Safety Analysis of Two Anterior Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions at the Initial Stage of Learning Curve

Perspective: How can risks to patients be limited during spine surgeons' learning curves?

Background

Learning curves (LC) are typically defined by the number of different spinal procedures surgeons must perform before becoming "proficient," as demonstrated by reductions in operative times, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), adverse events (AE), fewer conversions to open procedures, along with improved outcomes. Reviewing 12 studies revealed LC varied widely from 10-44 cases for open vs. minimally invasive (MI) lumbar diskectomy, laminectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and oblique/extreme lateral interbody fusions (OLIF/XLIF). We asked whether the risks of harm occurring during these LC could be limited if surgeons routinely utilized in-person/intraoperative mentoring (i.e., via industry, academia, or well-trained colleagues).

Methods

We evaluated LC for multiple lumbar operations in 12 studies.

Results

These studies revealed no LC for open vs. MI lumbar diskectomy. LC required 29 cases for MI laminectomy, 10-44 cases for MI TLIF, 24-30 cases for MI OLIF, and 30 cases for XLIF. Additionally, the LC for MI ALIF was 30 cases; one study showed that 32% of major vascular injuries occurred in the first 25 vs. 0% for the next 25 cases. Shouldn't the risks of harm to patients occurring during these LC be limited if surgeons routinely utilized in-person/intraoperative mentoring?

Conclusions

Twelve studies showed that the LC for at different MI lumbar spine operations varied markedly (i.e., 10-44 cases). Wouldn't and shouldn't spine surgeons avail themselves of routine in-person/intraoperative mentoring to limit patients' risks of injury during their respective LC for these varied spine procedures ?

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.

Perspective; high frequency of intraoperative errors due to extreme, oblique, and lateral lumbar interbody fusions (XLIF, OLIF, LLIF): Are they "safe"?

Background

Extreme Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions (XLIF), Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF,) and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) were largely developed to provide indirect lumbar decompressions for spinal stenosis, deformity, and/or instability.

Methods

Here, we have reviewed and updated the incidence of intraoperative errors attributed to XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF. Specifically, we focused on how often these procedures caused new neurological deficits, major vessel, visceral, and other injuries, including those warranting secondary surgery.

Results

Performing XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF can lead to significant intraoperative surgical errors that include varying rates of; new neurological injuries (i.e. iliopsoas motor deficits (4.3-19.7-33.6-40%), proximal hip/upper thigh sensory loss/dysesthesias (5.1% to 21.7% to 40%)), life-threatneing vascular injuries (i.e., XLIF (0% - 0.4%-1.8%), OLIF (3.2%), and LLIF (2%) involving the aorta, iliac artery, inferior vena cava, iliac vein, and segmental arteries), and bowel/viscarl injuries (0.03%-0.4%) leading to reoperations (i.e., XLIF (1.8%) vs. LLIF (3.8%) vs. XLIF/LLIF/OLIF 2.2%)).

Conclusion

Varying reports documented that XLIF, OLIF and LLIF caused up to a 40% incidence of new sensory/motor deficits, up to a 3.2% incidence of major vascular insults, a 0.4% frequency of visceral/bowel perforations, and a 3.8% need for reoperations. These high frequencies of intraoperative surgical errors attributed to XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF should prompt reconsideration of whether these procedures are "safe."

Comparing clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Context

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) are 2 popular minimally invasive spinal fusion techniques with unique approach-related complication profiles. Accordingly, patient-specific anatomical factors, such as vascular anatomy or iliac crest height, greatly influence which technique to use. Previous studies comparing these approaches do not account for the inability of XLIF to access the L5-S1 disc space and therefore do not exclude this level in their analysis. The purpose of this study was to compare radiological and clinical outcomes of these techniques in the L1-L5 region.

Methods

A query of 3 electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL plus, and SCOPUS) was performed, without time restriction, to identify studies that evaluated outcomes of single-level OLIF and/or XLIF between L1 and L5. Based on heterogeneity, a random effects meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the pooled estimation of each variable between the groups. An overlap of 95% confidence intervals suggests no statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level.

