear interbodies.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of TLIFs performed with curvilinear interbodies between 2019 and 2022 at a single institution. Upright radiographs were obtained preoperatively and at several timepoints postoperatively. Radiographic variables including interspace height and segmental lordosis were collected.

RESULTS

26 surgeries with 32 curvilinear interbodies were performed across 3 years. There was significant increase in segmental lordosis at the L4-L5 (p = 0.0183) and L5-S1 levels (p = 0.004) as well as interspace height postoperatively at levels L3-L4 (p = 0.011) and L4-L5 (p = 0.002). Pain as measured with the numeric rating scale significantly improved in the overall cohort postoperatively (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TLIF with curvilinear interbody placement increases segmental lordosis and interspace height at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels, and increased interspace height at the L3-L4 and L4-L5 levels. Further investigation into additional radiographic parameters is warranted and expanded cohort size would benefit deeper analysis of other spinal levels.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

As an increasing number of cage designs and materials are brought to market, studies such as this allow for better understanding of cage specific outcomes allowing for better informed device selection.

Risk Factors for Postoperative Urinary Retention After Lumbar Fusion Surgery: Anesthetics and Surgical Approach

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative urinary retention (POUR) after lumbar fusion surgery can lead to longer hospital stays and thus increased risk of developing other postoperative complications. Therefore, we aimed to determine the relationship between POUR and (1) surgical approach and (2) anesthetic agents, including sugammadex and glycopyrrolate.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, L4-S1 single-level lumbar fusion surgeries between 2018 and 2021 were identified. A 3:1 propensity match of patients with POUR to those without was conducted, controlling for patient age, sex, diabetes status, body mass index, smoking status, history of benign prostatic hyperplasia, and the number of levels decompressed. POUR was defined as documented straight catheterization yielding >400 mL. We compared patient demographic, surgical, anesthetic, and postoperative characteristics. A bivariant analysis and backward multivariable stepwise logistic regression analysis ( P -value < 0.200) were performed. Significance was set to P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 899 patients identified, 51 met the criteria for POUR and were matched to 153 patients. No notable differences were observed between groups based on demographic or surgical characteristics. On bivariant analysis, patients who developed POUR were more likely to have been given succinylcholine (13.7% vs. 3.92%, P = 0.020) as an induction agent. The independent predictors of POUR identified by multivariable analysis included the use of succinylcholine {odds ratio (OR), 4.37 (confidence interval [CI], 1.26 to 16.46), P = 0.022} and reduced postoperative activity (OR, 0.99 [CI, 0.993 to 0.999], P = 0.049). Factors protective against POUR included using sugammadex as a reversal agent (OR, 0.38 [CI, 0.17 to 0.82], P = 0.017). The stepwise regression did not identify an anterior surgical approach as a notable predictor of POUR.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate that sugammadex for anesthesia reversal was protective against POUR while succinylcholine and reduced postoperative activity were associated with the development of POUR. In addition, we found no difference between the anterior or posterior approach to spinal fusion in the development of POUR.

Comparison of surgical outcomes between lumbar interbody fusions using expandable and static cages: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of static cages for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) can cause complications such as end plate violation, graft subsidence, and nerve injury. Therefore, expandable cages that allow for in-situ expansion have been developed to overcome these problems. However, it remains uncertain whether expandable cages have better surgical outcomes than static cages do.

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine the effectiveness of expandable cages by analyzing studies that compared the surgical outcomes between the use of expandable cages and static cages.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct this meta-analysis and systematic review. The primary outcomes of this study were anterior disc height, posterior disc height, segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), subsidence rate, numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 1,700 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with static cages for LIFs, expandable cages significantly increased the anterior disc height (standardized mean difference 0.478, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.088-0.867, p=.0162) and segmental lordosis (sMD 0.307, 95% CI 0.159-0.454, p<.0001). There were no significant differences in the posterior disc height, lumbar lordosis, subsidence rate, back pain, leg pain, or ODI between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Expandable cages show no clear clinical benefit over static cages.

Early Radiological Assessment of Static and Expandable Cages in Lateral Single Position for Indirect Decompression- Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the postoperative alignment of static and expandable cages in lateral single-position (LSP) for indirect decompression in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

We included sixty-seven patients who underwent LSP-LLIF for lumbar degenerative disease. We performed radiological assessments preoperatively and two weeks postoperatively using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. We divided the patients into the expandable cage group (23 patients) and the static cage group (44 patients). We measured disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and foraminal area (FA) from computed tomography images and the area of the dural sac from magnetic resonance imaging. We recorded surgical outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Both static and expandable cages demonstrated improvements in DH, SL, FA, and dural sac expansion. However, we found no statistically significant differences in the average change in DH (4.4 ± 2.1 mm vs. 4.2 ± 1.8 mm, P = 0.685), the average change in SL (1.0 ± 4.4° vs. 1.9 ± 3.6°, P = 0.310), or FA change (32.5 ± 31.7 mm2 vs. 34.9 ± 29.5 mm2, P = 0.966) between the expandable and static cage groups. We also found no statistically significant difference in dural sac enlargement between the two groups. We observed no significant differences in operation time, estimated blood loss, or length of hospital stay between the two groups. No severe adverse events or additional surgeries were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In LSP-LLIF without facet joint resection or other posterior techniques, static and expandable cages showed comparable effectiveness in achieving increased DH, SL, FA, and indirect decompression.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Strategies for Creating Lordosis with a Posterior Approach

The purpose of this article is to review the outcomes concerning lumbar lordosis restoration after the MIS-TLIF and to present strategies to create lumbar lordosis by using this MIS posterior approach. MIS-TLIF is an effective MIS lumbar interbody fusion that can achieve lumbar lordosis restoration. Several crucial steps aid in this sagittal profile correction during the MIS-TLIF, including the appropraite prone positioning, optimizing disc space preparation, maximizing disc space height, anterior interbody cage placement, and reducing the spondylolisthesis.

