High rectal injury during trans-1 axial lumbar interbody fusion L5-S1 fixation: a case report

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: An Overview

Spinal surgery is undergoing a major transformation toward a minimally invasive paradigm. This shift is being driven by multiple factors, including the need to address spinal problems in an older and sicker population, as well as changes in patient preferences and reimbursement patterns. Increasingly, minimally invasive surgical techniques are being used in place of traditional open approaches due to significant advancements and implementation of intraoperative imaging and navigation technologies. However, in some patients, due to specific anatomic or pathologic factors, minimally invasive techniques are not always possible. Numerous algorithms have been described, and additional efforts are underway to better optimize patient selection for minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) procedures in order to achieve optimal outcomes. Numerous unique MISS approaches and techniques have been described, and several have become fundamental. Investigators are evaluating combinations of MISS techniques to further enhance the surgical workflow, patient safety, and efficiency.

Bowel injury in lumbar spine surgery: a review of the literature

Although rarely documented in the medical literature, bowel perforation injury can be a severe complication of spine surgery. Our goal was to review current literature regarding this complication and study possible methods of avoidance. We conducted a literature search in the PubMed database between January 1960 and March 2016 using the terms abrasion, bowels, bowel, complication, injury, intestine, intra-abdominal sepsis/shock, perforation, lumbar, spine, surgery, visceral. Diagnostic criteria, outcomes, risk factors, surgical approach, and treatment strategy were the parameters extracted from the search results and used for review. Thirty-one patients with bowel injury were recognized in the literature. Bowel injury was more frequent in patients who underwent lumbar discectomy and microdiscectomy (18 of 31 patients, 58.1%). Minimally invasive surgery and lateral techniques involving fusions accounted for 10 of the reported cases (32.3%). Finally, 2 cases (6.5%) were reported in conjunction with sacrectomies and 1 case (3.2%) with posterior fusion plus anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) release. Diagnosis was made mostly by clinical signs/symptoms of acute abdominal pain, post-surgical wound infection, and abscess or enterocutaneous fistulas. Significant risk factors for postoperative bowel injury were complex surgical anatomy, medical history of previous abdominal surgeries or infections, irradiation before surgery, errors related to surgical technique, lack of surgical experience, and instrumentation failure. The overall mortality rate from bowel injury was 12.9% (4 of 31 patients). The overall morbidity rate was 87.1% (27 of 31 patients). According to our review of the literature, bowel injury is linked to significant morbidity and mortality. It can be prevented with meticulous pre-surgical planning. When it occurs, timely treatment reduces the risks of morbidity and mortality.

Interbody Fusion Techniques in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The various lumbar interbody fusion (IBF) techniques and the evidence for their use in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) are described in this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

The existing evidence is mixed regarding the indications for and utility of IBF in DLS, but its use in the setting of pre-operative instability is most strongly supported. Anterior (ALIF), lateral (LLIF), posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), and axial (AxiaLIF) lumbar IBF approaches have been described. While the current data are limited, TLIF may be a better option than PLIF in DLS due the increased operative morbidity and peri-operative complications observed with the latter. LLIF also appears superior to PLIF in light of improved radiologic outcomes, fewer intra-operative complications, and potentially greater improvements in disability. The data comparing LLIF to TLIF are less conclusive. No studies specifically comparing ALIF or AxiaLIF to other IBF techniques could be identified. Instability may be the strongest indication for IBF in DLS. When IBF is employed, the authors' preferred technique is TLIF with posterior segmental spinal instrumentation. Further research is needed.

The axial transsacral approach to interbody fusion at L5-S1

Lumbosacral interbody fusion may be indicated to treat degenerative disc disease at L5-S1, instability or spondylolisthesis at that level, and severe neural foraminal stenosis resulting from loss of disc space height. In addition, L5-S1 interbody fusion may provide anterior support to a long posterior fusion construct and help offset the stresses experienced by the distal-most screws. There are 3 well-established techniques for L5-S1 interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Each of these has advantages and pitfalls. A more recently described axial transsacral technique, utilizing the presacral corridor, may represent a minimally invasive approach to obtaining lumbosacral interbody arthrodesis. Biomechanical studies demonstrate that the stiffness of the axial rod is comparable to existing fixation devices, suggesting that, biomechanically, it may be a good implant for obtaining lumbosacral interbody fusion. Clinical studies have demonstrated good early results with the use of the axial transsacral approach in obtaining lumbosacral interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and below long posterior fusion constructs. The technique is exacting and complications can be major, including rectal perforation and fistula, loss of correction, and pseudarthrosis.

