Lateral Lumbar Trans-Psoas Interbody Fusion

Trans-cranial motor evoked potential detection of femoral nerve injury in trans-psoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Trans-psoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is frequently associated with neurological complications, limiting its value as a less invasive procedure. The routine use of EMG neuromonitoring has been inadequate to detect iatrogenic injuries; significant postoperative deficits have gone undetected by EMG. An effective way to monitor for these intraoperative neurological events is not yet well established. To our knowledge, detection of lumbar plexus injury during LLIF by trans-cranial motor evoked potentials (MEP) without corresponding change in EMG has not been reported in the literature. Three cases are presented to illustrate the potential utility of trans-cranial MEP monitoring during trans-psoas LLIF. We introduce a modified intraoperative neuro-monitoring (IONM) protocol for LLIF surgery, which includes MEP in addition to spontaneous and triggered EMG. Postoperative neurological outcome was correlated with the IONM findings. In each case, loss of quadriceps MEP signals occurred during LLIF at L4/L5, and after prolonged retraction (27, 25 and 61 min respectively). The EMG, however, did not show any abnormal activity. Two patients had post-operative quadriceps weakness, concordant with MEP data. The third patient, in whom the MEP signals returned to normal after expeditious removal of the retractor, did not exhibit quadriceps weakness, also concordant with MEP data. These cases contribute to the developing perception that stand-alone EMG nerve monitoring is not adequate for trans-psoas surgery. The addition of MEP may improve the sensitivity of IONM during trans-psoas surgery. Multimodality IONM may offer the opportunity to intervene on evolving iatrogenic nerve injuries, and may reduce the incidence of adverse postoperative findings.

Biomechanical comparison of an interspinous fusion device and bilateral pedicle screw system as additional fixation for lateral lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

This investigation compares an interspinous fusion device with posterior pedicle screw system in a lateral lumbar interbody lumbar fusion.

METHODS

We biomechanically tested six cadaveric lumbar segments (L1-L2) under an axial preload of 50N and torque of 5Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending and axial rotation directions. We quantified range of motion, neutral zone/elastic zone stiffness in the following conditions: intact, lateral discectomy, lateral cage, cage with interspinous fusion, and cage with pedicle screws.

FINDINGS

A complete lateral discectomy and annulectomy increased motion in all directions compared to all other conditions. The lateral cage reduced motion in lateral bending and flexion/extension with respect to the intact and discectomy conditions, but had minimal effect on extension stiffness. Posterior instrumentation reduced motion, excluding interspinous augmentation in axial rotation with respect to the cage condition. Interspinous fusion significantly increased flexion and extension stiffness, while pedicle screws increased flexion/extension and lateral bending stiffness, with respect to the cage condition. Both posterior augmentations performed equivalently throughout the tests except in lateral bending stiffness where pedicle screws were stiffer in the neutral zone.

INTERPRETATION

A lateral discectomy and annulectomy generates immediate instability. Stand-alone lateral cages restore a limited amount of immediate stability, but posterior supplemental fixation increases stability. Both augmentations are similar in a single level lateral fusion in-vitro model, but pedicle screws are more equipped for coronal stability. An interspinous fusion is a less invasive alternative than pedicle screws and is potentially a conservative option for various interbody cage scenarios.