Choice of Approach Does Not Affect Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes: A Comparative Cohort of Patients Having Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Patients Having Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion at 24 Months

Restoring L4-S1 Lordosis Shape in Severe Sagittal Deformity: Impact of Correction Techniques on Alignment and Complication Profile

BACKGROUND

Severe sagittal plane deformity with loss of L4-S1 lordosis is disabling and can be improved through various surgical techniques. However, data are limited on the differing ability of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) to achieve alignment goals in severely malaligned patients.

METHODS

Severe adult spinal deformity patients with preoperative PI-LL >20°, L4-S1 lordosis <30°, and full body radiographs and PROMs at baseline and 6-week postoperative visit were included. Patients were grouped into ALIF (1-2 level ALIF at L4-S1), PSO (L4/L5 PSO), and TLIF (1-2 level TLIF at L4-S1). Comparative analyses were performed on demographics, radiographic spinopelvic parameters, complications, and PROMs.

RESULTS

Among the 96 included patients, 40 underwent ALIF, 27 underwent PSO, and 29 underwent TLIF. At baseline, cohorts had comparable age, sex, race, Edmonton frailty scores, and radiographic spinopelvic parameters (P > 0.05). However, PSO was performed more often in revision cases (P < 0.001). Following surgery, L4-S1 lordosis correction (P = 0.001) was comparable among ALIF and PSO patients and caudal lordotic apex migration (P = 0.044) was highest among ALIF patients. PSO patients had higher intraoperative estimated blood loss (P < 0.001) and motor deficits (P = 0.049), and in-hospital ICU admission (P = 0.022) and blood products given (P = 0.004), but were otherwise comparable in terms of length of stay, blood transfusion given, and postoperative admission to rehab. Likewise, 90-day postoperative complication profiles and 6-week PROMs were comparable as well.

CONCLUSIONS

ALIF can restore L4-S1 sagittal alignment as powerfully as PSO, with fewer intraoperative and in-hospital complications. When feasible, ALIF is a suitable alternative to PSO and likely superior to TLIF for correcting L4-S1 lordosis among patients with severe sagittal malalignment.

Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS) Evidence Review of Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Degenerative Spinal Disease: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

Interventional treatment options for the lumbar degenerative spine have undergone a significant amount of innovation over the last decade. As new technologies emerge, along with the surgical specialty expansion, there is no manuscript that utilizes a review of surgical treatments with evidence rankings from multiple specialties, namely, the interventional pain and spine communities. Through the Pacific Spine and Pain Society (PSPS), the purpose of this manuscript is to provide a balanced evidence review of available surgical treatments.

METHODS

The PSPS Research Committee created a working group that performed a comprehensive literature search on available surgical technologies for the treatment of the degenerative spine, utilizing the ranking assessment based on USPSTF (United States Preventative Services Taskforce) and NASS (North American Spine Society) criteria.

RESULTS

The surgical treatments were separated based on disease process, including treatments for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and spinal stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

There is emerging and significant evidence to support multiple approaches to treat the symptomatic lumbar degenerative spine. As new technologies become available, training, education, credentialing, and peer review are essential for optimizing patient safety and successful outcomes.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Anterior Plate Fixation

BACKGROUND

Reports on the outcomes following instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with anterior plate fixation are limited. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients undergoing ALIF with anterior plate fixation.  Methods: Medical records and radiographic imaging were reviewed for 100 patients who received ALIF with anterior plate fixation between 2008 to 2021 and completed at least one year of follow-up and postoperative imaging. Prospectively collected patient data included indication for surgery, BMI, age, number and location of levels treated, complications, reoperation rates, fusion rate, and measurements of global lordosis, disc space height, and segmental angulation.  Results: A total of 100 patients were included in this study. The mean length of follow-up was 81.37 months. Changes in preoperative-to-postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Score (VAS) demonstrated improvements of 30.86% and 18.56%, respectively. Major vascular injuries occurred in 3% of the cases. A hardware failure rate of 5% was observed. The reoperation rate was 10%. The radiographic fusion rate derived from computed tomography (CT) and plain film was 95.45% and 88.87%, respectively. Postoperative global lordosis demonstrated a 6.08% increase. Postoperative segmental angulation measurements increased by 57.74%. No statistically significant differences in clinical or radiographic outcomes were observed based on the spine level of fusion or the number of fusions performed.  Conclusions: ALIF with anterior plate fixation achieved an adequate fusion rate with improvements in ODI and VAS scores meeting minimal clinically important difference thresholds. Postoperative disc space heights demonstrated significant improvements compared to preoperative measurements.

