Simultaneous Lateral Interbody Fusion and Posterior Percutaneous Instrumentation: Early Experience and Technical Considerations

A Comparative Study between Single-Level Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Adjacent Segment Disease

Background/Objectives: Various surgical approaches have been proposed for treating adjacent segment disease (ASD) after lumbar fusion. However, studies using oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) to treat ASD are lacking. The current study assessed the postoperative outcomes of single-level OLIF for ASD, comparing the results with those for patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods: Patients who underwent single-level OLIF or TLIF for lumbar ASD were retrospectively included. Clinical outcomes, that is, the results of assessments using the Euroqol 5-Dimension quality of life scale (EQ-5D), the Oswestry Disability Index, and the visual analog scale, were evaluated. Radiologic parameters, including disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), segmental coronal angle (SCA), lumbar lordosis, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch, were also assessed. Results: A total of 65 patients were enrolled: 32 in the OLIF group and 33 in the TLIF group. The median follow-up time was 24.0 months in both groups. The clinical outcomes and radiologic parameters significantly improved in both groups postoperatively. According to intergroup comparisons, the OLIF group had significantly less blood loss and superior improvement in radiologic parameters (DH, SL, and SCA) whereas the TLIF group had significantly shorter operation times. For the OLIF patients who did not undergo posterior decompression, the operation time was similar to that of the TLIF group, but the surgical blood loss and length of hospital stay were significantly reduced compared with the TLIF group. Conclusions: Compared with TLIF, OLIF provides similar clinical outcomes, leads to less surgical blood loss, and has superior radiologic parameters; however, the operation time is significantly longer. OLIF without posterior decompression may be a superior option to TLIF for certain patients.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes following 120 consecutive patients undergoing prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

The prone transpsoas approach is a single-position alternative to traditional lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Earlier prone LLIF studies have focused on technique, feasibility, perioperative efficiencies, and immediate postoperative radiographic alignment. This study was undertaken to report longer-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, and to identify learnings from experiential evolution of the prone LLIF procedure.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing prone LLIF for any indication at one institution were included (n = 120). Demographic, diagnostic, treatment, and outcomes data were captured via prospective institutional registry. Retrospective analysis identified 31 'pre-proceduralization' and 89 'post-proceduralization' prone LLIF approaches, enabling comparison across early and later cohorts.

RESULTS

187 instrumented LLIF levels were performed. Operative time, retraction time, LLIF blood loss, and hospital stay averaged 150 min, 17 min, 50 ml, and 2.2 days, respectively. 79% of cases were without complication. Postoperative hip flexion weakness was identified in 14%, transient lower extremity weakness in 12%, and sensory deficits in 10%. At last follow-up, back pain, worst-leg pain, Oswestry, and EQ-5D health state improved by 55%, 46%, 48%, and 51%, respectively. 99% improved or maintained sagittal alignment with an average 6.5° segmental lordosis gain at LLIF levels. Only intra-psoas retraction time differed between pre- and post-proceduralization; proceduralization saved an average 3.4 min/level (p = 0.0371).

CONCLUSIONS

The largest single-center prone LLIF experience with the longest follow-up to-date shows that it results in few complications, quick recovery, improvements in pain and function, high patient satisfaction, and improved sagittal alignment at an average one year and up to four years postoperatively.

Impact of Supine versus Prone Positioning on Segmental Lumbar Lordosis in Patients Undergoing ALIF Followed by PSF: A Comparative Study

Background: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior spinal fusion (PSF) play pivotal roles in restoring lumbar lordosis in spinal surgery. There is an ongoing debate between combined single-position surgery and traditional prone-position PSF for optimizing segmental lumbar lordosis. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 59 patients who underwent ALIF in the supine position followed by PSF in the prone position at a single institution. Cobb angles were measured preoperatively, post-ALIF, and post-PSF using X-ray imaging. One-way repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc analyses with Bonferroni adjustment were employed to compare mean Cobb angles at different time points. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated to assess the magnitude of changes. Sample size calculations were performed to ensure statistical power. Results: The mean segmental Cobb angle significantly increased from preoperative (32.2 ± 13.8 degrees) to post-ALIF (42.2 ± 14.3 degrees, Cohen's d: -0.71, p < 0.0001) and post-PSF (43.6 ± 14.6 degrees, Cohen's d: -0.80, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between Cobb angles after ALIF and after PSF (Cohen's d: -0.10, p = 0.14). The findings remained consistent when Cobb angles were analyzed separately for single-screw and double-screw ALIF constructs. Conclusions: Both supine ALIF and prone PSF significantly increased segmental lumbar lordosis compared to preoperative measurements. The negligible difference between post-ALIF and post-PSF lordosis suggests that supine ALIF followed by prone PSF can be an effective approach, providing flexibility in surgical positioning without compromising lordosis improvement.

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.

