Radiographic Results of Minimally Invasive (MIS) Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LIF) Compared with Conventional Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Postoperative spinal alignment comparison of lateral versus supine patient position L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion

PURPOSE

Over the past decade, alternative patient positions for the treatment of the anterior lumbar spine have been explored in an effort to maximize the benefits of direct anterior column access while minimizing the inefficiencies of single or multiple intraoperative patient repositionings. The lateral technique allows for access from L1 to L5 through a retroperitoneal, muscle-splitting, transpsoas approach with placement of a large intervertebral spacer than can reliably improve segmental lordosis, though its inability to be used at L5-S1 limits its overall adoption, as L5-S1 is one of the most common levels treated and where high levels of lordosis are optimal. Recent developments in instrumentation and techniques for lateral-position treatment of the L5-S1 level with a modified anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) approach have expanded the lateral position to L5-S1, though the positional effect on L5-S1 lordosis is heretofore unreported. The purpose of this study was to compare local and regional alignment differences between ALIFs performed with the patient in the lateral (L-ALIF) versus supine position (S-ALIF).

METHODS

Retrospective, multi-center data and radiographs were collected from 476 consecutive patients who underwent L5-S1 L-ALIF (n = 316) or S-ALIF (n = 160) for degenerative lumbar conditions. Patients treated at L4-5 and above with other single-position interbody fusion and posterior fixation techniques were included in the analysis. Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the groups, though L-ALIF patients were slightly older (58 vs. 54 years), with a greater preoperative mean L5-S1 disk height (7.8 vs. 5.8 mm), and with less preoperative slip (6.6 vs. 8.5 mm), respectively. 262 patients were treated with only L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 while the remaining 214 patients were treated with either L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 along with fusions at other thoracolumbar levels. Lumbar lordosis (LL), L5-S1 segmental lordosis, L5-S1 disk space height, and slip reduction in L5-S1 spondylolisthesis were measured on preoperative and postoperative lateral X-ray images. LL was only compared between single-level ALIFs, given the variability of other procedures performed at the levels above L5-S1.

RESULTS

Mean pre- to postoperative L5-S1 segmental lordosis improved 39% (6.6°) and 31% (4.9°) in the L-ALIF and S-ALIF groups, respectively (p = 0.063). Mean L5-S1 disk height increased by 6.5 mm (89%) in the L-ALIF and 6.4 mm (110%) in the S-ALIF cohorts, (p = 0.650). Spondylolisthesis, in those patients with a preoperative slip, average reduction in the L-ALIF group was 1.5 mm and 2.2 mm in the S-ALIF group (p = 0.175). In patients treated only at L5-S1 with ALIF, mean segmental alignment improved significantly more in the L-ALIF compared to the S-ALIF cohort (7.8 vs. 5.4°, p = 0.035), while lumbar lordosis increased 4.1° and 3.6° in the respective groups (p = 0.648).

CONCLUSION

Use of the lateral patient position for L5-S1 ALIF, compared to traditional supine L5-S1 ALIF, resulted in at least equivalent alignment and radiographic outcomes, with significantly greater improvement in segmental lordosis in patients treated only at L5-S1. These data, from the largest lateral ALIF dataset reported to date, suggest that-radiographically-the lateral patient position can be considered as an alternative to traditional ALIF positional techniques.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable articulating interbody spacers significantly improves radiographic outcomes compared to static interbody spacers

Background

The goal of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI TLIF) is to restore and maintain disc height and lordosis until arthrodesis occurs, while minimizing muscle disruption and improving recovery time. The purpose of this study was to compare the radiographic outcomes in patients treated with an articulating expandable spacer in MI TLIF to more traditional static spacers.

Methods

This was a multi-site, multi-surgeon, Institutional Review Board-exempt, retrospective clinical study from a prospectively collected database. It included 48 patients with a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease (DDD) at one level from L2 to S1 with or without Grade 1 spondylolisthesis who underwent MI TLIF using either an articulating expandable or static interbody spacer. Twenty-seven patients were in the banana-shaped articulating expandable interbody spacer (ALTERA^®, Globus Medical, Inc., Audubon, PA, USA) group, while 21 patients were in the static interbody spacer group. Both groups had supplemental posterior pedicle screw and rod fixation. Radiographic records were assessed for disc height, neuroforaminal height, and lordosis at baseline, 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up.