Does minimally invasive transsacral fixation provide anterior column support in adult scoliosis?

BACKGROUND

Spinal fusion to the sacrum, especially in the setting of deformity and long constructs, is associated with high complication and pseudarthrosis rates. Transsacral discectomy, fusion, and fixation is a minimally invasive spine surgery technique that provides very rigid fixation. To date, this has been minimally studied in the setting of spinal deformity correction.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We determined (1) the fusion rate of long-segment arthrodeses, (2) heath-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes (VAS pain score, Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], SF-36), and (3) the common complications and their frequency in adult patients with scoliosis undergoing transsacral fixation without supplemental pelvic fixation.

METHODS

Between April 2007 and May 2011, 92 patients had fusion of three or more segments extending to the sacrum for spinal deformity. Transsacral L5-S1 fusion without supplemental pelvic fixation was performed in 56 patients. Of these, 46 with complete data points and a minimum of 2 years of followup (mean, 48 months; range, 24-72 months; 18% of patients lost to followup) were included in this study. Nineteen of the 46 (41%) had fusions extending above the thoracolumbar junction, with one patient having fusion into the proximal thoracic spine (T3-S1). General indications for the use of transsacral fixation were situations where the fusion needed to be extended to the sacrum, such as spondylolisthesis, prior laminectomy, stenosis, oblique take-off, and disc degeneration at L5-S1. Contraindications included anatomic variations in the sacrum, vascular anomalies, prior intrapelvic surgery, and rectal fistulas or abscesses. Fusion rates were assessed by full-length radiographs and CT scanning. HRQOL data, including VAS pain score, ODI, and SF-36 scores, were assessed at all pre- and postoperative visits. Intraoperative and postoperative complications were noted.

RESULTS

Forty-one of 46 patients (89%) developed a solid fusion at L5-S1. There were significant improvements in all HRQOL parameters. Eight patients had complications related to the transsacral fusion, including five pseudarthroses and three superficial wound dehiscences. Three patients underwent revision surgery with iliac fixation. There were no bowel injuries, sacral hematomas, or sacral fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Transsacral fixation/fusion may allow for safe lumbosacral fusion without iliac fixation in the setting of long-segment constructs in carefully selected patients. This study was retrospective and suffered from some loss to followup; future prospective trials are called for to compare this technique to other, more established approaches.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Rectal perforation after AxiaLIF instrumentation: case report and review of the literature

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Bowel perforation is an uncommon complication of posterior spinal surgery. The AxiaLIF transsacral instrumentation system has been used for the treatment of L5-S1 spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease since its introduction in 2005 as a potentially less invasive alternative to traditional anterior or posterior interbody fusion.

PURPOSE

In this article, we report a case of a rectal perforation as a complication of placement of the AxiaLIF instrumentation system that was successfully treated without the removal of the device.

STUDY DESIGN

Case report.

METHODS

The patient presented with progressive back pain and sepsis 3 weeks after an L5-S1 fusion done with the AxiaLIF technique at an outside facility. The patient was managed with antibiotic therapy and a diverting ileostomy, without the removal of the AxiaLIF device.

RESULTS

Over the next year, she had symptoms indicative of nonunion of the operated level and breakdown at the adjacent level, which were confirmed with imaging. She underwent revision posterior spinal fusion without the removal of the AxiaLIF device. Eighteen months after the AxiaLIF device was placed, the patient continued to demonstrate no signs of infection recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Delayed presentation of rectal perforation with a subsequent anaerobic sepsis is a potential complication of the presacral approach to the L5-S1 disc space. Recognition and treatment with fecal diversion and long-term intravenous antibiotics is an alternative to device removal and sacral reconstruction.

Radiographic and clinical outcome after 1- and 2-level transsacral axial interbody fusion

Object

The paracoccygeal approach allows for instrumentation of L5/S1 and L4/5 by using a transsacral rod (AxiaLIF; TransS1, Inc.). The authors analyzed clinical and radiographic outcomes of 1- or 2-level AxiaLIF procedures with focus on durability of the construct.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of 38 consecutive patients who underwent either 1-level (32 patients) or 2-level (6 patients) AxiaLIF procedures at the authors' institution. The Oswestry Disability Index (minimum clinically important difference [MCID] ≥ 12) and visual analog scale ([VAS]; MCID ≥ 3) scores were collected. Disc height and Cobb angles were measured on pre- and postoperative radiographs. Bony fusion was determined on CT scans or flexion/extension radiographs.

Results

Implantation of a transsacral rod allowed for intraoperative distraction of the L5/S1 intervertebral space and resulted in increased segmental lordosis postoperatively. At a mean follow-up time of 26.2 ± 2.4 months, however, graft subsidence (1.9 mm) abolished partial correction of segmental lordosis. Moreover, subsidence of the construct reduced L5/S1 lordosis in patients with 1-level AxiaLIF by 3.2° and L4–S1 lordosis in patients with 2-level procedures by 10.1° compared with preoperative values (p < 0.01). Loss of segmental lordosis predicted failure to improve VAS scores for back pain in the patient cohort (p < 0.05). Overall, surgical intervention led to modest symptomatic improvement; only 26.3% of patients achieved an MCID of the Oswestry Disability Index and 50% of patients an MCID of the VAS score for back pain. At last follow-up, 71.9% of L5/S1 levels demonstrated bony fusion (1-level AxiaLIF 80.8%, 2-level AxiaLIF 33.3%; p < 0.05), whereas none of the L4/5 levels in 2-level AxiaLIF fused. Five constructs developed pseudarthrosis and required surgical revision.

Conclusions

The AxiaLIF procedure constitutes a minimally invasive technique for L5/S1 instrumentation, with low perioperative morbidity. However, the axial rod provides inadequate long-term anterior column support, which leads to subsidence and loss of segmental lordosis. Modification of the transsacral technique to allow for placement of a solid interposition graft may counteract subsidence of the construct.

Retrieval of a migrated AxiaLIF lumbosacral screw using fluoroscopic guidance with simultaneous real-time sigmoidoscopy: technical report

STUDY DESIGN

Technical report.

OBJECTIVE

This article describes the technique of using intraoperative sigmoidoscopy as an adjunct for retrieval of the AxiaLIF lumbosacral screw after failure of lumbar fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Minimally invasive axial lumbar interbody fusion devices have emerged during the past 3 years as an alternative to traditional surgery for the treatment of intractable back pain. No reports of inferior migration of the lumbosacral screw causing rectal symptoms have been previously described. A 32-year-old firefighter with intractable lumbar back pain was treated with minimally invasive axial lumbar interbody fusion with L4-S1 pedicle screw fixation. Sequential images obtained for more than 18 months demonstrated loosening and migration of the axial screw 3.5 cm inferiorly causing impression on the rectum and symptoms of tenesmus.

METHODS

Preoperative sigmoidoscopy was performed to exclude rectal perforation. During retrieval of the lumbosacral screw, simultaneous sigmoidoscopy was performed to ensure the rectum was not damaged.

RESULTS

The lumbosacral screw was successfully removed using a presacral approach. The patient's rectal symptoms improved postoperatively, and was discharged after 48 hours.

CONCLUSION

For the retrieval of migrated AxiaLIF lumbosacral screws, intraoperative sigmoidoscopy is technically feasible and serves as a useful adjunct to ensure the integrity of the rectal mucosa is maintained. This technique can be used to avoid the potential morbidity of rectal perforation, and subsequent laparotomy and defunctioning colostomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

Rectocutaneous fistula and nonunion after TranS1 axial lumbar interbody fusion L5–S1 fixation

The authors report a case of rectal injury, rectocutaneous fistula, and pseudarthrosis after a TranS1 axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) L5–S1 fixation. The TranS1 AxiaLIF procedure is a percutaneous minimally invasive approach to transsacral fusion of the L4–S1 vertebral levels. It is gaining popularity due to the ease of access to the sacrum through the presacral space, which is relatively free from intraabdominal and neurovascular structures.

This 35-year-old man had undergone the procedure for the treatment of degenerative disc disease. The patient subsequently presented with fever, syncope, and foul-smelling gas and bloody drainage from the surgical site. A CT fistulagram and flexible sigmoidoscopy showed evidence of rectocutaneous fistula, which was managed with intravenous antibiotic therapy and bowel rest with total parenteral nutrition. Subsequent studies performed 6 months postoperatively revealed evidence of pseudarthrosis. The patient's rectocutaneous fistula symptoms gradually subsided, but his preoperative back pain recurred prompting a revision of his L5–S1 spinal fusion.

Minimally invasive presacral retrieval of a failed AxiaLIF rod implant: technical note and illustrative cases

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

There are few reported cases of failed axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) in the existing neurosurgical literature, and an anecdotal case of open paramedian retroperitoneal approach to L5-S1 level for retrieval of AxiaLIF rod has been published.

PURPOSE

The object of this study is to illustrate a minimally invasive presacral rod retrieval technique in cases with failed AxiaLIF causing lumbosacral instability.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective case series.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the initial 26 cases of AxiaLIF done at our institution was performed; two cases of failed AxiaLIF that required rod removal were identified for detailed study. Available literature on the minimally invasive presacral techniques for rod retrieval was researched, and the use of a novel rod retrieval device with an expanding hex tip is discussed.

RESULTS

Using a minimally invasive presacral approach through the previous surgical corridor, the authors were able to retrieve the AxiaLIF rod implant and then proceed with an alternative fusion technique. Both patients improved clinically and radiographically after revision. Removal of the presacral rod was not associated with vascular or bowel complications and required minimal operating room time with minimal blood loss.

CONCLUSIONS

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report demonstrating the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive presacral approach for removal of AxiaLIF rods in patients with failed AxiaLIF. As the AxiaLIF procedure is rapidly gaining acceptance among spine surgeons, we can expect to see increasing numbers of failed procedures as well. Understanding options for revision strategies is important for surgeons considering the use of this technique.

Axial lumbosacral interbody fusion appears safe as a method to obtain lumbosacral arthrodesis distal to long fusion constructs

BACKGROUND

Current methods to achieve lumbosacral interbody fusion have been complicated by approach-related morbidity, nerve root or cauda equina injury, or difficulty in implanting a large lordotic graft posteriorly. There is little information in the literature evaluating the presacral axial approach to the lumbosacral disc space.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

What are the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing axial lumbosacral interbody fixation and fusion at the end of long fusion constructs using the AxiaLIF implant (Trans1 Inc., Wilmington, NC, USA)? Furthermore, what complications are associated with this procedure?

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective evaluation of nine patients who underwent presacral axial lumbosacral interbody fixation and fusion at the end of long fusion constructs using the AxiaLIF implant. Preoperative diagnoses included adjacent segment degeneration below a long fusion construct for adult scoliosis and progressive sagittal plane deformity.

RESULTS

There were two pseudoarthroses, one at L4-5 and one at L5-S1. No major complications occurred. There were no significant differences in coronal or sagittal plane alignment at the time periods measured. There was no significant difference in implant position between immediate postoperative and final follow-up periods. There were significant postoperative improvements in Scoliosis Research Society-22 scores, specifically in the pain, self-image, and satisfaction with management domains.

CONCLUSIONS

The axial lumbosacral interbody fusion is a minimally invasive and safe method to obtain lumbosacral fixation and arthrodesis distal to a long fusion construct. Longer follow-up of larger numbers of patients are needed prior to recommending this procedure as a routine method to fuse L4-5 or L5-S1.

The relevant anatomy of the approach for axial lumbar interbody fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective trial.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a precise anatomical study of the presacral space and to examine the approach safety of AxiaLIF (axial lumbar interbody fusion) in an anatomical aspect.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

AxiaLIF is a novel, minimally invasive surgery. Though there were a few clinical reports on its safety, AxiaLIF is less used in current practice because of the unfamiliarity of surgeons with the regional anatomy of presacral space. METHODS.: Sixteen adult cadaveric pelvic specimens were divided along the median sagittal plane. The presacral fascial structures, the rectosacral fascia, and the pelvic splanchnic nerves were dissected and measured. In the simulated operation, a blunt guide pin was inserted bilaterally to determine the relation of the guide pin's path with important anatomic structures. Mean distances with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

The results showed that the fascial structures of the presacral space were divided into 5 layers, and the pelvic splanchnic nerves limited the dissection of the lower rectum, the mean length of which was 2.2 cm (1.9-2.5 cm). In the simulated operation, the mean minimum distance from the guide pin to the pelvic splanchnic nerves was 0.8 cm (0.4-1.2 cm), and the mean vertical distance to the S3-S4 junction was 1.5 cm (1.2-1.7 cm).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that the approach for AxiaLIF is risky and requires further modification. We should choose the accurate surgical plane when performing the presacral approach.

Description of a transosseous approach to the L5-S1 disc and 2 clinical case reports

BACKGROUND

The lumbosacral disc with the adjacent iliac crest and its relationships to neurologic, visceral, and vascular structures is difficult to approach with cannula-based retractor systems. Previous, less invasive approaches have been described to access this space. Anterior, presacral, and transforaminal approaches each have approach-related complications that have prevented their widespread adoption. A laterally based approach to this disc between the exiting L5 nerve root and traversing S1 nerve root would theoretically eliminate visceral and vascular complications but would necessarily course through the adjacent iliac crest. Our objective was to determine the feasibility of placing an interbody device into the L5-S1 disc space through a lateral transosseous approach.

METHODS

Six transosseous pathways were created from the iliac crest, laterally through the sacral ala, and entering the L5-S1 intervertebral disc space (3 cadavers). The positions of the portals in relation to the local anatomy were evaluated anatomically and with computed tomographic sagittal, coronal, and axial planes. We measured the lengths, heights, and widths of the pathways; distance between the L5 and S1 nerve roots; endplate diameters; and angles necessary to access the space. In addition, 2 clinical cases using the transosseous pathway are presented.

RESULTS

Computed tomographic scans and anatomic evaluations showed that there was an average 22-mm distance between the L5 and S1 nerve roots available to enter the L5-S1 disc space. The mean length of the pathway was 69 mm, and the mean height was 27 mm. The mean angle of the approach was 45° off the posterior-anterior axis, and there was a 25° upward angle from true lateral in the frontal plane.

CONCLUSIONS

A lateral, transosseous approach to the L5-S1 disc space for placing an interbody device is feasible. A closed cannula-based technique may offer reduced approach-related complications. Further studies will be required to determine the reproducibility and utility of this pathway.

Minimally invasive trans-sacral approach to L5-S1 interbody fusion: Preliminary results from 1 center and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Lumbar interbody fusion has long been used for the treatment of painful degenerative spinal conditions. The anterior approach is not feasible in some patients, and the posterior approach is associated with a risk of neural complications and possibly muscle injury. A trans-sacral technique was developed that allows access to the L5-S1 disc space. The purposes of this study were to investigate the clinical outcome of trans-sacral interbody fusion in a consecutive series of patients from 1 center and to perform a comprehensive review of the literature on this procedure.

METHODS

A literature search using PubMed was performed to identify articles published on trans-sacral axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). Articles reviewed included biomechanical testing, feasibility of the technique, and clinical results. The data from our center were collected retrospectively from charts for the consecutive series, beginning with the first case, of all patients undergoing fusion using the AxiaLIF technique. In most cases, posterior instrumentation was also used. A total of 41 patients with at least 6 months' follow-up were included (mean follow-up, 22.2 months). The primary clinical outcome measures were visual analog scales separately assessing back and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index. Radiographic assessment of fusion was also performed.

RESULTS

In the group of 28 patients undergoing single-level AxiaLIF combined with posterior fusion, the visual analog scale scores assessing back and leg pain and mean Oswestry Disability Index scores improved significantly (P < .01). In the remaining 13 patients, back pain improved significantly with a trend for improvement in leg pain. Reoperation occurred in 19.5% of patients; in half of these, reoperation was not related to the anterior procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

A review of the literature found that the AxiaLIF technique was similar to other fusion techniques with respect to biomechanical properties and produced acceptable clinical outcomes, although results varied among studies.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The AxiaLIF approach allows access to the L5-S1 interspace without violating the annulus or longitudinal ligaments and with minimal risk to dorsal neural elements. It may be a viable alternative to other approaches to interbody fusion at the L5-S1 level. It is important that the patients be selected carefully and surgeons are familiar with the presacral anatomy and the surgical approach.

Complications of axial lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECT

Axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) is a novel minimally invasive approach for fusion of L4-5 and L5-S1. This technique uses the presacral space for percutaneous access to the anterior sacrum. The AxiaLIF procedure has the potential to decrease patient recovery time, length of hospital stay, and overall occurrence of surgical complications. It can be used alone or in combination with minimally invasive or traditional open fusion procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate complications of the AxiaLIF procedure at the authors' institutions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent AxiaLIF surgery between October 2005 and June 2009 at the authors' institutions were identified. The authors retrospectively reviewed these patients' charts, including operative reports and postoperative medical records, to determine what complications were encountered.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients underwent AxiaLIF surgery, with an average follow-up time of 34 months. Sixteen patients (23.5%) experienced a total of 18 complications (26.5%); this group included 8 men and 8 women (mean age 52.1 years). These complications included pseudarthrosis (8.8%), superficial infection (5.9%), sacral fracture (2.9%), pelvic hematoma (2.9%), failure of wound closure (1.5%), transient nerve root irritation (1.5%), and rectal perforation (2.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The complication rate associated with AxiaLIF in the present study was relatively low (26.5%). The most common complications were superficial infection and pseudarthrosis. There were 2 cases of rectal perforation associated with AxiaLIF; one case was found intraoperatively and the other presented 4 days postoperatively. Both patients underwent emergency repair by a general surgeon and had no long-term sequelae as a result of the rectal injuries. It is important for surgeons to be aware of the potential for these complications. Many of these complications can probably be avoided with proper patient selection and operative planning. Preoperative MR imaging, a detailed patient physical examination and history, full bowel preparation, and the use of live fluoroscopy can all help to prevent complications with AxiaLIF surgery.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of axial lumbar interbody fusion

Axial lumbar interbody fusion is a novel percutaneous alternative to common open techniques, such as anterior, posterior, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. This minimally invasive technique uses the presacral space to access the L5-S1 and L4-L5 disk space. The goal of this study was to examine outcomes following axial lumbar interbody fusion. The charts of all patients who underwent axial lumbar interbody fusion surgery at our institution between 2006 and 2008 were reviewed. Clinical outcomes included visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiographs were also evaluated for disk space height, L4-L5 and/or L5-S1 Cobb angle, and fusion. Of the 50 patients (32 women, 18 men; mean age, 49.29 years) treated with axial lumbar interbody fusion, 48 had preoperative VAS scores and 16 had preoperative ODI scores available. Complete radiographic data were available at the preoperative, initial postoperative, and final postoperative time points for 46 patients (92%). At last follow-up (average, 12 months), ODI scores were reduced from 46 to 22, and VAS scores were lowered from 8.1 to 3.6. Of the 49 patients with postoperative radiographs, 47 (96%) went on to a solid fusion. There were no significant differences between pre- and postoperative disk space height and lumbar lordosis angle. The most common complications were superficial infection and pseudoarthrosis. Other complications were rectal injury, hematoma, and irritation of a nerve root by a screw. Overall, we found the axial lumbar interbody fusion procedure in combination with pedicle screw placement to have good clinical and radiological outcomes.