Prone Transpsoas Lateral Interbody Fusion (PTP LIF) with Anterior Docking: Preliminary functional and radiographic outcomes

Background

Disadvantages of lateral interbody fusion (LIF) through a direct, transpsoas approach include difficulties associated with lateral decubitus positioning and limited sagittal correction without anterior longitudinal ligament release or posterior osteotomy. Prior technical descriptions advocate anchoring or docking the retractor into the posterior to middle aspect of the disc space.

Methods

72 patients who underwent 116 total levels of Prone Transpsoas (PTP) LIF with anterior docking with a single surgeon between December 2021 and May 2023 were included. Patient characteristics, perioperative data, as well as postoperative functional and radiographic outcomes were recorded. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients who underwent single-level PTP LIF with single-level percutaneous fixation (SLP). Patients in the SLP subgroup did not undergo direct decompression, release, or osteotomy.

Results

N=41 (56.9%) of cases included the L4-5 level. No vascular, bowel, or other visceral complications occurred. No patients developed a permanent motor deficit. Both the total cohort and the SLP group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in functional outcomes including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) as well as all radiographic parameters measured. Mean total operative time (incision to completion of closure for lateral and posterior fusion) in the SLP group was 104.3 minutes with a significant downward trend with increasing surgeon experience. The SLP group demonstrated a 9.9° increase in segmental lordosis (SL), a 7.5° increase in lumbar lordosis (LL), 5.3° reduction in pelvic tilt (PT), and a decrease in pelvic incidence - lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) from 11.0° preoperatively to 3.9°, postoperatively (p<.01).

Conclusions

PTP LIF with anterior docking may address shortcomings associated with traditional lateral interbody fusion by producing safe and reproducible access with improved restoration of segmental lordosis and optimization of spinopelvic parameters.

Single position L5-S1 lateral ALIF with simultaneous robotic posterior fixation is safe and improves regional alignment and lordosis distribution index

PURPOSE

Minimally invasive single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with simultaneous robot-assisted posterior fixation has technical and anatomic considerations that need further description.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with robotic assisted fixation. End points included radiographic parameters, lordosis distribution index (LDI), complications, pedicle screw accuracy, and inpatient metrics.

RESULTS

There were 17 patients with mean age of 60.5 years. Eight patients underwent interbody fusion at L5-S1, five patients at L4-S1, two patients at L3-S1, and one patient at L2-S1 in single lateral position. Operative times for 1-level and 2-level cases were 193 min and 278 min, respectively. Mean EBL was 71 cc. Mean improvements in L5-S1 segmental lordosis were 11.7 ± 4.0°, L1-S1 lordosis of 4.8 ± 6.4°, sagittal vertical axis of - 0.1 ± 1.7 cm°, pelvic tilt of - 3.1 ± 5.9°, and pelvic incidence lumbar-lordosis mismatch of - 4.6 ± 6.4°. Six patients corrected into a normal LDI (50-80%) and no patients became imbalanced over a mean follow-up period of 14.4 months. Of 100 screws placed in lateral position with robotic assistance, there were three total breaches (two lateral grade 3, one medial grade 2) for a screw accuracy of 97.0%. There were no neurologic, vascular, bowel, or ureteral injuries, and no implant failure or reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with simultaneous robotic placement of pedicle screws by a second surgeon is a safe and effective technique that improves global alignment and lordosis distribution index.

Minimally invasive lateral single-position surgery for multilevel degenerative lumbar spine disease: feasibility and perioperative results in a single Latin-American spine center

INTRODUCTION

Within advances in minimally invasive spine surgery, the implementation of lateral single position (LSP) increases efficiency while limiting complications, avoiding intraoperative repositioning and diminishing surgical time. Most literature describes one-level instrumentation of the lumbar spine; this study includes the use of LSP for multilevel degenerative disease.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the article is to analyze initial clinical results and complications in the use of LSP for multiple level instrumentation in adults with lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

A retrospective early clinical series was performed for patients who had multiple level instrumentation in LSP between August 2019 and September 2022 at the Hospital Universitario San Ignacio in Bogota, Colombia. Inclusion criteria were patients older than 18 years with symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease, undergoing any combination of multilevel anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and pedicle screw fixation.

RESULTS

Forty patients with an average age of 61.3 years were included, with diagnosis of multilevel degenerative spondylotic changes. Four-, three- and two-level interventions were performed in 52.5, 35 and 12.5%, respectively. Average time per level was 68.9 min, and length of hospital stay had an average of 2.4 days, with all patients starting ambulation within the first postoperative day.

CONCLUSION

Procedural time and blood loss were similar to those reported in literature. No severe lesions, postoperative infections or reinterventions took place. Although it was a small number of patients and further clinical trials are needed, LSP for multiple levels is apparently safe with adequate outcomes which may improve efficiency in the operating room.