Comparison of segmental lordosis gain of prone transpsoas (PTP) vs. lateral lumbar interbody fusion

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar interbody fusion is a standard method to treat certain degenerative conditions that are refractory to conservative treatments. LLIF reduces posterior muscle damage, can relieve neurological symptoms through indirect decompression, provides increased stability with its wider cages, and promotes more significant segmental lordosis than standard posterior techniques. However, the technique possesses its issues, such as unusual positioning, possible plexus-related symptoms, and median segmental lordosis correction. Trying to ease those issues, the idea of a prone transpsoas technique occurred.

METHODS

Retrospective, single-centric, comparative, and non-randomized study. The authors paired patients receiving lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) or prone transpsoas (PTP) to evaluate the technique's impact on the segmental lordosis correction. A correlation test selected the covariates for the matching. p-Values inferior to 0.05 were deemed significant.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were included in the analysis, 53 in the LLIF group and 18 in the PTP group. The significant covariates to the segmental lordosis correction were technique, preoperative segmental lordosis, cage position, and preoperative pelvic tilt. After the paring model, PTP showed significant segmental lordosis correction potential regarding the LLIF.

CONCLUSION

The prone transpsoas approach can significantly enhance the correction of segmental lordosis proportionated to the traditional LLIF approach.

Predictors of Postoperative Segmental and Overall Lumbar Lordosis in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Consecutive Case Series

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Case-Series.

OBJECTIVES

Due to heterogeneity in previous studies, the effect of MI-TLIF on postoperative segmental lordosis (SL) and lumbar lordosis (LL) remains unclear. Therefore, we aim to identify radiographic factors associated with lordosis after surgery in a homogenous series of MI-TLIF patients.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review identified consecutive patients who underwent single-level MI-TLIF for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis from 2015-2020. All surgeries underwent unilateral facetectomies and a contralateral facet release with expandable interbody cages. PROs included the ODI and NRS-BP for low-back pain. Radiographic measures included SL, disc height, percent spondylolisthesis, cage positioning, LL, PI-LL mismatch, sacral-slope, and pelvic-tilt. Surgeries were considered "lordosing" if the change in postoperative SL was ≥ +4° and "kyphosing" if ≤ -4°. Predictors of change in SL/LL were evaluated using Pearson's correlation and multivariable regression.

RESULTS

A total of 73 patients with an average follow-up of 22.5 (range 12-61) months were included. Patients experienced significant improvements in ODI (29% ± 22% improvement, P < .001) and NRS-BP (3.3 ± 3 point improvement, P < .001). There was a significant increase in mean SL (Δ3.43° ± 4.37°, P < .001) while LL (Δ0.17° ± 6.98°, P > .05) remained stable. Thirty-eight (52%) patients experienced lordosing MI-TLIFs, compared to 4 (5%) kyphosing and 31 (43%) neutral MI-TLIFs. A lower preoperative SL and more anterior cage placement were associated with the greatest improvement in SL (β = -.45° P = .001, β = 15.06° P < .001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In our series, the majority of patients experienced lordosing or neutral MI-TLIFs (n = 69, 95%). Preoperative radiographic alignment and anterior cage placement were significantly associated with target SL following MI-TLIF.

Single position L5-S1 lateral ALIF with simultaneous robotic posterior fixation is safe and improves regional alignment and lordosis distribution index

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with simultaneous robot-assisted posterior fixation has technical and anatomic considerations that need further description.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with robotic assisted fixation. End points included radiographic parameters, lordosis distribution index (LDI), complications, pedicle screw accuracy, and inpatient metrics.

RESULTS

There were 17 patients with mean age of 60.5 years. Eight patients underwent interbody fusion at L5-S1, five patients at L4-S1, two patients at L3-S1, and one patient at L2-S1 in single lateral position. Operative times for 1-level and 2-level cases were 193 min and 278 min, respectively. Mean EBL was 71 cc. Mean improvements in L5-S1 segmental lordosis were 11.7 ± 4.0°, L1-S1 lordosis of 4.8 ± 6.4°, sagittal vertical axis of - 0.1 ± 1.7 cm°, pelvic tilt of - 3.1 ± 5.9°, and pelvic incidence lumbar-lordosis mismatch of - 4.6 ± 6.4°. Six patients corrected into a normal LDI (50-80%) and no patients became imbalanced over a mean follow-up period of 14.4 months. Of 100 screws placed in lateral position with robotic assistance, there were three total breaches (two lateral grade 3, one medial grade 2) for a screw accuracy of 97.0%. There were no neurologic, vascular, bowel, or ureteral injuries, and no implant failure or reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with simultaneous robotic placement of pedicle screws by a second surgeon is a safe and effective technique that improves global alignment and lordosis distribution index.

Influence of the preoperative L5S1 disc state on lateral L2 to L5 fusion's outcomes at an average follow-up of 3,5 years (minimum 2 years)

INTRODUCTION

The impact of pre-existing degeneration of a disc underlying a lumbar arthrodesis via lateral approach on long-term clinical outcome has, to our knowledge, not been studied. When performing arthrodesis between L2 and L5, its extension to L5S1 is challenging because it imposes a different surgical approach. Therefore, surgeon's temptation is to not include L5S1 in the fusion even in case of discopathy. Our objective was to study the influence of the preoperative L5S1 status on the clinical outcome of lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) using a pre-psoatic approach between L2 and L5 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients who underwent LLIF from L2 to L5 between 2015 and 2020 were included in our study. We studied VAS, ODI, and global clinical outcome before surgery and at last follow-up. The L5-S1 disc was radiologically studied in preoperative imaging. Patients were included in two groups (A "with" and B :without" L5-S1 disc degeneration) to compare the clinical outcomes at last follow-up. Our primary objective was to evaluate the rate of L5-S1 disc revision surgery at last follow-up.

RESULTS

102 patients were included. 2 required L5-S1 disc surgery following overlying arthrodesis. Our results showed a significant improvement in the patients' clinical outcomes at the last follow-up (p < 0.0001). We did not find any significant difference on clinical criteria between groups A & B.

CONCLUSION

A preop L5S1 disc degeneration does not seem to impact the final clinical outcomes after lumbar lateral interbody fusion at a minimal two years F.U. It should not be systematically involved in an overlying fusion.

