Single-Position Surgery versus Lateral-Then-Prone-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Literature Review

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.

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.

Robotic-assisted single-position lateral for multilevel circumferential lumbar interbody fusion: how I do it

BACKGROUND

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion supplemented with insertion of pedicle screws is a surgical procedure that has gained popularity in the last years, becoming an important tool in the armamentarium of spine surgeons. In recent years, there is a trend to complete both procedures in a single position, thus avoiding flipping the patient prone to insert the pedicle screws.

METHODS

We describe a step-by-step workflow of the robotic-assisted technique for multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion supplemented with posterior instrumentation. The surgical procedure is performed in a single lateral position. For access to L4-5 or L5-S1, an oblique abdominal incision is performed in the same position, and the desired disc space is approached through an oblique or anterior corridor in the retroperitoneal space.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted single-position lateral for multilevel circumferential lumbar interbody fusion is a safe and effective procedure in patients where lumbar stabilization is required. This technique provides patients with a faster recovery and low risk of complications.

The Influence of Screw Positioning on Cage Subsidence in Patients with Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Anterolateral Fixation

OBJECTIVES

Cage subsidence (CS) has been reported to be one of the most common complications following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). To reduce the incidence of CS and improve intervertebral fusion rates, anterolateral fixation (AF) has been gradually proposed. However, the incidence of CS in patients with oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral fixation (OLIF-AF) is still controversial. Additionally, there is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal placement of screws for OLIF-AF, and the impact of screw placement on the incidence of CS has yet to be thoroughly investigated and validated. The objective of this investigation was to examine the correlation between screw placements and CS and to establish an optimized approach for implantation in OLIF-AF.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was undertaken. From October 2017 to December 2020, a total of 103 patients who received L4/5 OLIF-AF for lumbar spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis or degenerative instability in our department were followed up for more than 12 months. Demographic and radiographic data of these patients were collected. Additionally, screw placement related parameters, including trajectory and position, were measured by anterior-posterior X-ray and axial CT. Analysis was done by chi-square, independent t-test, univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression to explore the correlation between screw placements and CS. Finally, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to evaluate the predictive ability of screw placement-related parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients were included, and CS was found in 28 (27.18%) patients. Univariable analysis was firstly performed for each parameter. Next, variables with p-value of <0.05, including bone mineral density (BMD), concave morphology, and screw placement-related parameters were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Significant predictor factors for subsidence were coronal plane angle (CPA) (OR 0.580 ± 0.208, 95% CI 1.187-2.684), implantation point (IP) (L4) (OR 5.732 ± 2.737, 95% CI 1.445-12.166), and IP (L5) (OR 7.160 ± 3.480, 95% CI 1.405-28.683). Furthermore, ROC curves showed that the predictive accuracy of CS was 88.1% for CPA, 77.6% for IP (L4) and 80.9% for IP (L5).

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that the trajectory of vertebral screws, including angle and position, was closely related to CS. Inserting screws parallel to each other and as close to the endplate as possible while keeping the cage inside the range of the superior and inferior screws are an optimal implantation strategy for OLIF-AF.

The Utility and Appropriateness of Single-Position Circumferential Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-Arm-Based Navigation in the Novel Oblique Position

PURPOSE

Single-position surgery with patients in a lateral position, which involves inserting percutaneous pedicular screws (PPS) and lateral interbody fusion (LIF) to avoid changing the position, has been reported. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the utility and appropriateness of single-position LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation in the innovative oblique position.

METHODS

This study involved a retrospective analysis of 92 consecutive patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent LIF-PPS using O-arm-based navigation. Thirty-five subjects demonstrated surgery with repositioning, as well as 24 in the lateral decubitus position, and 33 in the oblique during PPS, where the position was changed to the lateral decubitus position using bed rotation without resetting. We compared these three groups in terms of the surgery time, blood loss, and the accuracy of the screw placement.

RESULTS

The operative time was significantly shorter in the single-position surgery, both in the lateral and oblique positions, compared to surgery in a dual position. The blood loss was significantly increased in the lateral position compared to the dual and oblique positions. The screw trajectory angle on the downside was significantly smaller in the lateral position, and the accuracy of the screw placement on the downside was significantly lower in the lateral position compared to the dual and oblique positions.

CONCLUSION

Single-position surgery could reduce the average surgery time by about 60 min. The present study indicated the oblique position during PPS insertion might make single-position surgery more useful to improve the accuracy of PPS on the downside, with less blood loss.