The one-stop-shop approach: Navigating lumbar 360-degree instrumentation in a single position

Objective

Treatment strategies of patients suffering from pyogenic spondylodiscitis are a controverse topic. Percutaneous dorsal instrumentation followed by surgical debridement and fusion of the infectious vertebral disc spaces is a common approach for surgical treatment. Technical advances enable spinal navigation for dorsal and lateral instrumentation. This report investigates combined navigated dorsal and lateral instrumentation in a single surgery and positioning for lumbar spondylodiscitis in a pilot series.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with 1- or 2-level discitis were prospectively enrolled. To enable posterior navigated pedicle screw placement and lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) patients were positioned semi-prone in 45-degree fashion. For spinal referencing, a registration array was attached to the pelvic or spinal process. 3D scans were acquired intraoperatively for registration and implant control.

Results

27 patients suffering from 1- or 2-level spondylodiscitis with a median ASA of 3 (1–4) and a mean BMI of 27.9 ± 4.9 kg/m2 were included. Mean duration of surgery was 146 ± 49 min. Mean blood loss was 367 ± 307 ml. A median of 4 (4–8) pedicle screws were placed for dorsal percutaneous instrumentation with an intraoperative revision rate of 4.0%. LLIF was performed on 31 levels with an intraoperative cage revision rate of 9.7%.

Conclusions

Navigated lumbar dorsal and lateral instrumentation in a single operation and positioning is feasible and safe. It enables rapid 360-degree instrumentation in these critically ill patients and potentially reduces overall intraoperative radiation exposure for patient and staff. Compared to purely dorsal approaches it allows for optimal discectomy and fusion while overall incisions and wound size are minimized. Compared to prone LLIF procedures, semi-prone in 45-degree positioning allows for a steep learning curve due to minor changes of familiar anatomy.

Single-Position Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation under O-Arm Navigation: A Retrospective Comparative Study

The insertion of pedicle screws in the lateral position without a position change has been reported. We completed a retrospective comparison of the radiologic and clinical outcomes of 36 patients who underwent either single-position oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SP-OLIF) using the O-arm (36 cases) or conventional OLIF (C-OLIF) using the C-arm (20 cases) for L2-5 single-level lumbar degenerative diseases. Radiological parameters were analyzed, including screw accuracy (Gertzbein-Robbins classification system; GRS), segmental instability, and fusion status. Screw misplacement was defined as a discrepancy of ≥2 mm. Clinical outcomes, including visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and postoperative complications, were assessed. The spinal fusion rate was not different between the SP-OLIF and C-OLIF groups one year after surgery (p = 0.536). The ODI score was lower (p = 0.015) in the SP-OLIF than the C-OLIF group. Physical (p = 0.000) and mental component summaries (p = 0.000) of the SF-36 were significantly higher in the SP-OLIF group. Overall complication rates, including revision, surgical site infection, ipsilateral weakness, and radicular pain/numbness, were not significantly different. SP-OLIF using the O-arm procedure is feasible, with acceptable accuracy, fusion rate, and complication rate. This may be an alternative to conventional two-stage operations.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion in heterogenous lumbar diseases: Anterolateral screw fixation vs. posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation - A single center experience

Background

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a type of minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique used for treating lumbar degenerative diseases. This study aimed to analyze the clinical and radiographic efficacy of OLIF with anterolateral screw fixation alone and OLIF requiring fixation with conventional posterior percutaneous pedicle screws for lumbar diseases.

Methods

Medical records of consecutive patients admitted to Cheng-Hsin Hospital who received OLIF between January 2019 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups by screw fixation: patients who received anterolateral screw fixation alone were defined as one-stage OLIF (n = 9) and patients who received fixation with conventional posterior percutaneous pedicle screw were defined as two-stage OLIF (n = 16). Patient clinical characteristics, medical history, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, peri-operative, and post-operative complications were evaluated in all patients.

Results

During the study period, a total of 25 patients were successfully treated with OLIF (n = 9 one-stage; n = 16 two-stage). Two-stage OLIF was associated with longer operation times, longer hospital stays, shorter bed-rest time, and a greater likelihood of having a blood transfusion compared with the one-stage OLIF group. A higher proportion of grade I subsidence was observed at 6 months and 1 year after surgery in the two-stage group compared with the one-stage group. Post-operative complications included ileus, dystonia, and dystonia were higher in the two-stage OLIF group. Improvements in radiographic parameters were demonstrated after OLIF, and the improvements were comparable between one-stage and two-stage OLIF.

Conclusions

One-stage OLIF is a feasible and efficacious treatment method for single- and multiple-level degenerative lumbar diseases. Additional clinical follow-up is necessary to confirm long-term outcomes.