Lateral versus posterior approaches to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies-systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature

INTRODUCTION

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion arose as a revolutionary approach to treating several spinal pathologies because the techniques were able to promote indirect decompression and lordosis restoration through a minimally invasive approach allowing for reduced blood loss and early recovery for patients. However, it is still not clear how the technique compares to other established approaches for treating spinal degenerative diseases, such as TLIF, PLIF, and PLF.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published in the last 10 years comparing lateral approaches to posterior techniques. The authors included articles that compared the LLIF technique to one or more posterior approaches, treating only degenerative pathologies, and containing at least one of the key outcomes of the study. Exclusion articles that were not original and the ones that the authors could not obtain the full text; also articles without the possibility to calculate the standard deviation or mean were excluded. For count variables, the odds ratio was used, and for continuous variables, the standard means difference (SMD) was used, and the choice between random or fixed-effects model was made depending on the presence or not of significant (p < 0.05) heterogeneity in the sample.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were included in the quantitative review. As for the intra-/perioperative variables, the lateral approaches showed a significant reduction in blood loss (SMD-1.56, p < 0.001) and similar operative time (SMD =  - 0.33, p = 0.24). Moreover, the use of the lateral approaches showed a tendency to lead to reduced hospitalization days (SMD =  - 0.15, p = 0.09), with significantly reduced odds ratios of complications (0.53, p = 0.01). As for the clinical outcomes, both approaches showed similar improvement both at improvement as for the last follow-up value, either in ODI or in VAS-BP. Finally, when analyzing the changes in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis, the lateral technique promoted significantly higher correction in both outcomes (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Lateral approaches can promote significant radiological correction and similar clinical improvement while reducing surgical blood loss and postoperative complications.

The impact of cage positioning on lumbar lordosis and disc space restoration following minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate patient and surgical factors that predict increased overall lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis correction following a minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent one- or two-level LLIF. Preoperative, initial postoperative, and 6-month postoperative measurements of LL, segmental lordosis, anterior disc height, and posterior disc height were collected from standing lateral radiographs for each patient. Cage placement was measured utilizing the center point ratio (CPR) on immediate postoperative radiographs. Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between cage lordosis and radiographic parameters. Multivariate linear regression was performed to assess independent predictors of outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 106 levels in 78 unique patients were included. Most procedures involved fusion of one level (n = 50, 64.1%), most commonly L3-4 (46.2%). Despite no differences in baseline segmental lordosis, patients with anteriorly or centrally placed cages experienced the greatest segmental lordosis correction immediately (mean anterior 4.81° and central 4.46° vs posterior 2.47°, p = 0.0315) and at 6 months postoperatively, and patients with anteriorly placed cages had greater overall lordosis correction postoperatively (mean 6.30°, p = 0.0338). At the 6-month follow-up, patients with anteriorly placed cages experienced the greatest increase in anterior disc height (mean anterior 6.24 mm vs posterior 3.69 mm, p = 0.0122). Cages placed more posteriorly increased the change in posterior disc height postoperatively (mean posterior 4.91 mm vs anterior 1.80 mm, p = 0.0001) and at 6 months (mean posterior 4.18 mm vs anterior 2.06 mm, p = 0.0255). There were no correlations between cage lordotic angle and outcomes. On multivariate regression, anterior cage placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in segmental lordosis, while posterior placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in posterior disc height. Percutaneous screw placement, cage lordotic angle, and cage height did not independently predict any radiographic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

LLIF procedures reliably improve LL and increase intervertebral disc space. Anterior cage placement improves the lordosis angle greater than posterior placement, which better corrects sagittal alignment, but there is still a significant improvement in lordosis even with a posteriorly placed cage. Posterior cage placement provides greater restoration in posterior disc space height, maximizing indirect decompression, but even the anteriorly placed cages provided indirect decompression. Cage parameters including cage height, lordosis angle, and material do not impact radiographic improvement.

Application of platelet-rich plasma in spinal surgery

With the aging of the population and changes in lifestyle, the incidence of spine-related diseases is increasing, which has become a major global public health problem; this results in a huge economic burden on the family and society. Spinal diseases and complications can lead to loss of motor, sensory, and autonomic functions. Therefore, it is necessary to identify effective treatment strategies. Currently, the treatment of spine-related diseases includes conservative, surgical, and minimally invasive interventional therapies. However, these treatment methods have several drawbacks such as drug tolerance and dependence, adjacent spondylosis, secondary surgery, infection, nerve injury, dural rupture, nonunion, and pseudoarthrosis. Further, it is more challenging to promote the regeneration of the interstitial disc and restore its biomechanical properties. Therefore, clinicians urgently need to identify methods that can limit disease progression or cure diseases at the etiological level. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), a platelet-rich form of plasma extracted from venous blood, is a blood-derived product. Alpha granules contain a large number of cytokines, such as platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), epidermal growth factor, platelet factor 4 (PF-4), insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β). These growth factors allow stem cell proliferation and angiogenesis, promote bone regeneration, improve the local microenvironment, and enhance tissue regeneration capacity and functional recovery. This review describes the application of PRP in the treatment of spine-related diseases and discusses the clinical application of PRP in spinal surgery.

Análisis radiográfico de los parámetros espinopélvicos obtenidos con el dispositivo de TLIF anterior. Estudio multicéntrico

Objetivo: Comunicar los resultados obtenidos según la posición del dispositivo de TLIF anterior. Materiales y Métodos: Estudio multicéntrico, observacional, analítico, transversal, de recuperación retrospectiva. Se evaluaron los parámetros espinopélvicos prey posoperatorios de espinogramas de 20 pacientes que fueron operados entre septiembre de 2019 y agosto de 2021. Se incluyó a pacientes sometidos a artrodesis lumbar con implante de tipo TLIF anterior. Se excluyó a pacientes sin espinograma pre- oposquirúrgico y más de un dispositivo. Resultados: La media de la lordosis monosegmentaria fue de 13,33° antes de la cirugía y de 18,81° después (p <0,001). La media de la lordosis monosegmentaria fue de 7,32°; 2,95° y 6,24° para las posiciones I, II y III, respectivamente. La media de la altura discal fue de 6,22 mm en el preoperatorio y 11,06 mm en el posoperatorio (p >0,001). Conclusiones: Los resultados de la colocación de este tipo de dispositivos y su relación con la lordosis segmentaria fueron alentadores, se comprendió la importancia de la disposición de estos en el extremo anterior del espacio discal. Nivel de Evidencia: IV