Results

A total of 1,010 patients (408 OLIF, 602 XLIF) were included from 24 published studies. Improvements in disc height (OLIF: 4.2 mm; XLIF: 5.3 mm), lumbar segmental (OLIF: 2.3°; XLIF: 3.1°), and lumbar lordotic angles (OLIF: 5.3°; XLIF: 3.3°) showed no significant difference. The rate of neuropraxia was significantly greater in the XLIF group at 21.2% versus 10.9% in the OLIF group (p<.05). However, the rate of vascular injury was higher in the OLIF cohort at 3.2% (95% CI:1.7-6.0) as compared to 0.0 (95% CI: 0.0-1.4) in the XLIF cohort. Improvements in VAS-b (OLIF: 5.6; XLIF: 4.5) and ODI (OLIF: 37.9; XLIF: 25.6) scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrates similar clinical and radiological outcomes between single-level OLIF and XLIF from L1 to L5. XLIF had significantly higher rates of neuropraxia, whereas OLIF had greater rates of vascular injury.

Lumbar interbody fusion using oblique (OLIF) and lateral (LLIF) approaches for degenerative spine disorders: a meta-analysis of the comparative studies

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Historically, posterior approaches to the lumbar spine have allowed surgeons to manage degenerative conditions affecting the lumbar spine. However, spinal muscles injury, post-surgical vertebral instability, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, and failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) represent severe complications that may occur after these surgeries. Lumbar interbody fusion using anterior (ALIF), oblique (OLIF), or lateral (LLIF) approaches may represent valuable surgical alternatives, in case fusion is indicated on single or multiple levels.

METHODS

The present study is a systematic review, conducted according to the PRISMA statement, of comparative studies on OLIF, and LLIF for degenerative spine disorders, and a meta-analysis of their clinical-radiological outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

After screening 1472 papers on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, only 3 papers were included in the present study. 318 patients were included for data meta-analysis, 128 in OLIF group, and 190 in LLIF group. There were no significative differences in terms of surgical (intraoperative blood loss and surgical duration) and clinical (VAS-back, VAS-leg, and ODI scores) outcomes, or fusion rates at last follow-up (> 2 years). Significantly higher rates of abdominal complications, system failure, and vascular injuries were recorded in the OLIF group. Conversely, postoperative neurological symptoms and psoas weakness were significatively more common in LLIF group.

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis suggests that OLIF and LLIF are both effective for lumbar degenerative disorders, although each of them presents specific complications and this should represent a relevant element in the surgical planning.

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.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Single Surgeon Learning Curve

OBJECTIVE

To characterize lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgical learning curve and investigate changes in perioperative and postoperative clinical parameters associated with increased operative experience.

METHODS

In a case series, surgical learning curve was defined using 3-parameter asymptotic regression and piecewise linear regression, yielding learning phase (patients 1-53) and proficient phase (patients 54-179) cohorts. Using a 5-point grading scale, ipsilateral iliopsoas (hip-flexion) and quadriceps (knee-extension) muscle strength and thigh and groin sensory disturbances were compared for differences preoperatively versus postoperatively using χ² test. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected preoperatively and postoperatively and compared between cohorts with unpaired t test.

RESULTS

The proficient phase cohort demonstrated significantly reduced operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, and narcotic consumption on postoperative days 0 and 1. The proficient phase cohort displayed decreased disability at 6 weeks and 6 months and demonstrated significant improvement at all time points for disability, pain, and physical function except for 6 weeks and 2 years for physical function, whereas the learning phase cohort demonstrated improvement in disability beginning at 6 months, leg pain at all time points, and back pain through 6 months. Ipsilateral groin and thigh sensory disturbances and iliopsoas and quadriceps weakness improved with increasing operative experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The proficient phase cohort demonstrated significantly improved perioperative profile, reduced complication rate, and reduced rates of iliopsoas and quadriceps weakness. While the proficient phase cohort demonstrated earlier improvement in disability and physical function scores compared with the learning phase cohort, 2-year outcome measures did not differ. Long-term clinical outcomes suggest that patient safety and quality of life are not compromised during the learning phase, but patients may be particularly susceptible to femoral nerve injury early in a surgeon's practice.

Perspective on the true incidence of bowel perforations occurring with extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusions. How should they be treated?

Background

What is the risk of bowel perforation (BP) with open or minimally invasive (MI) extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF)? What is the truth? Further, if peritoneal symptoms/signs arise following XLIF/MI XLIF, it is critical to obtain an emergent consultation with general surgery who can diagnose and treat a potential BP.