Assessing the differences in operative and patient-reported outcomes between lateral approaches for lumbar fusion: a systematic review and indirect meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Anterior-to-psoas lumbar interbody fusion (ATP-LIF), more commonly referred to as oblique lateral interbody fusion, and lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LTP-LIF), also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion, are the two commonly used lateral approaches for performing a lumbar fusion procedure. These approaches help overcome some of the technical challenges associated with traditional approaches for lumbar fusion. In this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis, the authors compared operative and patient-reported outcomes between these two select approaches using available studies.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, the authors conducted an electronic search using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for studies published before May 1, 2019. Indirect meta-analysis was conducted on fusion rate, cage movement (subsidence plus migration), permanent deficits, and transient deficits; results were depicted as forest plots of proportions (effect size [ES]).

RESULTS

A total of 63 studies were included in this review after applying the exclusion criteria, of which 26 studies investigated the outcomes of ATP-LIF, while 37 studied the outcomes of LTP-LIF. The average fusion rate was found to be similar between the two groups (ES 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.00 vs ES 0.94, 95% CI 0.91-0.97; p = 0.561). The mean incidence of cage movement was significantly higher in the ATP-LIF group compared with the LTP-LIF group (stand-alone: ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.27 vs ES 0.09, 95% CI 0.04-0.16 [p = 0.317]; combined: ES 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.32 vs ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.00-0.05 [p = 0.002]). The mean incidence of reoperations was significantly higher in patients undergoing ATP-LIF than in those undergoing LTP-LIF (ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.03 vs ES 0.04, 95% CI 0.02-0.07; p = 0.012). The mean incidence of permanent deficits was similar between the two groups (stand-alone: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06 vs ES 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.12 [p = 0.204]; combined: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06 vs ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.08 [p = 0.595]). The postoperative changes in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were both found to be higher for ATP-LIF relative to LTP-LIF (VAS: weighted average 4.11 [SD 2.03] vs weighted average 3.75 [SD 1.94] [p = 0.004]; ODI: weighted average 28.3 [SD 5.33] vs weighted average 24.3 [SD 4.94] [p < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS

These analyses indicate that while both approaches are associated with similar fusion rates, ATP-LIF may be related to higher odds of cage movement and reoperations as compared with LTP-LIF. Furthermore, there is no difference in rates of permanent deficits between the two procedures.

Perioperative and Radiographic Outcomes Between Single-Position Surgery (Lateral Decubitus) and Dual-Position Surgery for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation: Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and percutaneous posterior screw fixation (PPSF) techniques is used to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies. Dual-position (DP) lumbar surgery involves repositioning the patient from the supine or lateral decubitus position to prone for posterior fixation. Single-position (SP) lumbar surgery is commonly performed nowadays, a minimally invasive alternative performed entirely from the lateral decubitus position. However, controversy still exists. This meta-analysis aimed to compare perioperative outcomes between SP lumbar surgery and DP lumbar surgery for LLIF and PPSF.

METHODS

We conducted this meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and searched Medline and Scopus from inception to November 11, 2021, for relevant studies.

RESULTS

Six studies were identified, which contained totals of 502 and 447 patients in the SP and DP groups, respectively. The unstandardized mean difference in operative time, length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, radiation doses, lumbar lordosis, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch were -86.1 (95% confidence interval [CI] -149.2 to -23.1) minutes, -1.6 (95% CI -2.4 to -0.9) days, -55.6 (95% CI -127.5 to 16.2) mL, -30.3 (95% CI -80.5 to 19.8) mGy, 1.34 (95% CI -1.17 to 3.86) degrees, and -4.06 (95% CI -5.65 to -2.47) lower in SP when compared with DP. The chances of having complications and reoperations in SP were 0.75 (95% CI 0.49-1.14) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.44-1.36) times, respectively, compared with the DP group. No significant differences were found for intraoperative blood loss, radiation dose, lumbar lordosis, complications, and reoperations between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis found that SP have lower operative time and length of hospital stay compared with DP LLIF and PPSF. However, no differences in intraoperative blood loss, radiation dose, radiographic change, complications, and reoperation rates were found.

Lateral versus prone robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw placement: a CT-based comparative assessment of accuracy

OBJECTIVE

Single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SP-LLIF) has recently gained significant popularity due to increased operative efficiency, but it remains technically challenging. Robot-assisted percutaneous pedicle screw (RA-PPS) placement can facilitate screw placement in the lateral position. The authors have reported their initial experience with SP-LLIF with RA-PPS placement in the lateral position, and they have compared this accuracy with that of RA-PPS placement in the prone position.

METHODS

The authors reviewed prospectively collected data from their first 100 lateral-position RA-PPSs. The authors graded screw accuracy on CT and compared it to the accuracy of all prone-position RA-PPS procedures during the same time period. The authors analyzed the effect of several demographic and perioperative metrics, as a whole and specifically for lateral-position RA-PPS placement.