OLIF versus ALIF: Which is the better surgical approach for degenerative lumbar disease? A systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes between OLIF and ALIF in treating lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for relevant studies. Changes in disc height (DH), segmental lordosis angle (SLA), lumbar lordosis (LL), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between baseline and final follow-up, along with other important surgical outcomes, were assessed and analysed. Data on the global fusion rate and main complications were collected and compared.

RESULTS

Approximately, 2041 patients from 36 studies were included, consisting of 1057 patients who underwent OLIF and 984 patients who underwent ALIF. The results reveal no significant difference in DH, SLA, VAS score, and ODI between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The operation time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay were also comparable between the two groups. Over 90% of the fusion rate was achieved in both groups. The OLIF group showed a higher complication rate than the ALIF group (OLIF 18.83% vs ALIF 7.32%).

CONCLUSIONS

OLIF leads to a higher complication rate, with the most notable complication being cage subsidence. Both OLIF and ALIF are effective treatments for degenerative lumbar diseases and have similar therapeutic effects. ALIF was expected to be more expensive for patients because of the necessity of involving vascular surgeons.

Expandable Lateral Lumbar Cages With Integrated Fixation: A Viable Option for Rostral Adjacent Segment Disease

BACKGROUND

Adjacent segment disease (ASD) above a previous posterior lumbar instrumented fusion can be managed with minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Earlier procedures with stand-alone lateral cages risked nonunion, and lateral cages with separate lateral plates risked lumbar plexus injury and vertebral fracture. We investigated clinical and radiographic outcomes of an expandable lateral titanium interbody cage with an integrated lateral fixation (eLLIFp) device as a stand-alone treatment for symptomatic ASD above a previous posterior lumbar fusion and performed a comparative cost analysis of eLLIFp to alternative operations for ASD.

METHODS

In this prospective, observational study, patients with ASD above 1-, 2-, 3-, or 4-level instrumented posterior fusions underwent surgery with lateral expandable titanium cage(s) with an integrated lateral plate with single screws into each adjacent vertebra from August 2017 to August 2019. Multimodality intraoperative neural monitoring was performed. Patient-reported outcomes, computed tomography outcomes, and total costs were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 33 patients received 35 eLLIFp cages. All clinical outcomes improved significantly. The eLLIFp cages added 2.2° segmental lordosis and 2.7 mm posterior disc height. Interbody fusion rate was 94% at 12 months. There were 2 neurologic complications (6%): 1 patient reported transient anterior thigh numbness and 1 had mild persistent L4 radiculopathy. No cage subsidence, cage migration, screw loosening, or vertebral fracture occurred. No revision lateral surgery, posterior decompression, or supplemental posterior fixation was required. The total eLLIFp cost (AU$19,715) was lower than the cost for all other procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

eLLIFp provided a minimally invasive, low morbidity, cost-effective, and robust alternative to traditional posterior construct extension surgery for rostral lumbar ASD in selected patients with 1- to 2-level stenosis and minimal deformity.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Traditional ASD treatment involves substantial risks and expense. eLLIFp should be considered a safe, effective, and lower cost alternative to posterior construct extension surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Indirect Lumbar Decompression Combined With or Without Additional Direct Posterior Decompression: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

Indirect decompression via lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) can ameliorate central and foraminal lumbar stenosis. In severe central stenosis, additional posterior direct decompression is utilized. The aim of this review is to synthesize existing literature on these 2 techniques and identify significant differences in outcomes between isolated indirect decompression via LLIF and combined indirect decompression supplemented with direct posterior decompression.

METHODS

A database search algorithm was utilized to query MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and EMBASE to identify literature reporting adult decompression study groups that involved an oblique or lateral fusion approach through September 2020. Improvement in outcomes measures and complication rates were pooled and tested for significance.

