Effects of Surgical Positioning on L4-L5 Accessibility and Lumbar Lordosis in Lateral Transpsoas Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of Prone and Lateral Decubitus in Asymptomatic Adults

Single Position Lateral versus Prone Transpsoas Lateral Interbody Fusion Inclusive of L4-L5: A Single Surgeon Experience Examining Early Postoperative Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure is a minimally invasive lumbar spine approach that provides indirect neural decompression, improved sagittal alignment, and a high fusion rate. Typically accompanied by posterior pedicle screw insertion, there has been interest in performing LLIF in a single position to decrease cost and time under anesthesia. However, there is a paucity of direct comparisons between single-position LLIF via prone versus lateral decubitus positioning. Therefore, this study aims to compare the outcomes of a single surgeon performing prone versus lateral single-position LLIF, inclusive of the L4-L5 level.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of a consecutive case series of patients who underwent either prone or lateral, single-position LLIF by a single surgeon. All cases involved the L4-L5 level. Demographic data, perioperative details, clinical outcomes, and preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis were recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients underwent lateral and 16 patients underwent prone single-position LLIF. Demographics and average interbody size were similar between groups. Operative time, change in lumbar lordosis, and length of hospital stay did not differ between the 2 positions. Both groups performed similarly in terms of preoperative and postoperative visual analog score pain score and complications. Patients who underwent lateral position LLIF ambulated farther on postoperative day 1 (250 feet vs. 200 feet, P = 0.015). Average time to follow up was 53 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates promising preliminary results indicating that single-position LLIF performs well, even at the L4-L5 level, in both the prone and lateral positions.

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.

Intra-abdominal Content Movement in Prone Versus Lateral Decubitus Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, anatomical imaging study of healthy volunteer subjects in accurate surgical positions.

OBJECTIVE

To establish if there is a change in the position of the abdominal contents in the lateral decubitus (LD) versus prone position.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the LD position has been validated anatomically and for procedural safety, specifically in relation to visceral risks. Recently, LLIF with the patient in the prone position has been suggested as an alternative to LLIF in the LD position.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbosacral region in the right LD position with the hips flexed and the prone position with the legs extended. Anatomical measurements were performed on axial magnetic resonance images at the L4-5 disc space.

RESULTS

Thirty-four subjects were included. The distance from the skin to the lateral disc surface was 134.9 mm in prone compared with 118.7 mm in LD ( P <0.0001). The distance between the posterior aspect of the disc and the colon was 20.3 mm in the prone compared with 41.1 mm in LD ( P <0.0001). The colon migrated more posteriorly in relation to the anterior margin of the psoas in the prone compared with LD (21.7  vs . 5.5 mm, respectively; P <0.0001). 100% of subjects had posterior migration of the colon in the prone compared with the LD position, as measured by the distance from the quadratum lumborum to the colon (44.4  vs . 20.5 mm, respectively; P <0.001).

CONCLUSION

There were profound changes in the position of visceral structures between the prone and LD patient positions in relation to the LLIF approach corridor. Compared with LD LLIF, the prone position results in a longer surgical corridor with a substantially smaller working window free of the colon, as evidenced by the significant and uniform posterior migration of the colon. Surgeons should be aware of the potential for increased visceral risks when performing LLIF in the prone position.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II-prospective anatomical cohort study.

Advancing Prone-Transpsoas Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review and Evolution of Indications with Representative Cases