Lumbar Lordosis Correction With Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients with Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

OBJECTIVE

To determine the degree of lumbar lordosis (LL) correction possible via transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in adult spinal deformity patients.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review identified patients ≥18 years of age with severe positive sagittal balance defined by the SRS-Schwab classification: pelvic incidence to LL mismatch >20°, sagittal vertical axis >9.5cm, and/or pelvic tilt >30°. All patients had surgery between 2013 to 2018 with a TLIF at L4-L5 and/or L5-S1 by the senior author (J.L.F.) with ≥2-years follow-up.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients (18 men, 43 women) with 85 TLIFs were included with an average age of 66 years and average follow-up of 50 months. Average lumbar lordosis (L1-S1) improved from 27° preoperative to 48° postoperative and 45° at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001). Average segmental lordosis at L4-L5 TLIF sites improved from 3° preoperative to 13° postoperative and persisted at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001). Segmental lordosis at L5-S1 TLIF sites improved from 7° preoperative to 21° postoperative and 20° at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001). Seventeen of the TLIFs (20%) had >20° of segmental lordosis improvement at long-term follow-up. The rate of revision surgery for pseudoarthrosis at the TLIF level was 5%.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant lordosis correction can be achieved through an open TLIF in patients with severe positive sagittal balance when utilizing meticulous deformity correction techniques, avoiding the added morbidity of an anterior approach or a 3-column osteotomy.

Predictors of segmental lumbar lordosis following midline posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion: Does interbody device type matter?

Background

Controversy exists regarding the ability of posterior (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF/TLIF) to achieve lordosis. We hypothesized that an interbody device (IBD) designed for positioning in the anterior disc space produces greater lordosis than IBDs designed for straight-in positioning. The purpose of this study is to determine if using either an anterior-position or straight-in position IBD design were associated with successful achievement of postoperative lordosis.

Methods

A consecutive series of patients undergoing a undergoing a single-level, posterior open midline (transforaminal) lumbar interbody fusion procedure for degenerative spine conditions during a time period when the two types of interbody devices were being used at surgeon discretion were identified from a multi-surgeon academic training center. Patient demographics and radiographic measures including surgical level lordosis (SLL), anterior disc height, middle disc height, posterior disc height, IBD height, and IBD insertion depth were measured on preop, immediate postop, and one-year postop standing radiographs using PACS. Group comparison and regression analysis were performed using SPSS.

Results

Sixty-one patients were included (n=37 anterior, n=34 straight-in). Mean age was 59.8±8.7 years, 32 (52%) were female. There was no difference between IBD type (anterior vs. straight-in) for mean Pre-op SLL (19±7° vs. 20±6°, p=0.7), Post-op SLL (21±5° vs 21±6°, p=0.5), or Change in SLL (2±4° vs. 1±5°, p=0.2). Regression analysis showed that Pre-op SLL was the only variable associated with Change in SLL (Beta = negative 0.48, p=0.000). While the mean Change in SLL could be considered clinically insignificant, there was wide variability: from a loss of 9° to a gain of 13°. Gain of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was <21°, and loss of lordosis >5° only occurred when Pre-op SLL was >21°.

Conclusions

While group averages showed an insignificant change in segmental lordosis following a posterior (transforaminal) interbody fusion regardless of interbody device type, pre-operative lordosis was correlated with a clinically significant change in segmental lordosis. Preoperative hypolordotic discs were more likely to gain significant lordosis, while preoperative hyperlordotic discs were more likely to lose significant lordosis. Surgeon awareness of this tendency can help guide surgical planning and technique.

Comparison of local and regional radiographic outcomes in minimally invasive and open TLIF: a propensity score-matched cohort

OBJECTIVE

Local and regional radiographic outcomes following minimally invasive (MI) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus open TLIF remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of local and regional radiographic parameters following MI-TLIF and open TLIF. The authors hypothesized that open TLIF provides greater segmental and global lordosis correction than MI-TLIF.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing MI- or open TLIF for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis was performed. One-to-one nearest-neighbor propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match patients who underwent open TLIF to those who underwent MI-TLIF. Sagittal segmental radiographic measures included segmental lordosis (SL), anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), foraminal height (FH), percent spondylolisthesis, and cage position. Lumbopelvic radiographic parameters included overall lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch, sacral slope (SS), and pelvic tilt (PT). Change in segmental or overall lordosis after surgery was considered "lordosing" if the change was > 0° and "kyphosing" if it was ≤ 0°. Student t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare outcomes between MI-TLIF and open-TLIF groups.

RESULTS

A total of 267 patients were included in the study, 114 (43%) who underwent MI-TLIF and 153 (57%) who underwent open TLIF, with an average follow-up of 56.6 weeks (SD 23.5 weeks). After PSM, there were 75 patients in each group. At the latest follow-up both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in assessment scores obtained with the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the numeric rating scale for low-back pain (NRS-BP), without significant differences between groups (p > 0.05). Both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in SL, ADH, and percent corrected spondylolisthesis compared to baseline (p < 0.001). However, the MI-TLIF group experienced significantly larger magnitudes of correction with respect to these metrics (ΔSL 4.14° ± 4.35° vs 1.15° ± 3.88°, p < 0.001; ΔADH 4.25 ± 3.68 vs 1.41 ± 3.77 mm, p < 0.001; percent corrected spondylolisthesis: -10.82% ± 6.47% vs -5.87% ± 8.32%, p < 0.001). In the MI-TLIF group, LL improved in 44% (0.3° ± 8.5°) of the cases, compared to 48% (0.9° ± 6.4°) of the cases in the open-TLIF group (p > 0.05). Stratification by operative technique (unilateral vs bilateral facetectomy) and by interbody device (static vs expandable) did not yield statistically significant differences (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both MI- and open-TLIF patients experienced significant improvements in patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and local radiographic parameters, with neutral effects on regional alignment. Surprisingly, in our cohort, change in SL was significantly greater in MI-TLIF patients, perhaps reflecting the effect of operative techniques, technological innovations, and the preservation of the posterior tension band. Taking these results together, no significant overall differences in LL between groups were demonstrated, which suggests that MI-TLIF is comparable to open approaches in providing radiographic correction after surgery. These findings suggest that alignment targets can be achieved by either MI- or open-TLIF approaches, highlighting the importance of surgeon attention to these variables.