RESULTS

A total of 110 publications were assessed with 15 studies meeting inclusion criteria, including 557 patients and 1008 levels. Mean age was 63.1 years with BMI of 27.5 kg/m². For the combined indirect and direct decompression cohort, lumbar lordosis (LL) increased 133.9%, from 22.8^o to 48.7^o, while the indirect decompression cohort LL increased 8.9%, from 41.9^o to 45.5^o. Difference in LL improvement between cohorts was insignificant (P > .05). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) decreased from 36.5 to 19.4 in the combined indirect and direct decompression cohort, and from 44.4 to 23.1 in the indirect decompression cohort. ODI reduction was insignificant (P = .053).

CONCLUSIONS

Prior studies of both indirect decompression as well as combined indirect and direct decompression of lumbar spine stenosis are limited by small samples, heterogeneous populations, and lack of direct comparisons. Both procedures result in improved function and pain postoperatively with direct decompression restoring more lordosis in patients with worse preoperative alignment.

Single-Position Anterior Column Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Lateral lumbar fusion is a commonly used spinal fusion technique that allows for indirect neural decompression while correcting sagittal malalignment. The lateral position has evolved to include placement of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation, anterior longitudinal ligament release, and approach the L5-S1 segment. This review article focuses on the anatomy and technique of the single-position anterior column spinal fusion and highlights the recent trends, outcomes, and future directions for the approach.

Do evoked potentials matter? Pre-pathologic signal change and clinical outcomes with expandable cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery

Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIS LLIF) is a reliable technique for treatment of degenerative disk disease, foraminal stenosis and spinal deformity. The retroperitoneal transpsoas approach risks lumbar plexus injury that may result in anterior thigh pain, sensory loss and weakness. A prospective study of 64 consecutive patients undergoing MIS LLIF with expandable cages (23 standalone, 41 integrated with lateral plate) using multimodal electrophysiological monitoring was performed. We measured sequential retraction times, complications, patient reported outcome scores and electrophysiologic findings with a minimum 12-month follow-up. Incidence of evoked potential and electromyographic signal change was moderate, and rarely resulted in post-operative neurologic deficit. Evoked potential signal changes were frequently resolved by the un-breaking of the surgical table or repositioning of the retractor. Average retraction times were 24 (15-41) minutes for standalone cages and 30 (15-41) minutes for integrated cages. At follow-up, the vast majority (97%) of patients reported significant clinical improvement post-operatively with only 2 patients reporting postoperative neurologic symptoms and subsequent recovery at 12-months. The present study shows that evoked potentials combined with electromyography is a more sensitive measure of pre-pathologic lumbar plexopathy in LLIF compared to electromyography alone, especially at L3/4 and L4/5 levels. Based on our findings, there is limited clinical indication for routine neural monitoring at rostral lumbar levels. The routine inclusion of multimodal electrophysiological monitoring in lateral transpsoas surgery is recommended to minimise the risk of neural injury by enabling optimal patient and retractor positioning and continued surveillance throughout the procedure.

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

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

Spinal Care in the Aging Athlete

Aging athletes face unique, increased adversities related to increased mobility and age-related spine issues, such as spinal stenosis, osteoporosis complicated by fragility fractures, and degenerative disk disease. This article covers various spine pathologies that aging athletes experience and ideal treatment of this population to allow safe return to activity.

Clinical and radiological results of indirect decompression after anterior lumbar interbody fusion in central spinal canal stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Whereas the benefits of indirect decompression after lateral lumbar interbody fusion are well known, the effects of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) have not yet been verified. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological effects of indirect decompression after ALIF for central spinal canal stenosis. In this report, along with the many advantages of the anterior approach, the authors share cases with good outcomes that they have encountered.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective analysis of 64 consecutive patients who underwent ALIF for central spinal canal stenosis with instability and mixed foraminal stenosis between January 2015 and December 2018 at their hospital. Clinical assessments were performed using the visual analog scale score, the Oswestry Disability Index, and the modified Macnab criteria. The radiographic parameters were determined from pre- and postoperative cross-sectional MRI scans of the spinal canal and were compared to evaluate neural decompression after ALIF. The average follow-up period was 23.3 ± 1.3 months.