RESULTS

The authors placed 99 lateral-position RA-PPSs by using the ExcelsiusGPS robotic platform in the first 18 consecutive patients who underwent SP-LLIF with postoperative CT imaging; these patients were compared with 346 prone-position RA-PPSs that were placed in the first consecutive 64 patients during the same time period. All screws were placed at L1 to S1. Overall, the lateral group had 14 breaches (14.1%) and the prone group had 25 breaches (7.2%) (p = 0.032). The lateral group had 5 breaches (5.1%) greater than 2 mm (grade C or worse), and the prone group had 4 (1.2%) (p = 0.015). The operative level had an effect on the breach rate, with breach rates (grade C or worse) of 7.1% at L3 and 2.8% at L4. Most breaches were grade B (< 2 mm) and lateral, and no breach had clinical sequelae or required revision. Within the lateral group, multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that BMI and number of levels affected accuracy, but the side that was positioned up or down did not.

CONCLUSIONS

RA-PPSs can improve the feasibility of SP-LLIF. Spine surgeons should be cautious and selective with this technique owing to decreased accuracy in the lateral position, particularly in obese patients. Further studies should compare SP-LLIF techniques performed while the patient is in the prone and lateral positions.

The Future of Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery

Strong forces are pushing minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) to the forefront of spine care. Less-invasive surgical techniques have been enabled by a variety of technical advances. Despite the promise of MISS, however, several factors, including few training opportunities, perception of a steep learning curve, and high upfront costs, have limited the adoption of these techniques. The "6 T's" is a framework highlighting key factors that must be accounted for to ensure safe and effective MISS as techniques continually evolve. Further, technological advancement in endoscopy, robotics, and augmented/virtual reality is enhancing minimally invasive surgeries to make them even less invasive and safer for patients. The evolution of these new techniques and technologies is driving the future of MISS.

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.

Transitioning from lateral to the prone transpsoas approach: flatten the learning curve by knowing the nuances

Prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion is the newest frontier in surgical approach to the lumbar spine. Prone positioning facilitates segmental lordosis and facile posterior segmental fixation. However, even in experienced hands, transitioning from a lateral decubitus to prone position necessitates alterations to the traditional technique. In this video, the authors highlight the nuances of adopting the prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique and strategies to overcome them.

The video can be found here: https://stream.cadmore.media/r10.3171/2022.3.FOCVID2224

Setting for single position surgery: survey from expert spinal surgeons

PURPOSE

To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field.

METHODS

Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique.

CONCLUSION

A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

Single-Position Fluoroscopy-Guided Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Intraoperative Computed Tomography-Navigated Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation: Technical Report and Literature Review

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a powerful tool in minimally invasive spine surgery with high rates of fusion, excellent indirect decompression, and deformity correction. LLIF offers advantages compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion including a more favorable complication profile. Traditionally, the interbody fusion is performed in the lateral position and fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw fixation performed with the patient repositioned prone. The evolution of both pedicle screw technology and intraoperative navigation has enhanced the feasibility of single (lateral)-position surgery. Early reports using fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screws and computer or robotic navigation suggest this technique can be performed safely and accurately. The purpose of this brief report is to provide the technical steps, workflow, as well as pearls and pitfalls for single-position LLIF with true intraoperative computed tomography navigation-guided percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. A case example is included for illustration.

Single position lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Recently, a single position lumbar fusion has been described in which both the anterior or lateral interbody fusion as well as posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation are performed in a single position.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to present and analyze the current evidence for single position lumbar fusion.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Prospective or retrospective studies published in English that assessed outcomes of single position lumbar fusion surgery for patients with lumbar degenerative disease, spondylolisthesis, or radiculopathy were included.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, X-Ray exposure time, and postoperative outcomes including leg numbness or pain, leg weakness, lumbar lordosis, and segmental lordosis.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Two separate meta-analyses were performed. The first compared single position (SP) surgery, both lateral and prone, to dual position or flipped (F) surgery. The second meta-analysis compared lateral single position (LSP) surgery to prone single position (PSP) surgery. Variables were included if (1) they were a mean with a reported standard deviation or (2) if they were a categorical variable. For calculating standard error of the mean, we used sample size, mean, and standard deviation. A random effects model was used. The heterogeneity among studies was assessed with a significance level of <0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles were included for analysis. Three studies were prospective nonrandomized studies, while 18 were retrospective. Seven articles studied lateral single position only, 10 articles compared lateral single position to traditional repositioning surgery, three articles studied prone single position surgery, and one article compared prone single position surgery to traditional repositioning surgery. A detailed review is provided for all 21 articles. Seventeen studies were included for meta-analysis comparing the SP versus F groups, for a total of 942 patients in the SP group and 254 in the F group. Mean operative time was significantly less for the SP group compared with the F group (SP: 127.5±7.9, F: 188.7±15.5, p<.001). Average hospital length of stay was 2.87±0.3 days in the SP group and 6.63±0.6 days in the F group (p<.001). Complication rates did not significantly differ between groups. Pedicle screws placed in the lateral position had a higher rate of complication as compared with those placed in a prone position (L: 10.2±2%, P: 1.6±1%, p=.015). Seventeen studies were included in the LSP versus PSP analysis, including 13 in the LSP group and four in the PSP group, with a total of 785 patients in the LSP group and 85 patients in the PSP group. Operative time and X-Ray exposure was significantly less in the LSP compared with the PSP group (117.1±5.5 minutes vs. 166.9±21.9 minutes, p<.001; 43.7±15.5 minutes vs. 171.0±25.8 minutes, p<.001). Postoperative segmental lordosis was greater in the prone single position group (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Single position surgery decreases operative times and hospital length of stay, while maintaining similar complication rates and radiographic outcomes. PSP surgery was found to be longer in duration and have increased radiation exposure time compared with LSP, while increasing postoperative segmental lordosis.