Assessing Procedural Accuracy in Lateral Spine Surgery: A Retrospective Analysis of Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement with Intraoperative CT Navigation

Percutaneous pedicle screws (PPSs) are commonly used in posterior spinal fusion to treat spine conditions such as trauma, tumors, and degenerative diseases. Precise PPS placement is essential in preventing neurological complications and improving patient outcomes. Recent studies have suggested that intraoperative computed tomography (CT) navigation can reduce the dependence on extensive surgical expertise for achieving accurate PPS placement. However, more comprehensive documentation is needed regarding the procedural accuracy of lateral spine surgery (LSS). In this retrospective study, we investigated patients who underwent posterior instrumentation with PPSs in the thoracic to lumbar spine, utilizing an intraoperative CT navigation system, between April 2019 and September 2023. The system's methodology involved real-time CT-based guidance during PPS placement, ensuring precision. Our study included 170 patients (151 undergoing LLIF procedures and 19 trauma patients), resulting in 836 PPS placements. The overall PPS deviation rate, assessed using the Ravi scale, was 2.5%, with a notably higher incidence of deviations observed in the thoracic spine (7.4%) compared to the lumbar spine (1.9%). Interestingly, we found no statistically significant difference in screw deviation rates between upside and downside PPS placements. Regarding perioperative complications, three patients experienced issues related to intraoperative CT navigation. The observed higher rate of inaccuracies in the thoracic spine suggests that various factors may contribute to these differences in accuracy, including screw size and anatomical variations. Further research is required to refine PPS insertion techniques, particularly in the context of LSS. In conclusion, this retrospective study sheds light on the challenges associated with achieving precise PPS placement in the lateral decubitus position, with a significantly higher deviation rate observed in the thoracic spine compared to the lumbar spine. This study emphasizes the need for ongoing research to improve PPS insertion techniques, leading to enhanced patient outcomes in spine surgery.

Minimally Invasive Approach for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Lateral Single-Position Surgery with Intraoperative Computed Tomography Navigation and Fluoroscopy: A Technical Note

OBJECTIVE

Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is a prevalent condition that leads to low back pain and neurological symptoms. This technical note presents a novel surgical strategy for treating DS using lateral single-position surgery (SPS) in combination with intraoperative computed tomography navigation and fluoroscopy.

METHODS

Fifteen patients (5 males and 10 females, mean age 70.2 years) diagnosed with DS with a slip of 5 mm or more underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation using this technique. The procedure involved slip reduction using an upside PPS and rod fixation, followed by LLIF performed in the same lateral position. The term "upside PPS" refers to a PPS that is inserted on the ceiling side of the patient's surgical field. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic assessments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the lateral SPS.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated significant improvements in various parameters, including spondylolisthesis reduction, segmental lordosis, disc height, and spinal canal dimensions. The lateral-SPS procedure exhibited several advantages over traditional flip LLIF approaches for slip reduction. Additionally, the technique provided accurate intraoperative navigation guidance through computed tomography imaging, ensuring precise implant placement and slip reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining LLIF and PPS fixation in a single procedure presents a precise, efficient approach for DS treatment, minimizing repositioning needs. This technique enables effective lumbar reconstruction, restoration of spinal stability, and improved patient outcomes. Although further investigation is warranted, lateral SPS surgery may hold promise as an innovative solution for managing DS by reducing surgical invasiveness and optimizing surgical efficiency.

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.

Robotic-Assisted Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Background

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a widely utilized minimally invasive surgical procedure for anterior fusion of the lumbar spine. However, posterior decompression or instrumentation often necessitates patient repositioning, which is associated with increased operative time and time under anesthesia1-3. The single-position prone transpsoas approach is a technique that allows surgeons to access both the anterior and posterior aspects of the spine, bypassing the need for intraoperative repositioning and therefore optimizing efficiency4. The use of robotic assistance allows for decreased radiation exposure and increased accuracy, both with placing instrumentation and navigating the lateral corridor.

Description

The patient is placed in the prone position, and pedicle screws are placed prior to interbody fusion. Pedicle screws are placed with robotic guidance. After posterior instrumentation, a skin incision for LLIF is made in the cephalocaudal direction, orthogonal to the disc space, with use of intraoperative (robotic) navigation. Fascia and abdominal muscles are incised to enter the retroperitoneal space. Under direct visualization, dilators are placed through the psoas muscle into the disc space, and an expandable retractor is placed and maintained with use of the robotic arm. Following a thorough discectomy, the disc space is sized with trial implants. The expandable cage is placed, and intraoperative fluoroscopy is utilized to verify good instrumentation positioning. Finally, posterior rods are placed percutaneously.