RESULTS

All clinical parameters, including the visual analog scale score, Oswestry Disability Index, and modified Macnab criteria, improved significantly. The mean operative duration was 254.8 ± 60.8 minutes, and the intraoperative bleeding volume was 179.8 ± 119.3 ml. In the radiological evaluation, radiological parameters of the cross-sections of the spinal canal showed substantial development. The spinal canal size improved by an average of 43.3% (p < 0.001) after surgery. No major complications occurred; however, aspiration guided by ultrasonography was performed in 2 patients because of a pseudocyst and fluid collection.

CONCLUSIONS

ALIF can serve as a suitable alternative to extensive posterior approaches. The authors suggest that ALIF can be used for decompression in central spinal canal stenosis as well as restoration of the foraminal dimensions, thus allowing decompression of the nerve roots.

Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We aimed to systematically review the literature to analyze the differences in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), focusing on the complications, risk factors, and fusion rate of each approach. Spinal fusion surgery is a well-established surgical procedure for a variety of indications, and different approaches developed. The various approaches and their advantages, as well as approach-related pathology and complications, are well investigated in spinal surgery. Focusing only on lumbosacral fusion, the comparative studies of different approaches remain fewer in numbers. We systematically reviewed the literature on the complications associated with lumbosacral interbody fusion. Only the PLIF, ALIF, or TLIF approaches and studies published within the last decade (2007–2017) were included. The exclusion criteria in this study were oblique lumbar interbody fusion, extreme lateral interbody fusion, more than one procedure per patient, and reported patient numbers less than 10. The outcome variables were indications, fusion rates, operation time, perioperative complications, and clinical outcome by means of Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. Five prospective, 17 retrospective, and two comparative studies that investigated the lumbosacral region were included. Mean fusion rates were 91,4%. ALIF showed a higher operation time, while PLIF resulted in greater blood loss. In all approaches, significant improvements in the clinical outcome were achieved, with ALIF showing slightly better results. Regarding complications, the ALIF technique showed the highest complication rates. Lumbosacral fusion surgery is a treatment to provide good results either through an approach for various indications as causes of lower back pain. For each surgical approach, advantages can be depicted. However, perioperative complications and risk factors are numerous and vary with ALIF, PLIF, and TLIF procedures, as well as with fusion rates.

Outcomes of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion of L5-S1 using a novel implant with anterior plate fixation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Compared with other approaches, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is believed to be more effective at restoring segmental lordosis and reducing risks of adjacent-segment disease. It remains controversial, however, whether ALIF improves global lumbar lordosis or influences pelvic parameters, possibly because of the heterogeneity of implants and levels studied.

PURPOSE

To report clinical outcomes of stand-alone ALIF with anterior plate fixation for L5-S1 and to determine the effect on global lumbar lordosis and pelvic parameters.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective case series.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients that underwent isolated mini-ALIF with anterior plate fixation for L5-S1.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 12, lower back and legs pain on Visual Analog Scale, as well as spino-pelvic parameters.

METHODS

The authors reviewed the records of all patients that underwent retroperitoneal mini-ALIF for single-level L5-S1 fusion between August 2012 and December 2016. A total of 129 patients were included, but 9 patients had incomplete preoperative radiographic data, and one patient had schizophrenia and was unable to respond to outcome questionnaires, leaving 119 patients eligible for outcome assessment. At a minimum follow-up of 1 year, seven patients refused to participate in the study or could not be reached, which left a final cohort of 112 patients.

RESULTS

Nine patients were reoperated without implant removal (four pseudarthrosis, two hematomas, one sepsis, one L4-L5 disc hernia, and one L4-L5 disc degeneration). At a mean of 20±9 months, all scores improved significantly from baseline values, with net improvement in ODI of 23.3±19.9. Multivariable analyses confirmed better postoperative ODI in patients that received 18° cages (β=-9.0, p=.017), but revealed no significant trends for net improvement in ODI. Comparison of preoperative and last follow-up radiographs revealed that global lumbar lordosis increased by 4.2±7.1° (p<.001), L5-S1 segmental lordosis increased by 11.8±6.7° (p<.001), and L4-L5 segmental lordosis decreased by 1.9±3.3° (p<.001). All pelvic parameters changed: pelvic incidence increased by 0.6±2.7° (p=.003), pelvic tilt decreased by 2.5±4.1° (p<.001) and sacral slope increased by 3.3±4.7° (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone mini-ALIF with anterior plate fixation for L5-S1 can change pelvic parameters while improving global and segmental lumbar lordosis. The procedure resulted in a fusion rate of 96% and comparable improvements in ODI to other studies.