Impacto dos parâmetros espinopélvicos pré-operatórios na correção de lordose segmentar após fusão intersomática lombar por via lateral de um nível

Objectives  The present study aimed to assess whether preoperative spinopelvic parameters can influence the gain of segmental lordosis after one level of lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Methods  The following radiological parameters were measured in the X-rays: pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, pelvic tilt, L4S1 lordosis, index level segmental lordosis, intraoperative index segmental lordosis, pelvic mismatch (IP-LL), distal lordosis proportion, delta segmental lordosis, Pelvic Titlt (PT) > 20, actual sacral slope, and ideal sacral slope, and the correlation of these variables with the gain of segmental lordosis was investigated. Afterwards, an exploratory cluster analysis was performed to identify common characteristics between patients and segmental lordosis gain.

Results  The sample of the present study comprised 104 patients, of which 76% presented segmental lordosis gain. The most correlated parameters with the segmental lordosis gain were preoperative segmental lordosis (−0.50) and delta intraoperative lordosis (0.51). Moreover, patients in the high PI groups had a trend to gain more segmental lordosis ( p  < 0.05) and a reduced risk of losing segmental lordosis (Odds 6.08).

Conclusion  Patients with low-medium PI profiles presented higher odds of loss of segmental lordosis. However, the preoperative spinopelvic parameters alone do not seem to play a significant role in the fate of segmental lordosis gain.

Application of Offset Dingo Instruments in Anterior to Psoas (ATP)/Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) Procedure: A Retrospective Study of 80 Patients

OBJECTIVE

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is a minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedure that has flourished in recent years. However, complications related to the anterior-to-psoas (ATP) approach have been reported. The purpose of this study was to assess the OLIF technique using offset design "Dingo" instruments for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disorders.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed to identify patients between March 2018 and November 2020 who underwent OLIF with conventional or modified instruments with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Demographic data were recorded. Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay were compared between cohorts. Imaging parameters were measured and compared between cohorts before and after surgery. Clinical outcomes were assessed at each follow-up visit. All complications were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 80 consecutive patients were included. The mean follow-up times for the conventional group and modified group were 14.5 months and 16.3 months, respectively. The incidence of hip flexion weakness was 27.5% and 7.5% for the conventional cohort and modified cohort, respectively. The modified group was associated with a shorter operation time, shorter length of hospital stay, higher postoperative disk height and better cage position. The symptoms of all patients improved after surgery. At 1-week follow-up, the modified group showed significantly better clinical scores.

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF with modified instruments and techniques shows promising outcomes in reducing approach-related complications. Additionally, the modified technique is associated with a better cage position, shorter length of hospital stay and less postoperative pain in the early period.

Postoperative spinal alignment comparison of lateral versus supine patient position L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

Over the past decade, alternative patient positions for the treatment of the anterior lumbar spine have been explored in an effort to maximize the benefits of direct anterior column access while minimizing the inefficiencies of single or multiple intraoperative patient repositionings. The lateral technique allows for access from L1 to L5 through a retroperitoneal, muscle-splitting, transpsoas approach with placement of a large intervertebral spacer than can reliably improve segmental lordosis, though its inability to be used at L5-S1 limits its overall adoption, as L5-S1 is one of the most common levels treated and where high levels of lordosis are optimal. Recent developments in instrumentation and techniques for lateral-position treatment of the L5-S1 level with a modified anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) approach have expanded the lateral position to L5-S1, though the positional effect on L5-S1 lordosis is heretofore unreported. The purpose of this study was to compare local and regional alignment differences between ALIFs performed with the patient in the lateral (L-ALIF) versus supine position (S-ALIF).

METHODS

Retrospective, multi-center data and radiographs were collected from 476 consecutive patients who underwent L5-S1 L-ALIF (n = 316) or S-ALIF (n = 160) for degenerative lumbar conditions. Patients treated at L4-5 and above with other single-position interbody fusion and posterior fixation techniques were included in the analysis. Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the groups, though L-ALIF patients were slightly older (58 vs. 54 years), with a greater preoperative mean L5-S1 disk height (7.8 vs. 5.8 mm), and with less preoperative slip (6.6 vs. 8.5 mm), respectively. 262 patients were treated with only L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 while the remaining 214 patients were treated with either L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 along with fusions at other thoracolumbar levels. Lumbar lordosis (LL), L5-S1 segmental lordosis, L5-S1 disk space height, and slip reduction in L5-S1 spondylolisthesis were measured on preoperative and postoperative lateral X-ray images. LL was only compared between single-level ALIFs, given the variability of other procedures performed at the levels above L5-S1.

RESULTS

Mean pre- to postoperative L5-S1 segmental lordosis improved 39% (6.6°) and 31% (4.9°) in the L-ALIF and S-ALIF groups, respectively (p = 0.063). Mean L5-S1 disk height increased by 6.5 mm (89%) in the L-ALIF and 6.4 mm (110%) in the S-ALIF cohorts, (p = 0.650). Spondylolisthesis, in those patients with a preoperative slip, average reduction in the L-ALIF group was 1.5 mm and 2.2 mm in the S-ALIF group (p = 0.175). In patients treated only at L5-S1 with ALIF, mean segmental alignment improved significantly more in the L-ALIF compared to the S-ALIF cohort (7.8 vs. 5.4°, p = 0.035), while lumbar lordosis increased 4.1° and 3.6° in the respective groups (p = 0.648).

CONCLUSION

Use of the lateral patient position for L5-S1 ALIF, compared to traditional supine L5-S1 ALIF, resulted in at least equivalent alignment and radiographic outcomes, with significantly greater improvement in segmental lordosis in patients treated only at L5-S1. These data, from the largest lateral ALIF dataset reported to date, suggest that-radiographically-the lateral patient position can be considered as an alternative to traditional ALIF positional techniques.