The Prone Transpsoas (PTP) approach to lumbar spine surgery, emerging as an evolution of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), offers significant advantages over traditional methods. PTP has demonstrated increased lumbar lordosis gains compared to LLIF, owing to the natural increase in lordosis afforded by prone positioning. Additionally, the prone position offers anatomical advantages, with shifts in the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus, reducing the likelihood of postoperative femoral plexopathy and moving critical peritoneal contents away from the approach. Furthermore, operative efficiency is a notable benefit of PTP. By eliminating the need for intraoperative position changes, PTP reduces surgical time, which in turn decreases the risk of complications and operative costs. Finally, its versatility extends to various lumbar pathologies, including degeneration, adjacent segment disease, and deformities. The growing body of evidence indicates that PTP is at least as safe as traditional approaches, with a potentially better complication profile. In this narrative review, we review the historical evolution of lateral interbody fusion, culminating in the prone transpsoas approach. We also describe several adjuncts of PTP, including robotics and radiation-reduction methods. Finally, we illustrate the versatility of PTP and its uses, ranging from 'simple' degenerative cases to complex deformity surgeries.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Following Prone Lateral Single-Position Approach to Same-Day Circumferential Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate surgical characteristics and postoperative 2-year results of the PL approach to spinal fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Prone-lateral(PL) single positioning has recently gained popularity in spine surgery due to lower blood loss and operative time but has yet to be examined for other notable outcomes, including realignment and patient-reported measures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included circumferential spine fusion patients with a minimum one-year follow-up. Patients were stratified into groups based on undergoing PL approach versus same-day staged (Staged). Mean comparison tests identified differences in baseline parameters. Multivariable logistic regression, controlling for age, levels fused, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were used to determine the influence of the approach on complication rates, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes up to two years.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-two patients were included of which 72(59%) were same-day staged and 50(41%) were PL. PL patients were older with lower body mass index (both P <0.05). Patients undergoing PL procedures had lower estimated blood loss and operative time (both P <0.001), along with fewer osteotomies (63% vs. 91%, P <0.001). This translated to a shorter length of stay (3.8 d vs. 4.9, P =0.041). PL procedures demonstrated better correction in both PT (4.0 vs. -0.2, P =0.033 and pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (-3.7 vs. 3.1, P =0.012). PL procedures were more likely to improve in GAP relative pelvic version (OR: 2.3, [1.5-8.8]; P =0.003]. PL patients suffered lesser complications during the perioperative period and greater improvement in NRS-Back (-6.0 vs. -3.3, P =0.031), with less reoperations (0.0% vs. 4.8%, P =0.040) by two years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing PL single-position procedures received less invasive procedures with better correction of pelvic compensation, as well as earlier discharge. The prone lateral cohort also demonstrated greater clinical improvement and a lower rate of reoperations by two years following spinal corrective surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level-III.

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.

Prone Transpsoas Lateral Interbody Fusion (PTP LIF) with Anterior Docking: Preliminary functional and radiographic outcomes

Background

Disadvantages of lateral interbody fusion (LIF) through a direct, transpsoas approach include difficulties associated with lateral decubitus positioning and limited sagittal correction without anterior longitudinal ligament release or posterior osteotomy. Prior technical descriptions advocate anchoring or docking the retractor into the posterior to middle aspect of the disc space.

Methods

72 patients who underwent 116 total levels of Prone Transpsoas (PTP) LIF with anterior docking with a single surgeon between December 2021 and May 2023 were included. Patient characteristics, perioperative data, as well as postoperative functional and radiographic outcomes were recorded. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients who underwent single-level PTP LIF with single-level percutaneous fixation (SLP). Patients in the SLP subgroup did not undergo direct decompression, release, or osteotomy.

Results

N=41 (56.9%) of cases included the L4-5 level. No vascular, bowel, or other visceral complications occurred. No patients developed a permanent motor deficit. Both the total cohort and the SLP group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in functional outcomes including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) as well as all radiographic parameters measured. Mean total operative time (incision to completion of closure for lateral and posterior fusion) in the SLP group was 104.3 minutes with a significant downward trend with increasing surgeon experience. The SLP group demonstrated a 9.9° increase in segmental lordosis (SL), a 7.5° increase in lumbar lordosis (LL), 5.3° reduction in pelvic tilt (PT), and a decrease in pelvic incidence - lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) from 11.0° preoperatively to 3.9°, postoperatively (p<.01).

Conclusions

PTP LIF with anterior docking may address shortcomings associated with traditional lateral interbody fusion by producing safe and reproducible access with improved restoration of segmental lordosis and optimization of spinopelvic parameters.