ALIF in the correction of spinal sagittal misalignment. A systematic review of literature

PURPOSE

We aim at analysing the impact of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in restoring the main spinopelvic parameters, along with its potentials and limitations in correcting sagittal imbalance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 2009 PRISMA flow chart was used to systematically review the literature; 27 papers were eventually selected. The following spinopelvic parameters were observed: pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lumbar lordosis (LLseg) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Papers reporting on hyperlordotic cages (HLC) were analysed separately. The indirect decompression potential of ALIF was also assessed. The clinical outcome was obtained by collecting visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Global fusion rate and main complications were collected.

RESULTS

PT, SS, LL, LLseg and SVA spinopelvic parameters all improved postoperatively by - 4.3 ± 5.2°, 3.9 ± 4.5°, 10.6 ± 12.5°, 6.7 ± 3.5° and 51.1 ± 44.8 mm, respectively. HLC were statistically more effective in restoring LL and LLseg (p < 0.05). Postoperative disc height, anterior disc height, posterior disc height and foraminal height, respectively, increased by 58.5%, 87.2%, 80.9% and 18.1%. Postoperative improvements were observed in VAS back and leg and ODI scores (p < 0.05). The global fusion rate was 94.5 ± 5.5%; the overall complication rate was 13%.

CONCLUSION

When managing sagittal imbalance, ALIF can be considered as a valid technique to achieve the correct spinopelvic parameters based on preoperative planning. This technique permits to obtain an optimal LL distribution and a solid anterior column support, with lower complications and higher fusion rates when compared to posterior osteotomies.

Fusion rate and influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody arthrodesis for degenerative spine diseases: a meta-analysis and systematic review

The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to summarize and critically analyze the influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spine diseases. A systematic review of the literature was carried out with a primary search being performed on Medline through PubMed. The 2009 PRISMA flowchart and checklist were taken into account. Sixty-seven articles were included in the analysis: 48 studies were level IV of evidence, whereas 19 were level III. All interbody fusion techniques analyzed have proved to reach a good fusion rate. An overall mean fusion rate of 93% (95% CI 92-95%, p < 0.001) was estimated pooling the selected studies. The influence of sagittal parameters and cages features in fusion rate was not clear. Autograft is considered the gold standard material. The use of synthetic bone substitutes and biological factors alone or combined with bone graft have shown conflicting results. Low level of evidence studies and high heterogeneity (χ² = 271.4, df = 72, p < 0.001; I² = 73.5%, τ² = 0.05) in data analysis could result in the risk of bias. Further high-quality studies would better clarify these results in the future.

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in a lateral decubitus position: technique and outcomes in obese patients

Background

Multilevel lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) surgery in obese patients is problematic, with positioning and anaesthetic risks during posterior approaches, vascular and visceral complications during anterior approaches, and lack of access to L5/S1 during lateral approaches. Modified anterior LIF (ALIF) via an anterolateral retroperitoneal approach in the lateral decubitus position permits access to L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1 levels without patient repositioning. This study reports our initial experience with this lateral ALIF in obese patients and describes modifications of existing lateral and anterior techniques.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed a prospectively maintained registry including the first 30 consecutive patients who underwent lateral ALIF. In all patients, supine ALIF was relatively contraindicated because of obesity or previous abdominal surgery. All patients had a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m². Fusion was assessed by high-definition computed tomography. Patient-reported outcomes included visual analogue scale pain scores, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and 36-Item Short-Form Survey (SF-36) physical and mental component scores (PCS and MCS). All patients underwent ≥2 years follow-up.

Results

At last follow-up (mean, 35.0 months) mean back pain improved 64%, leg pain improved 67%, ODI improved 54%, and PCS and MCS both improved 37% (P<0.05 versus preoperative for all). Mean BMI was unchanged postoperatively (P=0.83). Complications occurred in 7 (23%) patients: dysesthesia [2], retroperitoneal hematoma [2], radiculopathy [1], and subsidence [2]. Solid interbody fusion occurred in 19 (63%) patients at 12 months postoperatively and in 26 (87%) patients at 24 months.