Results

The articulating expandable spacer group displayed significantly greater improvement in anterior disc height from baseline compared to the static spacer group at 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up by averages of 2.6 mm (79%), 2.8 mm (92%), 3.4 mm (105%), and 3.8 mm (139%), respectively (P<0.05). Mean increases in posterior disc height were significantly greater in the expandable group compared to the static group by 1.2 mm (65%) and 1.7 mm (104%) at 6 months and final follow-up, respectively (P<0.05). Articulating expandable spacers produced significantly greater average improvement by 4.0 mm in neuroforaminal height from baseline to final follow-up compared to static spacers (P<0.05). Increases in intervertebral angle from baseline were significantly greater in the expandable group than in the static group at 3 and 6 months, and final follow-up by averages of 2.5°, 2.8°, and 3.1°, respectively (P<0.05). The articulating expandable spacer group resulted in significantly greater improvements in lumbar lordosis from baseline to 3 and 6 months than the static spacer group by 4.4° and 4.0°, respectively (P<0.05).

Conclusions

MI TLIF with articulating expandable interbody spacers provides significant restoration and maintenance of disc height, neuroforaminal height, and lordosis compared to static spacers in this comparative cohort. Long-term clinical outcomes are needed to correlate with these radiographic improvements.

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

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective case series.

PATIENT SAMPLE

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

OUTCOME MEASURES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Distinct fusion intersegmental parameters regarding local sagittal balance provide similar clinical outcomes: a comparative study of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Background

Most contemporary studies suggested that intersegmental parameters including disc height and local lordosis contribute to the sagittal balance of fused lumbar. Although similar clinical outcomes following MIS- and Open-TLIF were reported essentially at the early postoperative time, the comparison of local balance variables after these two different techniques was lack. The radiological differences maybe not relevant to the postoperative efficacy at an earlier post-operation stage. But during the long-term follow-up, the complications with regards to the sagittal imbalance might occur due to the distinct biomechanical properties of fusion level after MIS- and Open-TLIF.

Methods

The patients who underwent a single-level MIS- and Open-TLIF were reviewed retrospectively. The anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), and segmental lordosis (SL) of the fusion segment were measured using recognition technical fluoroscopy. The mean disc height (MDH) was calculated by (ADH + PDH)/2. The relative DH was normalized by the anterior height of the upper vertebrae. The body mass index (BMI), the pain score of low back and leg visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI), estimated blood loss, and hospital stay length was collected.

Results

A total of 88 patients undergoing a single-level TLIF (MIS and Open) were included. The pre- and post-operative ADH, PDH, MDH, and SL of MIS-TLIF group were 1.57 ± 0.33 cm, 0.79 ± 0.20 cm, 1.18 ± 0.21 cm, 7.36 ± 3.07 and 1.63 ± 0.30 cm, 1.02 ± 0.28 cm, 1.32 ± 0.24 cm, 10.24 ± 4.79 respectively. Whereas, the pre- and post-operative ADH, PDH, MDH, and SL of Open-TLIF group were 1.61 ± 0.40 cm, 0.77 ± 0.21 cm, 1.19 ± 0.24 cm, 9.05 ± 5.48 and 1.81 ± 0.33 cm, 0.98 ± 0.24 cm, 1.39 ± 0.24 cm, 12.34 ± 4,74 respectively. MIS- and Open-TLIF group showed no significant differences in low back VAS, leg VAS, and ODI both in pre-operation and post-operation (P > 0.05). The estimated blood loss and hospital stay length in the MIS-TLIF group were significantly lower than those in the Open-TLIF group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

MIS- and Open-TLIF provided similar clinical outcomes as the respect of low back VAS, leg VAS, and ODI. MIS-TLIF significantly reduced the blood loss and length of hospital stay though. The intervertebral parameters of DH and SL were both increased significantly, Open-TLIF group presented better sagittal balance in term of ADH and SL variables. The contrast investigation of intersegmental parameters may help the surgeons to figure out the further advantages of MIS-TLIF technique, and then better manage the rehabilitation and prevent the reoperation.