Alternatives

An alternative surgical approach is a traditional LLIF with the patient beginning in the lateral position, with intraoperative repositioning from the lateral to the prone position if circumferential fusion is warranted. Additional alternative surgical procedures include anterior or posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques.

Rationale

LLIF is associated with reported advantages of decreased risks of vascular injury, visceral injury, dural tear, and perioperative infection5,6. The single-position prone transpsoas approach confers the added benefits of reduced operative time, anesthesia time, and surgical staffing requirements7. Other potential benefits of the prone lateral approach include improved lumbar lordosis correction, gravity-induced displacement of peritoneal contents, and ease of posterior decompression and instrumentation8-11. Additionally, the use of robotic assistance offers numerous benefits to minimally invasive techniques, including intraoperative navigation, instrumentation templating, a more streamlined workflow, and increased accuracy in placing instrumentation, while also providing a reduction in radiation exposure and operative time. In our experience, the table-mounted LLIF retractor has a tendency to drift toward the floor-i.e., anteriorly-when the patient is positioned prone, which may, in theory, increase the risk of iatrogenic bowel injury. The rigid robotic arm is much stiffer than the traditional retractor, thereby reducing this risk.

Expected Outcomes

Compared with traditional LLIF, with the patient in the lateral and then prone positions, the single-position prone LLIF has been shown to have several benefits. Guiroy et al. performed a systematic review comparing single and dual-position LLIF and found that the single-position surgical procedure was associated with significantly lower operative time (103.1 versus 306.6 minutes), estimated blood loss (97.3 versus 314.4 mL), and length of hospital stay (1.71 versus 4.08 days)17. Previous studies have reported improved control of segmental lordosis in the prone position, which may be advantageous for patients with sagittal imbalance18,19.

Important Tips

Adequate release of the deep fascial layers is critical for minimizing deflection of retractors and navigated instruments.The hip should be maximally extended to maximize lordosis, allowing for posterior translation of the femoral nerve and increasing the width of the lateral corridor.A bolster is placed against the rib cage to provide resistance to the laterally directed force when impacting the graft.The cranial and caudal limits of the approach are bounded by the ribcage and iliac crest; thus, surgery at the upper or lower lumbar levels may not be feasible for this approach. Preoperative radiographs should be evaluated to determine the feasibility of this approach at the intended levels.When operating at the L4-L5 disc space, posterior retraction places substantial tension on the femoral nerve. Thus, retractor time should be minimized as much as possible and limited to a maximum of approximately 20 minutes20-22.A depth of field (distance from the midline to the flank) of approximately 20 cm may be the limit for this approach with the current length of retractor blades19.In robotic-assisted surgical procedures, minor position shifts in surface landmarks, the robotic arm, or the patient may substantially impact the navigation software. It is critical for the patient and navigation components to remain fixed throughout the operation.In addition to somatosensory evoked potential and electromyographic monitoring, additional motor evoked potential neuromonitoring or monitoring of the saphenous nerve may be considered22.In the prone position, the tendency is for the retractor to migrate superficially and anteriorly. It is critical to be aware of this tendency and to maintain stable retractor positioning.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

LLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusionMIS = minimally invasive surgeryPTP = prone transpsoasy.o. = years oldASIS = anterior superior iliac spinePSIS = posterior superior iliac spineALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionTLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionMEP = motor evoked potentialSSEP = somatosensory evoked potentialEMG = electromyographyCT = computed tomographyMRI = magnetic resonance imagingOR = operating roomPOD = postoperative dayIVC = inferior vena cavaA. = aortaPS. = psoas.

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.

Single-Position Lateral Approach for Revision Thoracolumbar Corpectomy With Delayed Ipsilateral Kidney Atrophy: Technical Note and Discussion of Complications