Conclusions

Lateral ALIF enables L5/S1 anterior fusion in obese patients and permits multilevel fusion using a single position. Satisfactory clinical outcomes and complication rates are achieved despite unchanged BMI and 87% radiological fusion rates. Lateral ALIF appears to be a reasonable alternative to posterior, lateral, and supine-position anterior approaches for L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1 interbody fusions.

Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Multilevel Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospective data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe the clinical, radiographic, and complication-related outcomes through ≥1-year of 27 patients who underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior instrumentation to treat ≥3 contiguous levels of degenerative lumbar scoliosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Multilevel disease has traditionally been treated with open posterior fusion. Literature on multilevel LLIF is limited. We present our experience with utilizing LLIF to treat multilevel degenerative scoliosis.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes were evaluated using VAS, SF-12, and ODI. Radiographic outcomes included pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch, Cobb angle, and cage subsidence. Perioperative and long-term complications through the ≥1-year final-postoperative visit were reviewed; transient neurological disturbances were assessed independently. Demographic, comorbidity, operative, and recovery variables, including opioid use, were explored for association with primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Mean time to final-postoperative visit was 22.5 months; levels treated with LLIF per patient, 3.7; age, 66 years; and lateral operative time, 203 minutes. EBL was ≤100 mL in 74% of cases. Clinical outcomes remained significantly improved at ≥1-year. Cobb angle was corrected from 21.1 to 7.9 degrees (P<0.001), lordosis from 47.3 to 52.6 degrees (P<0.001), and mismatch from 11.4 to 6.4 degrees (P=0.003). High-grade subsidence occurred in 3 patients. Subsidence did not significantly impact primary outcomes. In total, 11.1% returned to the operating room for complication-related intervention over nearly 2-years; 37% experienced complications. Experiencing a complication was associated with having an open-posterior portion (P=0.048), but not with number of LLIF levels treated, or with clinical or radiographic outcomes. No patients experienced protracted neurological deficits; psoas weakness was associated with increased lateral operative time (P=0.049) and decreased surgeon experience (P=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent multilevel LLIF with adjunctive posterior surgery had significant clinical and radiographic improvements. Complication rates were similar compared to literature on single-level LLIF. LLIF is a viable treatment for multilevel degenerative scoliosis.

Lateral and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Current Concepts and a Review of Recent Literature

PURPOSE

To review the relevant recent literature regarding minimally invasive, lateral, and oblique approaches to the anterior lumbar spine, with a particular focus on the operative and postoperative complications.

METHODS

A literature search was performed on Pubmed and Web of Science using combinations of the following keywords and their acronyms: lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), anterior-to-psoas approach (ATP), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and minimally invasive surgery (MIS). All results from January 2016 through January 2019 were evaluated and all studies evaluating complications and/or outcomes were included in the review.

RECENT FINDINGS

Transient neurological deficit, particularly sensorimotor symptoms of the ipsilateral thigh, remains the most common complication seen in LLIF. Best available current literature demonstrates that approximately 30-40% of patients have postoperative deficits, primarily of the proximal leg. Permanent symptoms are less common, affecting 4-5% of cases. Newer techniques to reduce this rate include different retractors, direct visualization of the nerves, and intraoperative neuromonitoring. OLIF may have lower deficit rates, but the available literature is limited. Subsidence rates in both LLIF and OLIF are comparable to ALIF (anterior lumbar interbody fusion), but further study is required. Supplemental posterior fixation is an active area of investigation that shows favorable biomechanical results, but additional clinical studies are needed. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion techniques continue to advance rapidly. As these techniques continue to mature, evidence-based risk-stratification systems are required to better guide both the patient and clinician in the joint decision-making process for the optimal surgical approach.

Decreased estimated blood loss in lateral trans-psoas versus anterior approach to lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis

Background

The goal of the current study was to compare the perioperative and post-operative outcomes of eXtreme lateral trans-psoas approach (XLIF) versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for single level degenerative spondylolisthesis. The ideal approach for degenerative spondylolisthesis remains controversial.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing single level XLIF (n=21) or ALIF (n=54) for L4-5 degenerative spondylolisthesis between 2008-2012 from a single academic center were retrospectively reviewed. Groups were compared for peri-operative data (estimated blood loss, operative time, adjunct procedures or additional implants), radiographic measurements (L1-S1 cobb angle, disc height, fusion grade, subsidence), 30-day complications (infection, DVT/PE, weakness/paresthesia, etc.), and patient reported outcomes (leg and back Numerical Rating Scale, and Oswestry Disability Index).