Literature Review

In multiple series, the frequency of BP ranged markedly from 0.03% (i.e. 1 of 2998 patients), to 0.08% (11/13,004), to 0.5%, to 8.3% (1 in 12 patients), up to 12.5% (1 in 8 patients). BPs attributed to different causes carry high mortality rates varying from 11.1% to 23%. For the 11 (0.08%) BP occurring out of 13,004 patients undergoing XLIF in one series, there was one (9.09%) death due to uncontrolled sepsis. In another series, where 31 BP were identified for multiple lumbar surgical procedures identified through PubMed (1960-2016), including 10 (32.2%) for lateral lumbar surgery including XLIF, the overall mortality rate was 12.9% (4/31).

Conclusion

The incidence of BPs occurring following XLIF/MI XLIF procedures ranged from 0.03% to 12.5% in various reports. What is the true incidence of these errors? Certainly, it is more critical that when spine surgeons' patients develop acute peritoneal symptoms/signs following these procedures, they immediately consult general surgery to both diagnose, and treat potential BP in a timely fashion to avoid the high morbidity (87.1%) and mortality rates (12.9%) attributed to these perforations.

Incidence of major and minor vascular injuries during lateral access lumbar interbody fusion procedures: a retrospective comparative study and systematic literature review

During lateral lumbar fusion, the trajectory of implant insertion approaches the great vessels anteriorly and the segmental arteries posteriorly, which carries the risk of vascular complications. We aimed to analyze vascular injuries for potential differences between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedures at our institution. This was coupled with a systematic literature review of vascular complications associated with lateral lumbar fusions. A retrospective chart review was completed to identify consecutive patients who underwent lateral access fusions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for the systematic review with the search terms "vascular injury" and "lateral lumbar surgery." Of 260 procedures performed at our institution, 211 (81.2%) patients underwent an LLIF and 49 (18.8%) underwent an OLIF. There were no major vascular complications in either group in this comparative study, but there were four (1.5%) minor vascular injuries (2 LLIF, 0.95%; 2 OLIF, 4.1%). Patients who experienced vascular injury experienced a greater amount of blood loss than those who did not (227.5 ± 147.28 vs. 59.32 ± 68.30 ml) (p = 0.11). In our systematic review of 63 articles, major vascular injury occurred in 0-15.4% and minor vascular injury occurred in 0-6% of lateral lumbar fusions. The systematic review and comparative study demonstrate an increased rate of vascular injury in OLIF when compared to LLIF. However, vascular injuries in either procedure are rare, and this study aids previous literature to support the safety of both approaches.

Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion for Thoracic and Thoracolumbar Disease: The Diaphragm Dilemma

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

Complication profiles for lateral approaches to the spine are well established. However, the influence of level of surgery on complication rates and subtypes are less well established. To determine risk factors for complications as determined by level and surgery type in patients undergoing a lateral (retroperitoneal or retropleural approach) to the thoracolumbar spine.

METHODS

All adult patients undergoing a lateral thoracolumbar fusion with or without posterior instrumentation performed at a single institution were identified. Primary outcomes assessed were presence of complication, complication subtype, and need for reoperation. The primary independent variables were spinal level (thoracic, thoracolumbar, or lumbar) and type of surgery (discectomy or corpectomy). Categorical outcomes were compared using chi-square test. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios for corpectomy status were calculated to determine risk of complication by level. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 165 patients aged 18 to 75 years were identified as having undergone a lateral fusion. Complication rates were 28.6%, 36.4%, and 11% for thoracic, thoracolumbar, and lumbar lateral approach fusions, respectively. Under univariate analysis, patients undergoing lateral approach in the thoracic spine group had significantly higher rates of postoperative complications than those in the lumbar group (P = .005). After adjusting for corpectomy status, there was no difference in complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Lateral (retroperitoneal or retropleural) approaches to the thoracic and thoracolumbar spine may be used with complication rates comparable to well-established lumbar approaches. Extent of surgery (corpectomy vs discectomy) rather than level of surgery may represent the primary driver of complications.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Surgeon experience influences patient characteristics and outcomes in spine deformity surgery

PURPOSE

To characterize differences in patient demographics and outcomes by surgeon experience in a cohort of patients undergoing adult spinal deformity surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing degenerative spinal deformity were included. Patients whose surgeons graduated from fellowship ≤ 5 years prior to surgery versus > 5 years were compared. Multivariable linear and logistic regression, controlling for age, sex, comorbidity burden, number of segments fused, blood loss and operative time were used to evaluate differences in outcomes. Characteristics of operative invasiveness were plotted against surgeons' level of experience, and trends in these measures were assessed with univariate linear regression.