Complications of the Prone Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The prone transpsoas (PTP) approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a novel technique for degenerative lumbar spine disease. However, there is a paucity of information in the literature on the complications of this procedure, with all published data consisting of small samples. We aimed to report the intraoperative and postoperative complications of PTP in the largest study to date.

METHODS

A retrospective electronic medical record review was conducted at 11 centers to identify consecutive patients who underwent LLIF through the PTP approach between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. The following data were collected: intraoperative characteristics (operative time, estimated blood loss [EBL], intraoperative complications [anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) rupture, cage subsidence, vascular and visceral injuries]), postoperative complications, and hospital stay.

RESULTS

A total of 365 patients were included in the study. Among these patients, 2.2% had ALL rupture, 0.3% had cage subsidence, 0.3% had a vascular injury, 0.3% had a ureteric injury, and no other visceral injuries were reported. Mean operative time was 226.2 ± 147.9 minutes. Mean EBL was 138.4 ± 215.6 mL. Mean hospital stay was 2.7 ± 2.2 days. Postoperative complications included new sensory symptoms-8.2%, new lower extremity weakness-5.8%, wound infection-1.4%, cage subsidence-0.8%, psoas hematoma-0.5%, small bowel obstruction and ischemia-0.3%, and 90-day readmission-1.9%.

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter case series, the PTP approach was well tolerated and associated with a satisfactory safety profile.

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.

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.

Prone Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: Case Series With an Operative Video Using Fluoroscopy-Based Instrument Tracking Guidance

BACKGROUND

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion has inherent limitations, such as the necessity to reposition the patient. To overcome this limitation, the prone transpsoas (PTP) approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion has been developed.

OBJECTIVE

To report clinical and radiographic outcome measures of a series of patients who underwent PTP at our hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify patients who underwent PTP for degenerative lumbar spine disease between September 2019 and August 2021. A thorough analysis of clinical and radiographic outcome measures for these patients was conducted.

RESULTS

Our search resulted in the identification of 15 consecutive patients. Four patients were operated using the assistance of fluoroscopy-based instrument tracking. Overall, the mean follow-up duration was 11.9 ± 7.9 months. Radiographically, the PTP approach resulted in significant postoperative improvement of lumbar lordosis ( P = .03) and pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis ( P &lt; .005). No significant difference was found postoperatively in other regional sagittal alignment parameters, including pelvic tilt, sacral slope, or pelvic incidence. Clinically, the patients' Oswestry Disability Indices ( P = .002) and Short Form Survey-12 Physical Scores improved significantly ( P = .01). The estimated mean blood loss for patients who underwent the PTP procedure was 137.7 ± 96.4 mL, the mean operative time was 212.5 ± 77.1 minutes, and the mean hospital stay was 2.7 ± 1.4 days. One patient each had superficial wound infection, transient paralytic ileus, transient pulmonary embolism, transient urinary retention, or required revision lumbar surgery.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the PTP approach is associated with significant improvement in radiographic and clinical outcomes.

Outpatient outcomes of patients with femoral nerve neurapraxia after prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5