Single-level TLIF Versus LLIF at L4-5: A Comparison of Patient-reported Outcomes and Recovery Ratios

INTRODUCTION

Both transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are suitable for achievement of lumbar arthrodesis. Comparative studies have observed complications and outcomes without stratification by lumbar level. This study aims to assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and recovery in TLIF and LLIF at L4-5.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary, elective, single-level, TLIF or LLIF procedures at L4-5 were grouped. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and postoperative complication rates were collected. PROMs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function, visual analog scale (VAS) back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index, and 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Summary, and Mental Component Summary and were collected at preoperative, 6-week, 12-week, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points. Delta values and recovery ratios (RRs) were calculated for all PROMs at all time points. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and postoperative complications were compared using chi-squared and Student t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Differences in mean PROMs, delta values, and RR at each time point were evaluated using unpaired Student's t-test.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty TLIF and 46 LLIF patients were included. Most (54.3%) were men, mean age 56.3 years, and mean body mass index 30.8 kg/m2. Body mass index and insurance significantly differed (P ≤ 0.045, all). TLIF showed significantly greater mean operative time, length of stay, and postoperative narcotic consumption (P < 0.033, all) and greater postoperative nausea/vomiting (P = 0.004). No preoperative PROMs significantly differed. TLIF cohort had significantly greater VAS back at 6 months and VAS leg at 12 weeks and 6 months (P < 0.034, all). No mean delta PROMs or RRs significantly differed.

DISCUSSION

LLIF demonstrated significantly reduced length of stay, postoperative narcotic consumption, and postoperative nausea/vomiting and significantly improved VAS back at 6 months and VAS leg at 12 weeks and 6 months versus TLIF. Although 2-year PROMs and RRs did not significantly differ, our findings may suggest improved midterm follow-up pain scores for LLIF patients.

Fluoroscopy-based percutaneous posterior screw placement in the lateral position using the tunnel view technique: technical note

PURPOSE

Lumbar fusion using lateral single position surgery (LSPS) gained popularity during the last few years. While prone percutaneous pedicle screw placement is well described, placing percutaneous pedicle screws with the patient in the lateral position is considered the most complicated part of LSPS. In this article we describe the fluoroscopy navigated technique for lateral percutaneous screw placement using the tunnel view technique.

METHODS

The radiologic background and principles of the tunnel view technique are described. In addition, the special positioning of the patient, the C-arm and the surgical technique is discussed in detail.

RESULTS

This technique is used as the standard for percutaneous screw placement in the prone or lateral positions in our department since 2017. Since the introduction of this technique we have had 0% reoperation rate for symptomatic malpositioned pedicle screws.

CONCLUSION

The tunnel view technique simplifies pedicle screw placement while allowing for permanent observation of pedicle walls and the superior joint surface during placement of the Jamshidi needle. It also allows for confirmation of intrapedicular position of the screw after its implantation. This technique is safe and feasible in our clinical experience.

Comparison of Simultaneous Single-Position Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using O-arm Navigated Technique for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

Minimally invasive posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-PLIF/TLIF) are widely accepted procedures for lumbar instability due to degenerative or traumatic diseases. Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is currently receiving considerable attention because of the reductions in damage to the back muscles and neural tissue. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of simultaneous single-position OLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation with MI-PLIF/TLIF. This retrospective comparative study included 98 patients, comprising 63 patients with single-position OLIF (Group SO) and 35 patients with MI-PLIF/TLIF (Group P/T). Cases with more than 1 year of follow-up were included in this study. Mean follow-up was 32.9 ± 7.0 months for Group SO and 33.7 ± 7.5 months for Group P/T. Clinical and radiological evaluations were performed. Comparing Group SO to Group P/T, surgical time and blood loss were 118 versus 172 min (p < 0.01) and 139 versus 374 mL (p < 0.01), respectively. Cage height, change in disk height, and postoperative foraminal height were significantly higher in Group SO than in Group P/T. The fusion rate was 96.8% in Group SO, similar to the 94.2% in Group P/T (p = 0.985). The complication rate was 6.3% in Group SO and 14.1% in Group P/T (p = 0.191). Simultaneous single position O-arm-navigated OLIF reduces the surgical time, blood loss, and time to ambulation after surgery. Good indirect decompression can be achieved with this method.