RESULTS

Three-hundred sixty-three patients were included. 147 patients' surgeons had ≤ 5 years of experience. Patient demographics were evenly matched. Patients with junior surgeons had more pre-existing medical complications, and senior surgeons were less likely to take care of patients with Medicare/Medicaid (p < 0.001). Junior surgeons were more likely to operate on non-elective patients (p < 0.001). Patients of junior surgeons received larger fusions (9.6 vs. 7.6 segments fused, p < 0.001). There were no differences in complication rates or death. Patients of junior surgeons had longer overall length of stays (p = 0.037) and higher rates of nonhome discharge (OR 2.0, p < 0.001), 30- and 90-day (p < 0.005) ED visits, and higher costs (+ $8548, 95% CI: $1596 to $15,502; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Junior surgeons tend to perform more extensive deformity operations on more medically complex patients compared to senior surgeons, associated with higher costs and more resource utilization than senior surgeons.

The OLIF working corridor based on magnetic resonance imaging: a retrospective research

OBJECTIVE

To provide an anatomical basis for the development of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) in Chinese patients.

METHODS

Between November 2018 and June 2019, 300 patients' lumbar MRI data were reviewed. According to the Moro system and zone method described by us, the axial view was vertically divided into 6 zones (A, I II, III, IV, P) and was horizontally divided into 4 zones (R, a, b, c, L). The locations of left psoas muscle and the major artery at L2/3, L3/4, and L4/5 levels were evaluated by the grid system. The aortic bifurcation segments will also be evaluated at the level of the vertebral body or the disc.

RESULTS

At the L2/3 level, left psoas muscle and the major artery in zone Ib were found in 28.0% of subjects, in zone IIb in 20.3%, and in zone Ic in 20.0%; at the L3/4 level, in zone Ab in 20.7% of subjects, in zone Ac in 26.0%, and in zone Ic in 11.0%; and at the L4/5 level, areas in zone Ab in 31.0% of subjects, in zone Ac in 26.0%, and in zone Ib in 11.7%. The aortic bifurcation segments were mainly at the L4 level. The zone of the left psoas muscle at all levels, the zone of the major artery at L4/5 level, and the zone of the aortic bifurcation segments had significant correlation with gender difference (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The left-sided OLIF at L2-L5 disc levels can be a feasible type of surgery for lumbar interbody fusion in the majority of Chinese patients. Before the operation, in order to screen out the appropriate surgical approach, routine lumbar magnetic resonance imaging is recommended to analyze the patient's local anatomical features.

Novel Implementation of Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion to Avoid Intraoperative Lumbar Plexus Injury: Technical Note and Preliminary Results

BACKGROUND

This study modified the traditional extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) surgery and was intended to reduce the approach related to lumbar plexus injury.

METHODS

The patients receiving a new modified XLIF for treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases since September 2017 in our hospital were retrospectively collected. Postoperative additional symptoms of leg numbness, pain, or weakness were recorded as lumbar plexus nerve injury. Intraoperative electromyographic monitoring was recorded during surgery to evaluate the safety of the modified entry point. The visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index were adopted to evaluate the postoperative clinical efficacy. Modified MacNab criteria were introduced to evaluate the patients' satisfaction 12 months after surgery. The preoperative and postoperative intervertebral height, foraminal height, and lumbar lordotic angle were measured. Repeated measurement variance analysis was used for comparison of clinical and imaging indexes in various periods. P < 0.05 indicated statistical difference.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were finally included in the retrospective study. The intraoperative average blood loss and operation time were 70 mL (40-130 mL) and 77.90 ± 13.65 minutes. The average follow-up time was 18 months. Postoperative visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index were significantly decreased compared with those before the operation. The intervertebral height and foraminal height were dramatically higher than those before surgery. No lumbar plexus injury occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial result was optimistic in reducing lumbar plexus injury and obtaining good clinical efficacy. We need to further expand the sample size and carry out a comparative study to observe the advantages and disadvantages of modified XLIF.

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?