Single-Position Prone Transpsoas Lateral Interbody Fusion Including L4L5: Early Postoperative Outcomes

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.

Biomechanical Comparison of Unilateral and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation after Multilevel Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Human Cadaveric Biomechanical Study.

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) utilizing a wide cage has been reported as having favorable biomechanical characteristics. We examine the biomechanical stability of unilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation after multilevel LLIF utilizing 26 mm wide cages compared to bilateral fixation.

METHODS

Eight human cadaveric specimens of L1-L5 were included. Specimens were attached to a universal testing machine (MTS 30/G). Three-dimensional specimen range of motion (ROM) was recorded using an optical motion-tracking device. Specimens were tested in 3 conditions: 1) intact, 2) L1-L5 LLIF (4 levels) with unilateral rod, 3) L1-L5 LLIF with bilateral rods.

RESULTS

From the intact condition, LLIF with unilateral rod decreased flexion-extension by 77%, lateral bending by 53%, and axial rotation by 26%. In LLIF with bilateral rods, flexion-extension decreased by 83%, lateral bending by 64%, and axial rotation by 34%. Comparing unilateral and bilateral fixation, LLIF with bilateral rods reduced ROM by a further 23% in flexion-extension, 25% in lateral bending, and 11% in axial rotation. The difference was statistically significant in flexion-extension and lateral bending (P < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable decreases in ROM were observed after multilevel (4-level) LLIF utilizing 26 mm cages supplemented with both unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws and rods. The addition of bilateral fixation provides a 10-25% additional decrease in ROM. These results can inform surgeons of the incremental biomechanical benefit when considering unilateral or bilateral posterior fixation after multilevel LLIF.

Novel Use of Bilateral Prone Transpsoas Approach for the Treatment of Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Pseudarthrosis and Interbody Cage Subsidence

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pseudarthrosis is a complication after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) that leads to recurrent symptoms and potential revision surgery. Subsidence of the interbody adds to the complexity of surgical revision. In addition, we report a novel technique for the treatment of TLIF pseudarthrosis with subsidence and propose an approach algorithm for TLIF cage removal.

METHODS

Cases of reoperation for TLIF pseudarthrosis were reviewed. We report a novel technique using a bilateral prone transpsoas (PTP) approach to remove a subsided TLIF cage and place a new lateral cage. An approach algorithm was developed based on the experience of TLIF cage removal. The patient was placed in the prone position with somatosensory evoked potential and electromyography monitoring. A PTP retractor was placed using standard techniques on the ipsilateral side of the previous TLIF. After the discectomy, the subsided TLIF cage was visualized but unable to be removed. The initial dilator was closed, and a second PTP retractor was placed on the contralateral side. After annulotomy and discectomy to circumferentially isolate the subsided cage, a box cutter was used to push and mobilize the TLIF cage from this contralateral side, which could then be pulled out from the ipsilateral side. A standard lateral interbody cage was then placed.

RESULTS

Retractor time was less than 10 minutes on each side. The patient's symptoms resolved postoperatively. We review illustrative cases of various approaches for TLIF cage removal spanning the lumbosacral spine and recommend an operative approach based on the lumbar level, degree of subsidence, and mobility of the interbody.

CONCLUSION

Bilateral PTP retractors for TLIF cage removal may be effectively used in cases of pseudarthrosis with severe cage subsidence. Careful consideration of various factors, including patient surgical history, body habitus, and intraoperative findings, is essential in determining the appropriate treatment for these complex cases.

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.

Using Novel Segmentation Technology to Define Safe Corridors for Minimally Invasive Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There has been a rise in minimally invasive methods to access the intervertebral disk space posteriorly given their decreased tissue destruction, lower blood loss, and earlier return to work. Two such options include the percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion through the Kambin triangle and the endoscopic transfacet approach. However, without accurate preoperative visualization, these approaches carry risks of damaging surrounding structures, especially the nerve roots. Using novel segmentation technology, our goal was to analyze the anatomic borders and relative sizes of the safe triangle, trans-Kambin, and the transfacet corridors to assist surgeons in planning a safe approach and determining cannula diameters.