Radiographic comparison of lordotic and hyperlordotic implants in L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) used at the lumbosacral junction provides arthrodesis for several indications. The anterior approach allows restoration of lumbar lordosis, an important goal of surgery. With hyperlordotic ALIF implants, several options may be employed to obtain the desired amount of lordosis. In this study, the authors compared the degree of radiographic lordosis achieved with lordotic and hyperlordotic ALIF implants at the L5-S1 segment.

METHODS

All patients undergoing L5-S1 ALIF from 2 institutions over a 4-year interval were included. Patients < 18 years of age or those with any posterior decompression or osteotomy were excluded. ALIF implants in the lordotic group had 8° or 12° of inherent lordosis, whereas implants in the hyperlordotic group had 20° or 30° of lordosis. Upright standing radiographs were used to determine all radiographic parameters, including lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, disc space lordosis, and disc space height. Separate analyses were performed for patients who underwent single-segment fixation at L5-S1 and for the overall cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 204 patients were included (hyperlordotic group, 93 [45.6%]; lordotic group, 111 [54.4%]). Single-segment ALIF at L5-S1 was performed in 74 patients (hyperlordotic group, 27 [36.5%]; lordotic group, 47 [63.5%]). The overall mean ± SD age was 61.9 ± 12.3 years; 58.3% of patients (n = 119) were women. The mean number of total segments fused was 3.2 ± 2.6. Overall, 66.7% (n = 136) of patients had supine surgery and 33.3% (n = 68) had lateral surgery. Supine positioning was significantly more common in the hyperlordotic group than in the lordotic group (83.9% [78/93] vs 52.3% [58/111], p < 0.001). After adjusting for differences in surgical positioning, the change in lumbar lordosis was significantly greater for hyperlordotic versus lordotic implants (3.6° ± 7.5° vs 0.4° ± 7.5°, p = 0.048) in patients with single-level fusion. For patients receiving hyperlordotic versus lordotic implants, changes were also significantly greater for segmental lordosis (12.4° ± 7.5° vs 8.4° ± 4.9°, p = 0.03) and disc space lordosis (15.3° ± 5.4° vs 9.3° ± 5.8°, p < 0.001) after single-level fusion at L5-S1. The change in disc space height was similar for these 2 groups (p = 0.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Hyperlordotic implants provided a greater degree of overall lumbar lordosis restoration as well as L5-S1 segmental and disc space lordosis restoration than lordotic implants. The change in disc space height was similar. Differences in lateral and supine positioning did not affect these parameters.

Treatment of lumbar canal stenosis in patients with compensated sagittal balance

INTRODUCTION

The need to combine fusion with decompression in patients with lumbar canal stenosis is still controversial. The aim of this study was to show that isolated decompression leads to the same outcomes as decompression plus fusion in patients who have preserved global sagittal balance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort of 110 patients who were operated for a single-level lumbar stenosis was divided into two groups based on the treatment: isolated decompression or fusion-decompression. These patients had a normal odontoid-hip axis angle (ODHA) (-5° to +2°) and had no spondylolisthesis or frontal deformity. We compared the clinical outcome scores and spinal-pelvic parameters preoperatively and at 1 year of follow-up. We evaluated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) corresponding to a 12.8-point difference in the Owestry Disability Index (ODI). The analysis in each group was based on the MCID.

RESULTS

The clinical outcome scores improved significantly in both groups. There was a 77% decrease in the ODI>12.8 points with no significant difference between groups. The analysis based on the MCID showed that patients with a poor clinical result at 1 year in the isolated decompression group were more likely to have lumbar pain, while the ones in the fusion-decompression group were more likely to have radicular pain.

CONCLUSION

The clinical and radiological results of fusion-decompression are not superior at 1 year relative to isolated decompression for treating single-level lumbar canal stenosis in patients with compensated sagittal balance. Full-spine weight bearing radiographs are key to determining the patient's sagittal balance and to ensuring there are no radiological instability factors that may require a stabilizing procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV Retrospective study of data collected prospectively.

Preoperative Radiographic Prediction Tool for Early Postoperative Segmental and Lumbar Lordosis Alignment After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Objective

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a common approach and results in varying degrees of lordosis correction. The purpose of this study is to determine preoperative radiographic spinopelvic parameters that predict change in postoperative segmental and lumbar lordosis after TLIF.

Materials & Methods

This study is a single surgeon retrospective review of one-level and two-level TLIFs from L3-S1. All patients underwent bilateral facetectomies, 10 mm TLIF cage (non-lordotic) insertions, and bilateral pedicle screw-rod construct placements. Pre- and post-operative X-rays were assessed for preoperative segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence (PI). Univariate and multi-predictor linear regression analyses were performed to determine the relationships between preoperative radiographic findings and change in early postoperative segmental and lumbar lordosis.

Results

Ninety-seven patients contributing 128 intervertebral segments were examined. The mean change in SL after TLIF was 7.3 (range: 0.10-28.9°, SD 6.39°). The mean change in LL after TLIF was 5.5˚ (range: -14.8-39.2°, standard deviation (SD) 7.16°). Greater preoperative LL predicted less postoperative LL correction, while greater preoperative PI predicted more postoperative SL and LL correction. Greater anterior disk height was noted to be associated with a decreased change in SL (∆SL). An annular tear on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) predicted a 2.7° decrease in ∆SL. A Schmorl's node on preoperative MRI predicted a 4.0° decrease in change in LL (∆LL).

Conclusions

A greater preoperative lordosis and a lower spinopelvic mismatch lessen the potential for an increase in the postoperative SL and LL after a TLIF, which is likely due to a ‘ceiling’ effect of an otherwise optimized spinal alignment. A greater anterior disk height and the presence of an annular tear are associated with decreased ∆SL.

Does transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion induce lordosis or kyphosis? Radiographic evaluation with a minimum 2-year follow-up

OBJECTIVE

Conflicting reports exist about whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) induces lordosis or kyphosis, ranging from decreasing lordosis by 3.71° to increasing it by 18.8°. In this study, the authors' aim was to identify factors that result in kyphosis or lordosis after TLIF.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study of open TLIF without osteotomy for spondylolisthesis with a minimum 2-year follow-up was undertaken. Preoperative and postoperative clinical and radiographic parameters and cage specifics were collected. TLIFs were considered to be "lordosing" if postoperative induction of lordosis was > 0° and "kyphosing" if postoperative induction of lordosis was ≤ 0°.