[Comparison of intervertebral height and lordosis of fusion segment between open- and minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the restoration of intervertebral height and lordosis of fusion segment after open-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (Open-TLIF) and minimally invasive-TLIF (MIS-TLIF).

METHODS

Between January 2013 and February 2016, patients who treated with TLIF due to lumbar degenerative diseases and met the selection criteria were selected as the study objects. Among them, 41 patients were treated with open-TLIF (Open-TLIF group), 34 patients were treated with MIS-TLIF (MIS-TLIF group). There was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05) in gender, age, body mass index, disease type, disease duration, pathological segment, and other general data. The intraoperative bleeding volume, hospital stay, visual analogue scale (VAS) score of waist and leg, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were recorded before and after operation. The anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (ADH), and segmental lordosis (SL) of fusion segment were measured by X-ray film before and at 6 months after operation. The differences of ADH, PDH, and SL between pre- and post-operation were calculated.

RESULTS

The intraoperative bleeding volume and hospital stay in Open-TLIF group were significantly higher than those in MIS-TLIF group ( t=14.619, P=0.000; t=10.021, P=0.000). All incisions healed by first intention without early complications. All patients were followed up 6-24 months (mean, 12.6 months) in Open-TLIF group and 6-24 months (mean, 11.5 months) in MIS-TLIF group. The preoperative VAS scores of waist and leg and ODI of the two groups significantly improved ( P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS scores and ODI between the two groups before operation and at 2 weeks and 6 months after operation ( P>0.05). Imaging examination showed the good intervertebral fusion. There was no significant difference in ADH, PDH, and SL between the two groups before operation and at 6 months after operation ( P>0.05). The differences of ADH, PDH, and SL between the two groups were not significant ( P>0.05). The ADH, PDH, and SL after operation significantly increased in the two groups ( P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Open-TLIF and MIS-TLIF show similar effectiveness and radiological change in the treatment of single lumbar degenerative diseases and the improved intervertebral height and lordosis, but MIS-TLIF can significantly reduce hospital stay and intraoperative blood loss.

Defining the MIS-TLIF: A Systematic Review of Techniques and Technologies Used by Surgeons Worldwide

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To date there is no consensus among surgeons as to what defines an MIS-TLIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using minimally invasive spine surgery) compared to an open or mini-open TLIF. This systematic review aimed to examine the MIS-TLIF techniques reported in the recent body of literature to help provide a definition of what constitutes the MIS-TLIF, based on the consensus of the majority of surgeons.

METHODS

We created a database of articles published about MIS-TLIF between 2010 and 2018. We evaluated the technical components of the MIS-TLIF including instruments and incisions used as well the order in which key steps are performed.

RESULTS

We could identify several patterns for MIS-TLIF performance that seemed agreed upon by the majority of MIS surgeons: use of paramedian incisions; use of a tubular retractor to perform a total facetectomy, decompression, and interbody cage implantation; and percutaneous insertion of the pedicle-screw rod constructs with intraoperative imaging.

CONCLUSION

Based on this review of the literature, the key features used by surgeons performing MIS TLIF include the use of nonexpandable or expandable tubular retractors, a paramedian or lateral incision, and the use of a microscope or endoscope for visualization. Approaches using expandable nontubular retractors, those that require extensive subperiosteal dissection from the midline laterally, or specular-based retractors with wide pedicle to pedicle exposure are far less likely to be promoted as an MIS-based approach. A definition is necessary to improve the communication among spine surgeons in research as well as patient education.