Results

Estimated blood loss was significantly lower for XLIF [median 100; interquartile range (IQR), 50-100 mL] than for ALIF (median 250; IQR, 150-400 mL; P<0.001), including after adjusting for significantly higher rates of posterior decompression in the ALIF group. There were no significant differences in rates of complications within 30 days, radiographic outcomes, or in re-operation rates. Both groups experienced significant pain relief post-operatively.

Conclusions

The lateral trans-psoas approach is associated with diminished blood loss compared to the anterior approach in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. We were unable to detect differences in radiographic outcomes, complication rates, or patient reported outcomes. Continued efforts to directly compare approaches for specific indications will minimize complications and improve outcomes. Further studies will continue to define indications for lateral versus anterior approach to lumbar spine for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Approach-based Comparative and Predictor Analysis of 30-day Readmission, Reoperation, and Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the ACS-NSQIP Dataset

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the difference in 30-day readmission, reoperation, and morbidity for patients undergoing either posterior or anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Despite increasing utilization of lumbar interbody fusion to treat spinal pathology, few studies compare outcomes by surgical approach, particularly using large nationally represented cohorts.

METHODS

Patients who underwent lumbar interbody fusion were identified using the NSQIP database. Rates of readmission, reoperation, morbidity, and associated predictors were compared between posterior/transforaminal (PLIF/TLIF) and anterior/lateral (ALIF/LLIF) lumbar interbody fusion using multivariate regression. Bonferroni-adjusted alpha-levels were utilized whereby variables were significant if their P values were less than the alpha-level or trending if their P values were between 0.05 and the alpha-level.

RESULTS

We identified 26,336 patients. PLIF/TLIF had greater operative time (P = 0.015), transfusion (P < 0.001), UTI (P = 0.008), and stroke/CVA (P = 0.026), but lower prolonged ventilation (P < 0.001) and DVT (P = 0.002) rates than ALIF/LLIF. PLIF/TLIF independently predicted greater morbidity on multivariate analysis (odds ratio: 1.155, P = 0.0019).In both groups, experiencing a complication and, in PLIF/TLIF, ASA-class ≥3 predicted readmission (P < 0.001). Increased age trended toward readmission in ALIF/LLIF (P = 0.003); increased white cell count (P = 0.003), dyspnea (P = 0.030), and COPD (P = 0.005) trended in PLIF/TLIF. In both groups, increased hospital stay and wound/site-related complication predicted reoperation (P < 0.001). Adjunctive posterolateral fusion predicted reduced reoperation in ALIF/LLIF (P = 0.0018). ASA-class ≥3 (P = 0.016) and age (P = 0.021) trended toward reoperation in PLIF/TLIF and ALIF/LLIF, respectively. In both groups, age, hospital stay, reduced hematocrit, dyspnea, ASA-class ≥3, posterolateral fusion, and revision surgery and, in PLIF/TLIF, bleeding disorder predicted morbidity (P < 0.001). Female sex (P = 0.010), diabetes (P = 0.042), COPD (P = 0.011), and disseminated cancer (P = 0.032) trended toward morbidity in PLIF/TLIF; obesity trended in PLIF/TLIF (P = 0.0022) and ALIF/LLIF (P = 0.020).

CONCLUSION

PLIF/TLIF was associated with a 15.5% increased odds of morbidity; readmission and reoperation were similar between approaches. Older age, higher ASA-class, and specific comorbidities predicted poorer 30-day outcomes, while procedural-related factors predicted only morbidity. These findings can guide surgical approach given specific factors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Complications for minimally invasive lateral interbody arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing prepsoas and transpsoas approaches

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive anterolateral retroperitoneal approaches for lumbar interbody arthrodesis have distinct advantages attractive to spine surgeons. Prepsoas or transpsoas trajectories can be employed with differing complication profiles because of the inherent anatomical differences encountered in each approach. The evidence comparing them remains limited because of poor quality data. Here, the authors sought to systematically review the available literature and perform a meta-analysis comparing the two techniques.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A database search was used to identify eligible studies. Prepsoas and transpsoas studies were compiled, and each study was assessed for inclusion criteria. Complication rates were recorded and compared between approach groups. Studies incorporating an analysis of postoperative subsidence and pseudarthrosis rates were also assessed and compared.