RESULTS

A total of 137 patients with an average follow-up of 52.5 months (range 24-130 months) were included. The overall postoperative disc angle (DA) and segmental lordosis (SL) increased by 1.96° and 1.88° (p = 0.003 and p = 0.038), respectively, whereas overall lumbar lordosis remained unchanged (p = 0.133). Seventy-nine patients had lordosing TLIFs with a mean SL increase of 5.72° ± 3.97°, and 58 patients had kyphosing TLIFs with a mean decrease of 3.02° ± 2.98°. Multivariate analysis showed that a lower preoperative DA, lower preoperative SL, and anterior cage placement were correlated with the greatest increase in postoperative SL (p = 0.040, p < 0.001, and p = 0.035, respectively). There was no difference in demographics, cage type or height, or spinopelvic parameters between the groups (p > 0.05). Linear regression showed that the preoperative DA and SL correlated with SL after TLIF (R2 = 0.198, p < 0.001; and R2 = 0.2931, p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Whether a TLIF induces kyphosis or lordosis depends on the preoperative DA, preoperative SL, and cage position. Less-lordotic segments became more lordotic postoperatively, and highly lordotic segments may lose lordosis after TLIF. Cages placed more anteriorly were associated with more lordosis.

Comparison of Prone Transpsoas and Standard Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Retrospective Radiographic Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (PTP-LLIF) is a recently introduced modification to standard LLIF. To date, no study has compared the radiographic outcomes of standard LLIF and PTP-LLIF. We performed a radiographic parameter-based propensity score-matched analysis to compare postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes between PTP-LLIF and standard LLIF for degenerative lumbar spine disease.

METHODS

A total of 30 consecutive patients met the inclusion criteria. The preoperative standing scoliosis radiographs were retrospectively reviewed for global and segmental sagittal alignment. Propensity score matching was calculated using the baseline radiographic parameters. One-to-one matching of patients who had undergone PTP-LLIF with those who had a similar propensity score but had undergone standard LLIF was performed to compare the radiographic (primary) and clinical (secondary) outcomes.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching resulted in 10 pairs of PTP-LLIF and standard LLIF patients. The PTP-LLIF group had had significantly better improvement in lumbar lordosis (P = 0.047). The difference in the improvement in pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis mismatch approached statistical significance for the PTP-LLIF group (P = 0.05). This led to better improvement in the short-form 12-item physical score (P = 0.03) and Oswestry disability index (P = 0.1) in the PTP-LLIF group. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in the other clinical and radiographic outcomes. The PTP-LLIF group had a shorter operative time (P = 0.4) and hospital stay (P = 0.1), without a statistically difference, and shorter radiation exposure time (P = 0.5). The standard LLIF group had experienced less intraoperative bleeding, without a statistically significant difference (P = 0.3). The mean follow-up time was 10.2 ± 5.2 months in the PTP-LLIF group and 30.9 ± 17.2 months in the standard LLIF group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PTP-LLIF group showed significantly better improvement in lumbar lordosis and short-form 12-item physical score.

The anterior-to-psoas approach for interbody fusion at the L5-S1 segment: clinical and radiological outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Over the last few decades, many surgical techniques for lumbar interbody fusion have been reported. The anterior-to-psoas (ATP) approach is theoretically supposed to benefit from the advantages of both anterior and lateral approaches with similar complication rates, even in L5-S1. At this segment, the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) requires retroperitoneal dissection and retraction of major vessels, whereas the iliac crest does not allow the lateral transpsoas approach. This study aimed to investigate clinical-radiological outcomes and complications of the ATP approach at the L5-S1 segment in a single cohort of patients.

METHODS

This is a prospective single-center study, conducted from 2016 to 2019. Consecutive patients who underwent ATP at the L5-S1 segment for degenerative disc disease or revision surgery after previous posterior procedures were considered for eligibility. Complete clinical-radiological documentation and a minimum follow-up of 12 months were set as inclusion criteria. Clinical patient-reported outcomes, such as the visual analog scale for low-back pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores, as well as spinopelvic parameters, were collected preoperatively, 6 weeks after surgery, and at the last follow-up visit. Intraoperative and perioperative complications were recorded. The fusion rate was evaluated on CT scans obtained at 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age at the time of surgery was 57.6 years (range 44-75 years). The mean follow-up was 33.1 months (range 13-48 months). The mean pre- and postoperative visual analog scale (7.9 ± 1.3 vs 2.4 ± 0.8, p < 0.05), Oswestry Disability Index (52.8 ± 14.4 vs 22.9 ± 6.0, p < 0.05), and SF-36 (37.3 ± 5.8 vs 69.8 ± 6.1, p < 0.05) scores significantly improved. The mean lumbar lordosis and L5-S1 segmental lordosis significantly increased after surgery. The mean pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch and pelvic tilt significantly decreased. No intraoperative complications and a postoperative complication rate of 9.4% were recorded. The fusion rate was 96.9%. One patient needed a second posterior revision surgery for residual foraminal stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present case series, ATP fusion for the L5-S1 segment has resulted in valuable clinical-radiological outcomes and a relatively low complication rate. Properly designed clinical and comparative trials are needed to further investigate the role of ATP for different L5-S1 conditions.

Effect of Cage Type on Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

The effect of expandable versus static cage type on radiographic outcomes in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has not been well studied in the literature. We studied the effect of 3 cage types on change in foraminal height (FH), disk height (DH), subsidence, and segmental lordosis (SL).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent TLIF in a single institution from 2014 to 2019. The following 3 cage types were identified: banana cage, bullet, and expandable cage. Computed tomography (CT) scans of the lumbar spine or lumbar radiographs (when CT scan was not available) with 6-week follow-up time were used for radiographic assessment.