Influence of contoured versus straight rod on clinical outcomes and sagittal parameters in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) at L4/5 level-more than 5 years follow-up

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is among the most commonly performed surgical procedure to treat lumbar degenerative disorders. In open TLIF procedure, usually rods were contoured to restore normal lumbar sagittal alignment. However, in MIS-TLIF procedure, contoured rods sometimes were easier to rotate and harder to be locked at the satisfactory position due to instrumentation design and limited exposure. Thus, straight rods had been used in single-level MIS-TLIF in our institution. However, the effect of rod contouring on sagittal parameters and clinical outcomes remains unclear. In the present study, we aim to evaluate the effects of single-segment MIS-TLIF with contoured versus straight rods on sagittal parameters and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective review of MIS-TLIF at L4/5 was performed between 2009 and 2013 in our hospital. Seventy-six cases were divided into contoured rod group (CR group, n = 35) and straight rod group (SR group, n = 41). Clinical outcomes and radiographic measurements at five years' follow-up were evaluated by visual analog score (VAS), Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, spino-pelvic parameters, disc height and fused segment angle. Fusion rate and cage subsidence were also measured.

RESULTS

Preoperative VAS, JOA, ODI and radiographic parameters were comparable between two groups. The average follow-up was 63.72 ± 3.86 months. VAS, JOA and ODI were significantly improved at 5-year follow-up in both groups, and there were no significant differences between two groups(P > 0.05). Fused segment angle (FSA) was greater in CR group than SR group (P = 0.024), while the other radiographic parameters were not significantly different(P > 0.05). Rod process, fusion rate and cage subsidence were not risk factors of post-surgical malalignment, patients with pre-surgical sagittal imbalance was more prone to show post-surgical malalignment (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both CR and SR groups acquired satisfactory clinical results. Although contoured rods had better fused segment angle, contoured or straight rods at single L4/5 level had little effect on global spino-pelvic parameters and clinical outcomes in a 5-year follow-up.

Dynamic Posture-Related Preoperative Pain as a Single Clinical Criterion in Patient Selection for Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion Without Direct Decompression

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

Evidence on predicting the success of indirect decompression via extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) is scarce. The authors investigated if patients who could achieve a pain-free position preoperatively would derive clinical benefit from XLIF without direct decompression.

METHODS

Data from 50 consecutive patients who underwent XLIF with and without direct decompression by a single surgeon from January 2014 to August 2017 was collected. Primary outcome is the rate of failure of patients who underwent XLIF without direct decompression, characterized by persistence of pain postoperatively that required reoperations within 6 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes are clinical outcomes and patient-reported quality of life outcome data, including visual analogue scale for leg (VASL) and back (VASB) pain, Oswetry Disability Index (ODI), and Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) of SF-12, for up to 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

One patient with preoperative dynamic posture-related pain who underwent XLIF without direct decompression subsequently had a reoperation due to persisting pain. Statistically significant improvement was achieved across all patient reported outcomes (P < .05): improvement of 68% for VASL, 61% for VASB, 50% for ODI, 33% for PCS, and 11% for MCS of SF-12 at last follow-up. Six patients had thigh symptoms that resolved.

CONCLUSION

The simple clinical criterion based on postural pain status preoperatively may help clinicians in patient selection for indirect decompression of XLIF without the need for direct decompression. Further studies with larger cohorts are warranted to establish the validity of the algorithm.

Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion With an Expandable Meshed Allograft Containment Device: Analysis of Subsidence With 12-Month Minimum Follow-Up

Background

We have previously reported the use of a minimally invasive allograft-filled expandable meshed-bag containment system in the lumbar spine. Subsidence has not been reported with this device. In this retrospective case series, we describe subsidence after lumbar interbody fusion using this device, with 12-month minimum radiographic follow-up.

Methods

Consecutive adult patients that underwent 1- or 2-level interbody fusion with at least 1 year of follow-up were included in this study. Preoperative, postoperative, and final follow-up lumbar radiographs were analyzed to measure disc height at the anterior and posterior margins of the disc space, as well as the neuroforaminal height.

