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

Single Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of the Current Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Spinal fusion, vital for treating various spinal disorders, has evolved since the introduction of the minimally invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) by Pimenta in 2001. Traditionally performed in the lateral decubitus position, LLIF faces challenges such as intraoperative repositioning, neurological complications, and lack of access to lower lumbar levels. These challenges lead to long surgery times, increased rates of perioperative complications, and increased costs. The more recently popularized prone lateral approach mitigates these issues primarily by eliminating patient repositioning, thereby enhancing surgical efficiency, and reducing operative times. This review examines the progression of spinal fusion techniques, focusing on the advantages and recent findings of the prone lateral approach compared to the traditional LLIF.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prone lateral approach has shown improved patient outcomes, including lower blood loss and shorter hospital stays, and has been validated by multiple studies for its safety and efficacy compared to the LLIF approach. Significant enhancements in postoperative metrics, such as the Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and radiological improvements have been noted. Comparatively, the prone lateral approach offers superior segmental lordosis correction and potentially better subjective outcomes than the lateral decubitus position. Despite these advances, both techniques present similar risks of neurological complications. Overall, the prone lateral approach has emerged as a promising alternative in lumbar interbody fusion, combining efficiency, safety, and improved clinical outcomes.

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.

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.

Pros and Cons of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

This paper reviews current knowledge on minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). Although it has significant advantages, such as less postoperative pain, short hospital stay, quick return to work, better cosmetics, and less infection rate, there are also disadvantages. The long learning curve, the need for special instruments and types of equipment, high costs, lack of tactile sensation and biplanar imaging, some complications that are hard to treat, and more radiation to the surgeon and surgical team are the disadvantages.Most studies remark that the outcomes of MISS are similar to traditional surgery. Although patients demand it more than surgeons, we predict the broad applications of MISS will replace most of our classical surgical approaches.

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.

Single-position Minimally Invasive Surgery for Correction of Adult Spinal Deformity

Minimally invasive adult spinal deformity (MIS ASD) surgery may offer benefits over conventional techniques in select circumstances. The success of the procedure is based on proper patient selection, restoring adequate alignment, and optimizing fusion. In the past, MIS techniques were limited because of the need to reposition the patient-a source of increased surgical time and potentially patient risk. New developments now allow for single-position, MIS correction of adult deformity. Additional research will be needed to determine the ideal patient for minimally invasive adult spinal deformity surgery and whether prone or lateral single-position confers the best outcomes.

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.

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.

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.