RESULTS

One hundred patients with 133 fused segments were identified. The average age was 60.9 years, and 40% were men. A banana cage was used in 19 segments (14.3%), a bullet cage was used in 47 (35.4%), and an expandable cage was used in 67 segments (50.4%). There were no significant differences in FH (average increase, 0.7 mm; P = 0.771), subsidence (average, 2.3 mm; P = 0.554), DH (average decrease, 1.0 mm; P = 0.769), or clinically significant subsidence (>4 mm; P = 0.174). Expandable cages demonstrated a positive 1.2° gain in SL, whereas both other cages demonstrated a decrease in SL on average (P = 0.05). This result held up on multivariate analysis (P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The average increase in the foraminal height in TLIF is small (0.7 mm) and is not different between the cage types; therefore, direct decompression is crucially important in this procedure. Although TLIF is often considered to be a kyphotic procedure, an expandable cage demonstrated superiority in terms of segmental lordosis improvement.

Fusion technique does not affect short-term patient-reported outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease

BACKGROUND/CONTEXT

Degenerative lumbar disease can be addressed via an anterior or posterior approach, and with or without the use of an interbody cage. Although several studies have compared the type of approach and technique, there is a lack of literature assessing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and radiographic parameters between different fusion techniques.

PURPOSE

To determine whether the surgical approach and fusion technique for lumbar degenerative disease had an effect on short-term PROMs and radiographic parameters.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective Cohort Study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Three hundred and ninety-one patients who underwent a 1-3 level lumbar spine fusion procedure at a high-volume academic center were retrospectively identified. Patients were divided into three groups based on the type of fusion they underwent: posterolateral fusion (PLF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMs: Short Form-12 (SF-12) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Score (VAS) Back, VAS Leg. Spinopelvic measurements: Pelvic Tilt (PT), Sacral Slope (SS), Pelvic Incidence (PI), Lumbar Lordosis (LL), Segmental Lordosis (SL), PI-LL mismatch.

METHODS

Patients with less than 1-year follow-up were excluded from the cohort. Pre- and postoperative spinopelvic measurements were obtained for all patients. Univariate analysis (Chi-squared/Fisher's exact test or ANOVA test with post-hoc Bonferroni test) was used to compare among the three groups in the PROMs and radiographic spinopelvic parameters. Multiple linear regression was used to determine if fusion technique was an independent predictor of change in each patient outcome.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixteen patients were included in the PLF group, 33 patients in the ALIF group, and 142 patients in the TLIF group. The PLF group was significantly older at baseline (p<.001) and had lower preoperative diagnosis rates of degenerative scoliosis and disc herniations (p<.001), whereas the ALIF group underwent a higher proportion of three-level fusions (p<.001). There was no significant difference in spinopelvic parameters preoperatively, however the ALIF group showed significantly more improvement in SL postoperatively (p=.004) than the PLF and TLIF groups. Within each group, SL improved for the PLF and ALIF groups (p=.002 for both), but not for the TLIF group (p=.238). Comparing patient outcomes, the ALIF group reported lower preoperative VAS Leg scores (p=.031), however, this difference resolved postoperatively. Stratifying for preoperative diagnosis, there were no significant differences in outcomes, except for a greater improvement in VAS Leg scores for degenerative scoliosis patients undergoing ALIF. Using multivariate analysis, fusion technique was not found to be a significant predictor of change in any patient outcome or in odds of revision.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar degenerative disease can be treated with several different fusion techniques, however, the relationship between type of fusion and PROMs is not established. Based on the findings in this study, the ALIF group showed greater improvement in SL compared with the PLF and TLIF groups, however, there was no difference noted in overall LL, PI-LL mismatch or other spinopelvic parameters. Despite these radiographic findings, patient outcome measures remained similar between all three fusion types.

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion May Provide Superior Decompression of the Foraminal Space Compared with Direct Foraminotomy: Biomechanical Cadaveric Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this cadaveric biomechanical study was to compare the area of the foraminal space during motion in the intact condition, after direct decompression via foraminotomy, and after indirect decompression via anterior lumbar interbody spacer insertion.

METHODS

Eight (8) L5-S1 cadaver specimens were used for testing. Each specimen was tested in the intact state, after posterior foraminotomy, and after standalone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Each specimen was 3-dimensional imaged under neutral loading, flexion, and extension. The 3-dimensional images were analyzed for changes in the foraminal area under each loading scenario. A repeat-measures design was used. Outcome measures from testing included the frequency in which an increase in cross-sectional area was observed, as well as the percent increase of the foraminal area for each surgical group and loading direction.

RESULTS

Direct foraminotomy and ALIF maintained the foraminal space during initial distraction under no loading with areas 99.7% and 96.5% of the native foraminal area, respectively (P = 0.955 and P = 0.455). Direct foraminotomy increased the foraminal area significantly during flexion to 112.2% of the area before motion (P = 0.008) while ALIF did not. Direct foraminotomy significantly decreased the foraminal area during extension to 89.2% of the area before motion (P = 0.006). ALIF, however, maintained its initial distraction during extension with 98.2% of the area before motion (P = 0.808).

CONCLUSIONS

ALIF maintains the foraminal area in extension while direct posterior foraminotomy does not.

360-Degree Complex Primary Reconstruction Using Porous Tantalum Cages for Adult Degenerative Spinal Deformity

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To assess both implant performance and the amount of correction that can be achieved using multilevel anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study (n = 178) performed over a 4-year period. Surgical variables examined included blood loss, operative time, perioperative complications, and secondary/revision procedures. Follow-up radiographic assessment was performed to record implant-related problems. Radiographic parameters were examined pre- and postoperatively. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcome measures were collected preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Descriptive and comparative statistical analysis, using paired-sample t test and repeated-measures analysis of variance (rANOVA), was performed.

RESULTS

Lumbar lordosis increased from 42° ± 17° preoperatively to 55° ± 11° postoperatively (P < .001). The visual analog scale back pain mean score improved from 8.3 ± 1.5 preoperatively to 2.6 ± 2.4 at 2 years (P < .001). The mean Oswestry Disability Index improved from 69.5 ± 21.5 preoperatively to 19.9 ± 15.2 at 2 years (P < .001). The EQ-5D mean score improved from 0.2 ± 0.2 preoperatively to 0.8 ± 0.1 at 2 years (P = .02). There were no neurological, vascular, or visceral approach-related injuries reported. No rod breakages and no symptomatic nonunions occurred. There was one revision procedure performed for fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of porous tantalum cages as part of a 360-degree fusion to treat adult degenerative spinal deformity has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective strategy, leading to good clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes in the short term.