Results

Forty-one patients were identified, with a mean age of 63.4 years (± 11.8). A total of 61 levels were treated, with successful fusion observed in 54 levels (88.5%). The mean radiographic follow-up was 24.3 months (± 11.2). The mean disc height pre- and postoperatively was 6.9 mm (± 3.2) and 10.1 mm (± 2.9, P < .001), respectively. The mean disc height at final follow-up was 8.3 mm (± 2.4). Average disc height subsidence was 1.8 mm (± 1.7, P < .001). Overall, average disc height increased by a net 1.3 mm (± 2.5, P < .001). The mean neuroforaminal height pre- and postoperatively was 18.0 mm (± 3.3) and 20.7 mm (± 3.6, P < .001), respectively. The mean neuroforaminal height at final follow-up was 19.2 mm (± 3.4). Average neuroforaminal height subsidence was 1.3 mm (± 3.4, P = .012). Overall, average neuroforaminal height increased by a net 1.7 mm (± 2.8, P = .004). No significant difference in subsidence was observed between 1- and 2-level surgeries.

Conclusion

An expandable allograft containment system is a feasible alternative for lumbar interbody fusion. Due to its biologic and mechanical nature, the surgeon using such constructs should account for an anticipated average of 18% loss of interbody height due to subsidence during the bony remodeling/fusion process.

Retrospective Review of Immediate Restoration of Lordosis in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of Static and Expandable Interbody Cages

BACKGROUND

Sagittal alignment is an important consideration in spine surgery. The literature is conflicted regarding the effect of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) on sagittal parameters and the role of expandable cage technology.

OBJECTIVE

To compare lordosis generated by static and expandable cages and to determine what factors affect postoperative sagittal parameters.

METHODS

Preoperative regional lordosis (RL), segmental lordosis (SL), and posterior disc height (PDH) were compared to postoperative values in single-level MI-TLIF performed using expandable or static cages. Patients were stratified based on preoperative SL: low lordosis (&lt;15 degrees), moderate lordosis (15-25 degrees), and high lordosis (&gt;25 degrees). Regression analyses were conducted to determine factors associated with postoperative SL and PDH.

RESULTS

Of the 171 patients included, 111 were in the static and 60 in the expandable cohorts. Patients with low preoperative lordosis experienced an increase in SL and maintained RL regardless of cage type. Those with moderate to high preoperative lordosis experienced a decrease in SL and RL with the static cage, but maintained SL and RL with the expandable cage. Although both cohorts showed an increase in PDH, the increase in the expandable cohort was greater. Preoperative SL was predictive of postoperative SL; preoperative SL, preoperative PDH, and cage type were predictive of postoperative PDH.

CONCLUSION

Expandable cages showed favorable results in restoring disc height and maintaining lordosis in the immediate postoperative period. Preoperative SL was the most significant predictor of postoperative SL. Thus, preoperative radiographic parameters and goals of surgery should be important considerations in surgical planning.

Complication avoidance in minimally invasive spinal surgery

Minimally invasive techniques in spinal surgery allow surgeons to perform operations with less of the approach-related morbidity inherent to traditional open procedures. Yet these muscle-sparing procedures come with a unique set of risks that stem from the novel approaches, limited exposure, and/or a restricted working corridor that they employ. The literature suggests that these operations can be performed without an increased rate of complication once the associated learning curve has been surmounted, suggesting that knowledge of and experience with the nuances of these procedures are essential for patient safety. The present article describes the complications specific to a variety of minimally invasive spinal surgeries and provides guidance on how to avoid them.