Improvements in navigation technology have enabled surgeons to safely offer single-position fusion surgeries, demonstrating shorter operating times and reduced length of stay (LOS) as compared to traditional lateral and prone dual-position surgeries. However, no studies to date describe revision thoracolumbar corpectomy with simultaneous posterior rod removal and replacement in the lateral position. Furthermore, this is the first reported complication of delayed ipsilateral kidney atrophy following lateral lumbar surgery. A 56-year-old male patient with history of metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma and complex surgical history for a prior T12 pathologic fracture presented to the clinic for follow-up. Computed tomography (CT) demonstrated bilateral broken rods and subsidence of the T12 interbody cage, for which he underwent revision T12 corpectomy and posterior instrumentation revision via a single-position, left-sided lateral approach. Simultaneous exposure and removal of the broken rods enabled the placement of two short temporary rods between the T11-L1 screws posteriorly, allowing for rod distraction and the placement of the expandable corpectomy cage into the appropriate position. On follow-up cancer surveillance imaging, the left kidney became progressively atrophic within six months after surgery. According to a review of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases, we describe the first reported case of a single-position thoracolumbar revision corpectomy with simultaneous rod replacement. Of particular importance in this technique is the use of temporary rod placement for distraction across the index level to facilitate interbody cage placement. Furthermore, we discussed the first reported complication of delayed ipsilateral kidney atrophy following lateral lumbar fusion.

Minimally invasive lateral single-position surgery for multilevel degenerative lumbar spine disease: feasibility and perioperative results in a single Latin-American spine center

INTRODUCTION

Within advances in minimally invasive spine surgery, the implementation of lateral single position (LSP) increases efficiency while limiting complications, avoiding intraoperative repositioning and diminishing surgical time. Most literature describes one-level instrumentation of the lumbar spine; this study includes the use of LSP for multilevel degenerative disease.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the article is to analyze initial clinical results and complications in the use of LSP for multiple level instrumentation in adults with lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

A retrospective early clinical series was performed for patients who had multiple level instrumentation in LSP between August 2019 and September 2022 at the Hospital Universitario San Ignacio in Bogota, Colombia. Inclusion criteria were patients older than 18 years with symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease, undergoing any combination of multilevel anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and pedicle screw fixation.

RESULTS

Forty patients with an average age of 61.3 years were included, with diagnosis of multilevel degenerative spondylotic changes. Four-, three- and two-level interventions were performed in 52.5, 35 and 12.5%, respectively. Average time per level was 68.9 min, and length of hospital stay had an average of 2.4 days, with all patients starting ambulation within the first postoperative day.

CONCLUSION

Procedural time and blood loss were similar to those reported in literature. No severe lesions, postoperative infections or reinterventions took place. Although it was a small number of patients and further clinical trials are needed, LSP for multiple levels is apparently safe with adequate outcomes which may improve efficiency in the operating room.

The one-stop-shop approach: Navigating lumbar 360-degree instrumentation in a single position

Objective

Treatment strategies of patients suffering from pyogenic spondylodiscitis are a controverse topic. Percutaneous dorsal instrumentation followed by surgical debridement and fusion of the infectious vertebral disc spaces is a common approach for surgical treatment. Technical advances enable spinal navigation for dorsal and lateral instrumentation. This report investigates combined navigated dorsal and lateral instrumentation in a single surgery and positioning for lumbar spondylodiscitis in a pilot series.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with 1- or 2-level discitis were prospectively enrolled. To enable posterior navigated pedicle screw placement and lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) patients were positioned semi-prone in 45-degree fashion. For spinal referencing, a registration array was attached to the pelvic or spinal process. 3D scans were acquired intraoperatively for registration and implant control.

Results

27 patients suffering from 1- or 2-level spondylodiscitis with a median ASA of 3 (1–4) and a mean BMI of 27.9 ± 4.9 kg/m2 were included. Mean duration of surgery was 146 ± 49 min. Mean blood loss was 367 ± 307 ml. A median of 4 (4–8) pedicle screws were placed for dorsal percutaneous instrumentation with an intraoperative revision rate of 4.0%. LLIF was performed on 31 levels with an intraoperative cage revision rate of 9.7%.

Conclusions

Navigated lumbar dorsal and lateral instrumentation in a single operation and positioning is feasible and safe. It enables rapid 360-degree instrumentation in these critically ill patients and potentially reduces overall intraoperative radiation exposure for patient and staff. Compared to purely dorsal approaches it allows for optimal discectomy and fusion while overall incisions and wound size are minimized. Compared to prone LLIF procedures, semi-prone in 45-degree positioning allows for a steep learning curve due to minor changes of familiar anatomy.

Single-Position Transpsoas Corpectomy and Posterior Instrumentation in the Thoracolumbar Spine for Different Clinical Scenarios

BACKGROUND

The concept of single-position spine surgery has been gaining momentum because it has proven to reduce operative time, blood loss, and hospital length of stay with similar or better outcomes than traditional dual-position surgery. The latest development in single-position spine surgery techniques combines either open or posterior pedicle screw fixation with transpsoas corpectomy while in the lateral or prone positioning.