RESULTS

For the prepsoas studies, 20 studies for the complications analysis and 8 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the transpsoas studies, 39 studies for the complications analysis and 19 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the complications analysis, 1874 patients treated via the prepsoas approach and 4607 treated with the transpsoas approach were included. In the transpsoas group, there was a higher rate of transient sensory symptoms (21.7% vs 8.7%, p = 0.002), transient hip flexor weakness (19.7% vs 5.7%, p < 0.001), and permanent neurological weakness (2.8% vs 1.0%, p = 0.005). A higher rate of sympathetic nerve injury was seen in the prepsoas group (5.4% vs 0.0%, p = 0.03). Of the nonneurological complications, major vascular injury was significantly higher in the prepsoas approach (1.8% vs 0.4%, p = 0.01). There was no difference in urological or peritoneal/bowel injury, postoperative ileus, or hematomas (all p > 0.05). A higher infection rate was noted for the transpsoas group (3.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.01). With regard to postoperative fusion outcomes, similar rates of subsidence (12.2% prepsoas vs 13.8% transpsoas, p = 0.78) and pseudarthrosis (9.9% vs 7.5%, respectively, p = 0.57) were seen between the groups at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates vary for the prepsoas and transpsoas approaches owing to the variable retroperitoneal anatomy encountered during surgical dissection. While the risks of a lasting motor deficit and transient sensory disturbances are higher for the transpsoas approach, there is a reciprocal reduction in the risks of major vascular injury and sympathetic nerve injury. These results can facilitate informed decision-making and tailored surgical planning regarding the choice of minimally invasive anterolateral access to the spine.

Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Supplemental Interspinous Process Fixation: Outcomes from a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

Background

Rigid interspinous process fixation (ISPF) has received consideration as an efficient, minimally disruptive technique in supporting lumbar interbody fusion. However, despite advantageous intraoperative utility, limited evidence exists characterizing midterm to long-term clinical outcomes with ISPF. The objective of this multicenter study was to prospectively assess patients receiving single-level anterior (ALIF) or lateral (LLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with adjunctive ISPF.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, multicenter (11 investigators), noninferiority trial. All patients received single-level ALIF or LLIF with supplemental ISPF (n = 66) or pedicle screw fixation (PSF; n = 37) for degenerative disc disease and/or spondylolisthesis (grade ≤2). The randomization patient ratio was 2:1, ISPF/PSF. Perioperative and follow-up outcomes were collected (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months).

Results

For ISPF patients, mean posterior intraoperative outcomes were: blood loss, 70.9 mL; operating time, 52.2 minutes; incision length, 5.5 cm; and fluoroscopic imaging time, 10.4 seconds. Statistically significant improvement in patient Oswestry Disability Index scores were achieved by just 6 weeks after operation (P < .01) and improved out to 12 months for the ISPF cohort. Patient-reported 36-Item Short Form Health Survey and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire scores were also significantly improved from baseline to 12 months in the ISPF cohort (P < .01). A total of 92.7% of ISPF patients exhibited interspinous fusion at 12 months. One ISPF patient (1.5%) required a secondary surgical intervention of possible relation to the posterior instrumentation/procedure.

Conclusion

ISPF can be achieved quickly, with minimal tissue disruption and complication. In supplementing ALIF and LLIF, ISPF supported significant improvement in early postoperative (≤12 months) patient-reported outcomes, while facilitating robust posterior fusion.

Emerging Techniques in Degenerative Thoracolumbar Surgery

There continue to be incremental advances in thoracolumbar spine surgery techniques in attempts to achieve more predictable outcomes, minimize risk of complications, speed recovery, and minimize the costs of these interventions. This paper reviews recent literature with regard to emerging techniques of interest in the surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis, fusion fixation and graft material, degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, and thoracolumbar deformity and sacroiliac joint degeneration. There continue to be advances in minimal access options in these areas, although robust outcome data are heterogeneous in its support. The evidence in support of sacroiliac fusion appears to be growing more robust in the properly selected patient.