One surgeon's learning curve with single position lateral lumbar interbody fusion: perioperative outcomes and complications

BACKGROUND

Single position (SP) lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) reduces operative time compared to dual positioning. However, the learning curve has not yet been described. The purpose of this study was to define the learning curve SP LLIF with PPSF.

METHODS

This retrospective case series included the first 161 consecutive patients who underwent SP LLIF and PPSF with the senior author. Primary analysis of operative time versus case number included single level cases without adjacent level procedures. Secondary analyses included 1-3 level cases without adjacent level procedures. Operative time for 2 and 3 level procedures was normalized to single-level cases. The learning curve was assessed with linear regression, which was found to fit the data better than logarithmic regression as judged by R² values and data visualization. Perioperative outcomes as a function of case number were analyzed by least squares linear regression and Mann Whitney U-tests.

RESULTS

For single level surgeries without adjacent procedures (n=87), operative time decreased by a total of 28.7 (95% CI, 9.6, 47.9) minutes over the series (P<0.001). For 1-3 level cases with no adjacent procedures (n=131), normalized operative time decreased by 23.1 (7.6, 38.6) minutes (P<0.001). Post-operative change in hematocrit, length of hospital stay, post-operative change in lordosis, 90-day complications, suboptimal screw placement, and 6-week post-operative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score did not correlate with case number. Intraoperative fluids decreased 3.7 mL (95% CI, 0.7, 6.7) per case (P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

In SP LLIF with PPSF, case number correlated with decreased operative time, but not complications. The surgeon's prior experience with dual position (DP) LLIF likely contributed to the minimal learning curve observed. Surgeons adopting SP LLIF with minimal prior DP LLIF experience may experience a steeper curve.

Initial multi-centre clinical experience with prone transpsoas lateral interbody fusion: Feasibility, perioperative outcomes, and lessons learned

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Applied anatomy and surgical technique of the lateral single-position L5-S1 fusion

The latest development in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) procedure is its application in the lateral position to allow for simultaneous posterior percutaneous screw placement. The technical details of the lateral ALIF technique have not yet been described. To describe the surgical anatomy relevant to the lateral ALIF approach we performed a comprehensive anatomical study. In addition, the preoperative imaging, patient positioning, planning of the skin incision, positioning of the C-arm, surgical approach, and surgical technique are discussed in detail. The technique described led to the successful use of the lateral ALIF technique in our clinical cases. No lateral ALIF procedure needed to be aborted during these cases. Our present work gives detailed anatomical background and technical details for the lateral ALIF approach. This teaching article can provide readers with sufficient technical and anatomical knowledge to assist them in performing their first lateral ALIF procedure.

Single position circumferential fusion improves operative efficiency, reduces complications and length of stay compared with traditional circumferential fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with percutaneous posterior screw fixation are two techniques used to address degenerative lumbar pathologies. Traditionally, these anterior-posterior (AP) surgeries involve repositioning the patient from the supine or lateral decubitus position to prone for posterior fixation. To reduce operative time (OpTime) and subsequent complications of prolonged anesthesia, single-position lumbar surgery (SPLS) is a novel, minimally invasive alternative performed entirely from the lateral decubitus position.

PURPOSE

Assess the perioperative safety and efficacy of single position AP lumbar fusion surgery (SPLS).

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary ALIF and/or LLIF surgery with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 were included over a 4-year period. Patients were classified as either traditional repositioned "Flip" surgery or SPLS. Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, EBL, LOS, perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included LL, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL. All measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at p < .05. Propensity matching was completed where demographic differences were found.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group. Age, gender, BMI, and CCI were similar between groups. Levels fused (1.47 SPLS vs 1.52 Flip, p = .468) and percent cases including L5-S1 (31% SPLS, 35% Flip, p = .405) were similar between cohorts. SPLS significantly reduced OpTime (103 min vs 306 min, p < .001), EBL (97 vs 313 mL, p < .001), LOS (1.71 vs 4.12 days, p < .001), and fluoroscopy radiation dosage (32 vs 88 mGy, p < .001) compared to Flip. Perioperative complications were similar between cohorts with the exception of postoperative ileus, which was significantly lower in the SPLS group (0% vs 5%, p < .001). There was no significant difference in wound, vascular injury, neurological complications, or Venous Thrombotic Event. There was no significant difference found in 90-day return to operating room (OR).

CONCLUSIONS

SPLS improves operative efficiency in addition to reducing blood loss, LOS and ileus in this large cohort study, while maintaining safety.

Prone Transpsoas Technique for Simultaneous Single-Position Access to the Anterior and Posterior Lumbar Spine

BACKGROUND

Effective decompression, arthrodesis, and correction of spinal conditions frequently utilize operative approaches that expose both the anterior and posterior spinal column. Until now, circumferential spinal column access often requires the surgeon to reposition and drape the patient multiple times or utilize a posterior only approach that has limited anterior correction capability or to utilize a lateral-only approach that complicates otherwise traditional posterior surgical maneuvers.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a technique utilizing a single surgical position that enables minimally disruptive anterior column correction with simultaneous access to the posterior spinal column.