OBJECTIVE

To provide, through a multicenter study, the results of our first patients treated by single-position corpectomy.

METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent corpectomy and instrumentation in the lateral or prone position without repositioning between the anterior and posterior techniques. Data regarding demographics, diagnosis, neurological status, surgical details, complications, and radiographic parameters were collected. The minimum follow-up for inclusion was 6 months.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were finally included in our study (24 male patients and 10 female patients), with a mean age of 51.2 (SD ± 17.5) years. Three-quarter of cases (n = 27) presented with thoracolumbar fracture as main diagnosis, followed by spinal metastases and primary spinal infection. Lateral positioning was used in 27 cases, and prone positioning was used in 7 cases. The overall rate of complications was 14.7%.

CONCLUSION

This is the first multicenter series of patients who underwent single-position corpectomy and fusion. This technique has shown to be safe and effective to treat a variety of spinal conditions with a relatively low rate of complications. More series are required to validate this technique as a possible standard approach when thoracolumbar corpectomies are indicated.

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.

Perioperative and Radiographic Outcomes Between Single-Position Surgery (Lateral Decubitus) and Dual-Position Surgery for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation: Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and percutaneous posterior screw fixation (PPSF) techniques is used to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies. Dual-position (DP) lumbar surgery involves repositioning the patient from the supine or lateral decubitus position to prone for posterior fixation. Single-position (SP) lumbar surgery is commonly performed nowadays, a minimally invasive alternative performed entirely from the lateral decubitus position. However, controversy still exists. This meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between SP lumbar surgery and DP lumbar surgery for LLIF and PPSF.

METHODS

We conducted this meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched Medline and Scopus from inception to November 11, 2021, for relevant studies.

RESULTS

Six studies were identified, which contained totals of 502 and 447 patients in the SP and DP groups, respectively. The unstandardized mean difference in operative time, length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, radiation doses, lumbar lordosis, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch were -86.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] -149.2 to -23.1) minutes, -1.6 (95% CI -2.4 to -0.9) days, -55.6 (95% CI -127.5 to 16.2) mL, -30.3 (95% CI -80.5 to 19.8) mGy, 1.34 (95% CI -1.17 to 3.86) degrees, and -4.06 (95% CI -5.65 to -2.47) lower in SP when compared with DP. The chances of having complications and reoperations in SP were 0.75 (95% CI 0.49-1.14) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.44-1.36) times, respectively, compared with the DP group. No significant differences were found for intraoperative blood loss, radiation dose, lumbar lordosis, complications, and reoperations between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found that SP have lower operative time and length of hospital stay compared with DP LLIF and PPSF. However, no differences in intraoperative blood loss, radiation dose, radiographic change, complications, and reoperation rates were found.

Efficacy of Single-Position Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined With Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation in Treating Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Cohort Study

Objective

To investigate the surgical outcomes of single-position oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) in treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 85 patients with DLS who met the inclusion criteria from April 2018 to December 2020. According to the need to change their position during the operation, the patients were divided into a single-position OLIF group (27 patients) and a conventional OLIF group (58 patients). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization days, instrumentation accuracy and complication rates were compared between the two groups. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to evaluate the clinical efficacy. The surgical segment's intervertebral space height (IDH) and lumbar lordosis (LL) angle were used to evaluate the imaging effect.

Results

The hospital stay, pedicle screws placement accuracy, and complication incidence were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). The operation time and intraoperative blood loss in the single-position OLIF group were less than those in the conventional OLIF group (P < 0.05). The postoperative VAS, ODI, IDH and LL values were significantly improved (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Compared with conventional OLIF, single-position OLIF combined with PPSF is also safe and effective, and it has the advantages of a shorter operation time and less intraoperative blood loss.

Single-position prone transpsoas fusion for the treatment of lumbar adjacent segment disease: early experience of twenty-four cases across three tertiary medical centers

PURPOSE

Prone transpsoas fusion (PTP) is a minimally invasive technique that maximizes the benefit of lateral access interbody surgery and the prone positioning for surgically significant adjacent segment disease. The authors describe the feasibility, reproducibility and radiographic efficacy of PTP when performed for cases of lumbar ASD.