METHODS

The areas of the safe triangle, Kambin, and transfacet corridors were measured using commercially available software (BrainLab, Munich, Germany). For each approach, the exiting nerve root, traversing nerve roots, theca, disk, and vertebrae were manually segmented on 3-dimensional T2-SPACE magnetic resonance imaging using a region-growing algorithm. The triangles' borders were delineated ensuring no overlap between the area and the nerves.

RESULTS

A total of 11 patients (65.4 ± 12.5 years, 33.3% female) were retrospectively reviewed. The Kambin, safe, and transfacet corridors were measured bilaterally at the operative level. The mean area (124.1 ± 19.7 mm2 vs 83.0 ± 11.7 mm2 vs 49.5 ± 11.4 mm2) and maximum permissible cannula diameter (9.9 ± 0.7 mm vs 6.8 ± 0.5 mm vs 6.05 ± 0.7 mm) for the transfacet triangles were significantly larger than Kambin and the traditional safe triangles, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

We identified, in 3-dimensional, the borders for the transfacet corridor: the traversing nerve root extending inferiorly until the caudal pedicle, the theca medially, and the exiting nerve root superiorly. These results illustrate the utility of preoperatively segmenting anatomic landmarks, specifically the nerve roots, to help guide decision-making when selecting the optimal operative approach.

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.

Location of the Femoral Nerve in the Lateral Decubitus Versus Prone Position

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the position of the femoral nerve within the lumbar plexus at the L4-L5 disc space in the lateral decubitus vs prone position.

METHODS

Seven lumbar plexus specimens were dissected and the femoral nerve within the psoas muscle was identified and marked with radiopaque paint. Lateral fluoroscopic images of the cadaveric specimens in the lateral decubitus vs prone position were obtained. The location of the radiopaque femoral nerve at the L4-L5 disc space was normalized as a percentage of the L5 vertebral body (0% indicates posterior location and 100% indicates anterior location at the L4-L5 disc space). The location of the femoral nerve at L4-L5 in the lateral decubitus vs prone position was compared using a paired t test.

RESULTS

In the lateral decubitus position, the femoral nerve was located 28% anteriorly from the posterior edge of the L4-L5 disc space, and in the prone position, the femoral nerve was relatively more posterior, located 18% from the posterior edge of the L4-L5 disc space (P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

The femoral nerve was on average more posteriorly located at the L4-L5 disc space in the prone position compared to lateral decubitus. This more posterior location allows for a larger safe zone at the L4-L5 disc space, which may decrease the incidence of neurologic complications associated with Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in the prone vs lateral decubitus position; however, further studies are needed to evaluate this possible clinical correlation.

The Prone Lateral Approach for Lumbar Fusion-A Review of the Literature and Case Series

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion is an evolving procedure in spine surgery allowing for the placement of large interbody devices to achieve indirect decompression of segmental stenosis, deformity correction and high fusion rates through a minimally invasive approach. Traditionally, this technique has been performed in the lateral decubitus position. Many surgeons have adopted simultaneous posterior instrumentation in the lateral position to avoid patient repositioning; however, this technique presents several challenges and limitations. Recently, lateral interbody fusion in the prone position has been gaining in popularity due to the surgeon's ability to perform simultaneous posterior instrumentation as well as decompression procedures and corrective osteotomies. Furthermore, the prone position allows improved correction of sagittal plane imbalance due to increased lumbar lordosis when prone on most operative tables used for spinal surgery. In this paper, we describe the evolution of the prone lateral approach for interbody fusion and present our experience with this technique. Case examples are included for illustration.

Radiographic alignment outcomes after the single-position prone transpsoas approach: a multi-institutional retrospective review of 363 cases

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper was to evaluate the changes in radiographic spinopelvic parameters in a large cohort of patients undergoing the prone transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective observational cohort study was performed for all patients who underwent lateral lumber interbody fusion via the single-position prone transpsoas (PTP) approach. Spinopelvic parameters from preoperative and first upright postoperative radiographs were collected, including lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and pelvic tilt (PT). Functional indices (visual analog scale score), and patient-reported outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index) were also recorded from pre- and postoperative appointments.