OBJECTIVE

Single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) improves the efficiency of staged minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery. However, laterally approaching the lumbar spine, especially L4-5 with the patient in the prone position, could increase the risk of complications and presents unique challenges, including difficult ergonomics, psoas migration, and management of the nearby lumbar plexus. The authors sought to identify postoperative femoral neurapraxia after single-position prone LLIF at L4-5 to better understand how symptoms evolve over time.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis examined a prospectively maintained database of LLIF patients who were treated by two surgeons (J.S.U. and J.D.T.). Patients who underwent single-position prone LLIF at L4-5 and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for lumbar stenosis or spondylolisthesis were included if they had at least 6 weeks of follow-up. Outpatient postoperative neurological symptoms were analyzed at 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month follow-up evaluations.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (16 women [55%]; overall mean ± SD age 62 ± 11 years) met the inclusion criteria. Five patients (17%) experienced complications, including 1 (3%) who had a femoral nerve injury with resultant motor weakness. The mean ± SD transpsoas retractor time was 14.6 ± 6.1 minutes, the directional anterior electromyography (EMG) threshold before retractor placement was 20.1 ± 10.2 mA, and the directional posterior EMG threshold was 10.4 ± 9.1 mA. All patients had 6-week clinical follow-up evaluations. Ten patients (34%) reported thigh pain or weakness at their 6-week follow-up appointment, compared with 3/27 (11%) at 3 months and 1/20 (5%) at 6 months. No association was found between directional EMG threshold and neurapraxia, but longer transpsoas retractor time at L4-5 was significantly associated with femoral neurapraxia at 6-week follow-up (p = 0.02). The only case of femoral nerve injury with motor weakness developed in a patient with a retractor time that was nearly twice as long as the mean time (27.0 vs 14.6 minutes); however, this patient fully recovered by the 3-month follow-up evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the largest study with the longest follow-up duration to date after single-position prone LLIF at L4-5 with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. Although 34% of patients reported ipsilateral sensory symptoms in the thigh at the 6-week follow-up evaluation, only 1 patient sustained a nerve injury; this resulted in temporary weakness that resolved by the 3-month follow-up evaluation. Thus, longer transpsoas retractor time at L4-5 during prone LLIF is associated with increased ipsilateral thigh symptoms at 6-week follow-up that may resolve over time.

Effects of thigh extension on the position of the femoral nerve: application to prone lateral transpsoas approaches to the lumbar spine

Some authors have suggested that thigh extension during the prone lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine provides the theoretical advantage of providing posterior shift of the psoas muscle and plexus and is responsible for its lower rates of nerve injury. We aimed to elucidate the effects of surgical positioning on the femoral nerve within the psoas muscle via a cadaveric study. In the supine position, 10 fresh frozen adult cadavers had a metal wire secured to the pelvic segment of the femoral nerve and then extended proximally along with its L2 contribution. Fluoroscopy was then used to identify the wires on the femoral nerves in a neutral position and with the thigh extended and flexed by 25 and 45°. Additionally, a lateral incision was made in the anterolateral abdominal wall to mimic a lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine, and measurements were made of the amount of movement in the vertical plane of the femoral nerve from neutral to then 25 and 45° of thigh flexion and extension. On fluoroscopy, the femoral nerves moved posteriorly at a mean of 10.1 mm with thigh extension. Femoral nerve movement could not be detected at any degree of this range of flexion of the thigh. Extension of the thigh to about 30° can move the femoral nerve farther away from the dissection plane by approximately one centimeter. This hip extension not only places the femoral nerve in a more advantageous position for lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedures but also helps to promote accentuation of lumbar lordosis.

Comparison of prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine disease: A retrospective radiographic propensity score-matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

This is the first study to compare the prone transpsoas (PTP) approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) through an analysis of radiographic and clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of data for patients who underwent the PTP approach or TLIF for degenerative lumbar spine disease was conducted. Propensity score matching was completed through the utilization of a linear regression model with the classification of surgery (PTP vs. TLIF) being used as the indicator (dependent variable) and the radiographic outcomes as covariates (independent variables). Both cohorts (PTP and TLIF) were propensity score matched according to preoperative radiographic parameters using a 1-to-1 ratio to the nearest neighbor. Eleven patients in the TLIF group were matched to an equal number of patients in the PTP group who had similar propensity scores to perform a thorough analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

The PTP approach significantly improved the lumbar lordosis angle, pelvic tilt, and the pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis value when compared to TLIF (p < 0.05). Clinically, the PTP group improved significantly in terms of the Oswestry Disability Index (p < 0.05). That approach also significantly minimized blood loss and hospital stay (p < 0.05). Furthermore, significantly more cages were placed anteriorly in the PTP group than in the TLIF group (p < 0.05). However, the PTP group had a significantly longer duration of radiation exposure (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The PTP approach resulted in greater improvement in postoperative radiographic measurements as well as patient-reported outcomes.

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.

Initial multi-centre clinical experience with prone transpsoas lateral interbody fusion: Feasibility, perioperative outcomes, and lessons learned

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion