Safety Profile, Surgical Technique, and Early Clinical Results for Simultaneous Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in a Lateral Position

Should a Narrow Corridor Be a Contraindication for Performing Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Procedure or Not?

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the effect of corridor width on the postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent the OLIF procedure.

METHODS

Patients who underwent OLIF surgery, which included L4-5, between 2015 and 2021 were retrospectively studied. The patients were divided into three groups by the width of the corridor: not more than 10 mm, between 10 and 20 mm, and 20 mm or more. We compared clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications between these groups.

RESULTS

A total of 81 patients were included. There were no significant differences in VAS leg and back pain scores, ODI scores, or complications between each group. The radiographic findings, including cage position, anterior and posterior disc height, segmental Cobb angle, and foraminal height, also showed no significant differences between each group. The only radiographic finding that showed a significant difference between each group was the angle of the cage. We found significantly less degree of angle in the wider than 20 mm group when compared to the other two groups. (P-value = .01). There was no recorded incidence of major vascular complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The width of oblique corridor does not affect clinical outcomes, complications, or radiographic findings, including position of the cage, anterior and posterior disc height, segmental angle, and foraminal height after OLIF procedure, including L4-5 level. Thus, the OLIF procedure can be performed safely even in patients with limited oblique corridors, especially at L4-5.

Comparing Bone Fusion Rates Between Novel Unidirectional Porous Tricalcium Beta-Phosphate and Autologous Bone in Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Two-Year Radiographic Outcome Study

This retrospective cohort study aims to examine the potential differences in bone fusion between autologous bone and artificial bone in the lumbar lateral interbody fusion at 2two years post-surgery. The bone fusions performed in 15 cases and at 34 intervertebral levels were compared to assess the differences between the artificial bone, Affinos® (Kuraray Co., Tokyo, Japan), and autogenous bone. Two years post-surgery, we evaluated computed tomography (CT) multi-planar reconstruction images in the coronal and sagittal planes. One year after surgery, out of the 24 windows, 17 (70.8%) windows transplanted with autologous bones showed bone fusion. Additionally, out of the 38 windows, 18 (47.4%) windows transplanted with Affinos® showed bone fusion. Two years post-surgery, out of the 24 windows, 19 (79.2%) windows transplanted with autologous bones showed bone fusion. Additionally, out of the 38 windows, 30 (79.0%) windows transplanted with Affinos® showed bone fusion, and no difference was observed in the fusion rate at two years post-surgery (P = 0.238). In cases using Affinos® for transplanted bone, the bone fusion rate increased between one and two years. The rate of bony fusion using Affinos® in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) cages is at par with that of autologous bone grafts at two years post-surgery. Affinos® is a promising candidate for graft material in LLIF surgery.

Utilization of lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion for revision of failed prior TLIF: illustrative case

BACKGROUND

The use of the lateral decubitus approach for L5–S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (LALIF) is a recent advancement capable of facilitating single-position surgery, revision operations, and anterior column reconstruction. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first description of the use of LALIF at L5–S1 for failed prior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior column reconstruction. Using an illustrative case, the authors discuss their experience using LALIF at L5–S1 for the revision of pseudoarthrosis and TLIF failure.

OBSERVATIONS

The patient had prior attempted L2 to S1 fusion with TLIF but suffered from hardware failure and pseudoarthrosis at the L5–S1 level. LALIF was used to facilitate same-position revision at L5–S1 in addition to further anterior column revision and reconstruction by lateral lumbar interbody fusion at the L1–2 level. Robotic posterior T10–S2 fusion was then added to provide stability to the construct and address the patient’s scoliotic deformity. No complications were noted, and the patient was followed until 1 year after the operation with a favorable clinical and radiological result.

LESSONS

Revision of a prior failed L5–S1 TLIF with an LALIF approach has technical challenges but may be advantageous for single position anterior column reconstruction under certain conditions.