RESULTS

Of the 363 patients who successfully underwent the procedure, LL after fusion was 50.0° compared with 45.6° preoperatively (p < 0.001). The pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) was 10.5° preoperatively versus 2.9° postoperatively (p < 0.001). PT did not significantly change (0.2° ± 10.7°, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PTP approach allows significant gain in lordotic augmentation, which was associated with good functional results at follow-up.

Single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion: an overview of terminology, concepts, rationale and the current evidence base

PURPOSE

To provide definitions and a conceptual framework for single position surgery (SPS) applied to circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Narrative literature review and experts' opinion.

RESULTS

Two major limitations of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been (a) a perceived need to reposition the patient to the prone position for posterior fixation, and (b) the lack of a robust solution for fusion at the L5/S1 level. Recently, two strategies for performing single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion have been described. The combination of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position (LALIF), LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (pPSF) in the lateral decubitus position is known as lateral single-position surgery (LSPS). Prone LLIF (PLLIF) involves transpsoas LLIF done in the prone position that is more familiar for surgeons to then implant pedicle screw fixation. This can be referred to as prone single-position surgery (PSPS). In this review, we describe the evolution of and rationale for single-position spinal surgery. Pertinent studies validating LSPS and PSPS are reviewed and future questions regarding the future of these techniques are posed. Lastly, we present an algorithm for single-position surgery that describes the utility of LALIF, LLIF and PLLIF in the treatment of patients requiring AP lumbar fusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Single position surgery in circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine includes posterior fixation in association with any of the following: lateral position LLIF, prone position LLIF, lateral position ALIF, and their combination (lateral position LLIF+ALIF). Preliminary studies have validated these methods.

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.

Setting for single position surgery: survey from expert spinal surgeons

PURPOSE

To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field.

METHODS

Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique.

CONCLUSION

A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

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.

Single position lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recently, a single position lumbar fusion has been described in which both the anterior or lateral interbody fusion as well as posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation are performed in a single position.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to present and analyze the current evidence for single position lumbar fusion.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Prospective or retrospective studies published in English that assessed outcomes of single position lumbar fusion surgery for patients with lumbar degenerative disease, spondylolisthesis, or radiculopathy were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, X-Ray exposure time, and postoperative outcomes including leg numbness or pain, leg weakness, lumbar lordosis, and segmental lordosis.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two separate meta-analyses were performed. The first compared single position (SP) surgery, both lateral and prone, to dual position or flipped (F) surgery. The second meta-analysis compared lateral single position (LSP) surgery to prone single position (PSP) surgery. Variables were included if (1) they were a mean with a reported standard deviation or (2) if they were a categorical variable. For calculating standard error of the mean, we used sample size, mean, and standard deviation. A random effects model was used. The heterogeneity among studies was assessed with a significance level of <0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles were included for analysis. Three studies were prospective nonrandomized studies, while 18 were retrospective. Seven articles studied lateral single position only, 10 articles compared lateral single position to traditional repositioning surgery, three articles studied prone single position surgery, and one article compared prone single position surgery to traditional repositioning surgery. A detailed review is provided for all 21 articles. Seventeen studies were included for meta-analysis comparing the SP versus F groups, for a total of 942 patients in the SP group and 254 in the F group. Mean operative time was significantly less for the SP group compared with the F group (SP: 127.5±7.9, F: 188.7±15.5, p<.001). Average hospital length of stay was 2.87±0.3 days in the SP group and 6.63±0.6 days in the F group (p<.001). Complication rates did not significantly differ between groups. Pedicle screws placed in the lateral position had a higher rate of complication as compared with those placed in a prone position (L: 10.2±2%, P: 1.6±1%, p=.015). Seventeen studies were included in the LSP versus PSP analysis, including 13 in the LSP group and four in the PSP group, with a total of 785 patients in the LSP group and 85 patients in the PSP group. Operative time and X-Ray exposure was significantly less in the LSP compared with the PSP group (117.1±5.5 minutes vs. 166.9±21.9 minutes, p<.001; 43.7±15.5 minutes vs. 171.0±25.8 minutes, p<.001). Postoperative segmental lordosis was greater in the prone single position group (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Single position surgery decreases operative times and hospital length of stay, while maintaining similar complication rates and radiographic outcomes. PSP surgery was found to be longer in duration and have increased radiation exposure time compared with LSP, while increasing postoperative segmental lordosis.