METHODS

The operative technique for accessing the lateral lumbar interbody space from a prone transpsoas (PTP) approach is described. The rationale for this approach and a representative case example are reviewed.

RESULTS

The PTP approach was used to perform an L3-4 and L4-5 interbody fusion in a 71-yr-old female with spondylolisthesis, severe stenosis, and locked facets. The PTP approach enabled efficient completion of an anterior column correction, direct posterior decompression, multi-segment pedicle fixation, and maintenance of alignment, all while in a single prone position. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

The authors’ early experience with the described PTP technique suggests it is not only feasible but offers some advantages, as it allows for single-position surgery maximizing both anterior and posterior column access and corrective techniques. Further follow-up studies of this technique are ongoing.

Factors Influencing Early Disc Height Loss Following Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Study Design

Retrospective radiological analysis.

Purpose

To analyze the factors influencing early disc height loss following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

Overview of Literature

Postoperative disc height loss can occur naturally as a result of mechanical loading. This phenomenon is enabled by the yielding of the polyaxial screw heads and settling of the cage to the endplates. When coupled with cage subsidence, there can be significant reduction in the foraminal space which ultimately compromises the indirect decompression achieved by LLIF.

Methods

Seventy-two cage levels in 37 patients aged 62±10.2 years who underwent single or multilevel LLIF for degenerative spinal conditions were selected. Their preoperative and postoperative follow-up radiographs were used to measure the anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), mean disc height (MDH), disc space angle (DSA), and segmental angle. Correlations between the loss of disc height and several factors, including age, construct length, preoperative lordosis, postoperative lordosis, disc height, cage dimensions, and cage position, were analyzed.

Results

We found that the lateral interbody cages significantly increased ADH, PDH, MDH, and DSA after surgery (p <0.0001). However, there was a loss of disc height over time. All postoperative disc height parameters, especially the amount of increase in MDH (r =0.413, p <0.0001) after surgery, showed a significant positive association with early disc height loss. The levels demonstrating a significant (≥25%) height loss were those that exhibited a substantial height increase (128.3%, 4.6±3.0 to 10.5±5.6 mm) postoperatively. However, the levels that showed less than 25% height loss were those that exhibited, on average, only a 57.4% height increase post-operatively.

Conclusions

The greater the postoperative increase in disc height, the greater the disc height loss throughout early follow-up. Therefore, achieving an optimal disc height rather than overcorrection is an important surgical strategy to adopt when performing LLIF.

Simultaneous surgical interventions in spinal surgery: a review of the literature and clinical caso for spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine

The article presents the first clinical case of surgical treatment of a patient with spondylolysis spondylolisthesis using a combination of minimally invasive surgical techniques and simultaneous operation. This intervention has significantly reduced the level of vertebral pain syndrome, improve the functional status in the postoperative period, effectively eliminate pathological mobility, provide early activation, to carry out a full rehabilitation in the shortest possible time and can be an operation of choice in patients with lumbar spondylolysis spondylolisthesis. Conflict of interest: the authors state no conflict ofinterest Funding: the study was performed with no extermal funding

The impact of adding posterior instrumentation to transpsoas lateral fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVETranspsoas lateral interbody fusion is one of the lateral minimally invasive approaches for lumbar spine surgery. Most surgeons insert the interbody cage laterally and then insert pedicle or cortical screw and rod instrumentation posteriorly. However, standalone cages have also been used to avoid posterior instrumentation. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the literature on comparison of the two approaches is sparse.METHODSThe authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature on transpsoas lateral interbody fusion by an electronic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases using PRISMA guidelines. They compared patients undergoing transpsoas standalone fusion (TP) with those undergoing transpsoas fusion with posterior instrumentation (TPP).RESULTSA total of 28 studies with 1462 patients were included. Three hundred and seventy-four patients underwent TPP, and 956 patients underwent TP. The mean patient age ranged from 45.7 to 68 years in the TP group, and 50 to 67.7 years in the TPP group. The incidence of reoperation was found to be higher for TP (0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.11) compared to TPP (0.03, 95% CI 0.01-0.06; p = 0.057). Similarly, the incidence of cage movement was found to be greater in TP (0.18, 95% CI 0.10-0.26) compared to TPP (0.03, 95% CI 0.00-0.05; p < 0.001). Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores and postoperative transient deficits were found to be comparable between the two groups.CONCLUSIONSThese results appear to suggest that addition of posterior instrumentation to transpsoas fusion is associated with decreased reoperations and cage movements. The results of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be reevaluated in light of these results, which seem to suggest that higher reoperation and subsidence rates may be due to the use of the standalone technique.