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing PTP for treatment of lumbar ASD at three institutions were retrospectively enrolled. Demographic information was recorded, as was operative data such as adjacent segment levels, operative time, blood loss, laterality of approach, open versus percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation and need for primary decompression. Radiographic measurements including segmental and global lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, sacral slope and sagittal vertical axis were recorded both pre- and immediately post-operatively.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients met criteria for inclusion. Average age was 60.4 ± 10.4 years and average BMI was 31.6 ± 5.0 kg/m². Total operative time was 204.7 ± 83.3 min with blood loss of 187.9 ± 211 mL. Twenty-one patients had pedicle screw instrumentation exchanged percutaneously and 3 patients had open pedicle screw exchange. Two patients suffered pulmonary embolism that was treated medically with no long-term sequelae. One patient had transient lumbar radicular pain and all patients were discharged home with an average length of stay of 3.0 days (range 1-6). Radiographically, global lumbar lordosis improved by an average of 10.3 ± 9.0 degrees, segmental lordosis by 10.1 ± 13.3 degrees and sagittal vertical axis by 3.2 ± 3.2 cm.

CONCLUSION

Single-position prone transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion is a clinically reproducible minimally invasive technique that can effectively treat lumbar adjacent segment disease.

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.

Single Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Instrumentation Utilizing Computer Navigation and Robotic Assistance: Retrospective case review and surgical technique considerations

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine safety and short-term outcomes of single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with bilateral posterior instrumentation and robotic assistance. The article also describes surgical technique considerations for the procedure.

METHODS

20 patients underwent single-position LLIF with posterior instrumentation and robotic assistance. The patients were followed for a minimum of 3 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

Average operative time was 211 ± 34 minutes, average blood loss was 51.25 ± 17 cc's, and average length of stay was 1.4 ± .75 days. There were no intraoperative complications, readmissions, revision surgeries, and no incidence of hardware malposition. Significant improvement in pain and ODI scores was noted at 3 month follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated safety and short-term clinical efficacy of minimally invasive single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral posterior instrumentation utilizing robotic assistance and navigation. There are certain surgical technique considerations that must be followed to ensure optimal surgical workflow and predictable outcomes.

Intraoperative computed tomography-guided navigation versus fluoroscopy for single-position surgery after lateral lumbar interbody fusion

There are no reports comparing fluoroscopy and intraoperative computed tomography (CT) navigation in lateral single-position surgery (SPS) in terms of surgical outcomes or implant-related complications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use radiological evaluation to compare the incidence of instrument-related complications in SPS of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using fluoroscopy with that using CT navigation techniques. We evaluated 99 patients who underwent lateral SPS. Twenty-six patients had a percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) inserted under fluoroscopy (SPS-C group), and 73 patients had a PPS inserted under intraoperative CT navigation (SPS-O group). Average operation time was shorter in the SPS-C group than in the SPS-O group (88.4 ± 24.4 min versus 111.9 ± 35.3 min, respectively, P = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in postoperative thigh symptoms or reoperation rate. The screw insertion angle of the SPS-C group was smaller than that of the SPS-O group, but there was no significant difference in the rate of screw misplacement (4.6% versus 3.4%, respectively, P = 0.556). By contrast, facet joint violation (FJV) was significantly lower in the SPS-O group than in the SPS-C group (8.4% versus 21.3%, respectively, P < 0.001). While fluoroscopy was superior to intraoperative CT navigation in terms of mean surgery time, there was no significant difference in the accuracy of PPS insertion between fluoroscopy and intraoperative CT navigation. The advantage of intraoperative CT navigation over fluoroscopy is that it significantly decreases the occurrence of FJV in SPS.

Utility of Power Tool and Intraoperative Neuromonitoring for Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Placement in Single Position Surgery: A Technical Note

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to demonstrate the utility of power tools and intraoperative neuromonitoring of percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) insertion (so-called PPS monitoring) by SINGLE-position surgery (SPS) after lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of medical records from a single center was performed to identify patients who underwent SPS for lateral lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation using PPS during intraoperative computed tomography navigation from 2020 to 2021. We investigated the PPS insertion time and screw positional accuracy of patients who underwent SPS involving power tools and PPS monitoring during this period. In this technical note, we report on this surgical technique.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients (mean age 72.0 ± 8.5 years, range 53-81 years) were included in this study. There were no intraoperative complications in all cases. Posterior fixation using PPS was added in all cases, and a total of 106 PPSs were inserted. It took an average of 6.2 ± 2.4 seconds to insert the PPS from the PPS insertion point to the end using a power tool and PPS monitoring. Moreover, there were no cases of pedicle breaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to previous reports related to power tools in the prone position, the lateral decubitus SPS technique can also use power tools to save PPS insertion time. Furthermore, we suggest that the use of PPS monitoring may prevent erroneous PPS insertions by using intraoperative computed tomography navigation in advance.