Restoration of lumbar lordosis after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a well-accepted surgical technique for the treatment of degenerative spinal conditions and spinal deformity. The TLIF procedure can be performed open or using minimally invasive techniques. While several studies have found that minimally invasive TLIF (MI-TLIF) has advantages over open TLIF procedures with less blood loss, postoperative pain and hospital length of stay, opponents of the minimally invasive technique cite the lack of restoration of lumbar lordosis as a major drawback. With the increasing awareness of restoring sagittal alignment parameters in degenerative and deformity procedures, surgeons should understand the capabilities of different procedures to achieve surgical goals. To our knowledge, few studies have specifically studied the radiographic restoration of lumbar lordosis after MI-TLIF procedures. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature describing the sagittal lumbar radiographic parameter changes after MI-TLIF.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, systematic review was performed. With the assistance of a medical librarian, a highly-sensitive search strategy formulated on 1/19/2018 utilized the following search terms: "minimally invasive procedures," "transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion," "lumbar interbody fusion," "diagnostic imaging," "radiographs," "radiography," "x-rays," "lordosis," "lumbar vertebrae," "treatment," "outcome," and "lumbosacral" using Boolean operators 'AND' and 'OR'. Three databases were searched (PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library). An online system (www.covidence.org) was used to standardize article review. All studies were independently analyzed by two investigators and discrepancies mitigated by a third reviewer. Study selection for each cycle was Yes/No/Maybe. Cycles were: (1) (Title/Abstract); (2) (Full Text); (3) (Extraction). Inclusion criteria were: (1) All study designs, (2) MI-TLIF procedures, (3) Reporting total lumbar lordosis (LL) and/or segmental lordosis (SL) pre- and postoperatively. Exclusion criteria were: (1) non MI-TLIF procedures (ALIF, XLIF, LLIF, conventional TLIF, OLIF), (2) No reported LL or SL.

RESULTS

The search yielded 4,036 results with 836 duplicates leaving 3,200 studies for review. Cycle 1 eliminated 3,153 studies as irrelevant, thus, 47 were eligible for full-text review. Cycle 2 excluded 31 studies for No English full text (9), Oral/Poster (8), Wrong intervention/outcome (10), Duplicate listing (2), Full text not available (1), Literature review (1) resulting in 16 included studies. Study designs were: Randomized-controlled trial (3), Case series (6) and Retrospective (7). Mean # of subjects were 32.0 (range 8-95). Weighted-mean LL was 39.6°±9.2 (range 28-57) and postoperative LL was 45.0°±7.4 (range 36-67) with a LL post-pre difference of 5.2°±5.9 (range -7 to 15). Weighted-mean preoperative SL was 12.7°±4.3 (range 5-21) and postoperative SL was 15.0°±4.5 (range 5-22) with a SL post-pre difference of 2.1°±1.7 (range 0-8).

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature on MI-TLIF and restoration of LL/SL is limited to 16 published studies, 44% of which are retrospective. The published evidence supporting LL and SL restoration with MI-TLIF is sparse with variable results. This systematic review demonstrates the need for future high-level studies to fully elucidate the capabilities of MI-TLIF procedures for restoring lumbar and segmental lordosis.

The Effects of Bone Microstructure on Subsidence Risk for ALIF, LLIF, PLIF, and TLIF Spine Cages

Several approaches (anterior, posterior, lateral, and transforaminal) are used in lumbar fusion surgery. However, it is unclear whether one of these approaches has the greatest subsidence risk as published clinical rates of cage subsidence vary widely (7–70%). Specifically, there is limited data on how a patient's endplate morphometry and trabecular bone quality influences cage subsidence risk. Therefore, this study compared subsidence (stiffness, maximum force, and work) between anterior (ALIF), lateral (LLIF), posterior (PLIF), and transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion cage designs to understand the impact of endplate and trabecular bone quality on subsidence. Forty-eight lumbar vertebrae were imaged with micro-ct to assess trabecular microarchitecture. micro-ct images of each vertebra were then imported into image processing software to measure endplate thickness (ET) and maximum endplate concavity depth (ECD). Generic ALIF, LLIF, PLIF, and TLIF cages made of polyether ether ketone were implanted on the superior endplates of all vertebrae and subsidence testing was performed. The results indicated that TLIF cages had significantly lower (p < 0.01) subsidence stiffness and maximum subsidence force compared to ALIF and LLIF cages. For all cage groups, trabecular bone volume fraction was better correlated with maximum subsidence force compared to ET and concavity depth. These findings highlight the importance of cage design (e.g., surface area), placement on the endplate, and trabecular bone quality on subsidence. These results may help surgeons during cage selection for lumbar fusion procedures to mitigate adverse events such as cage subsidence.

Subsidence Rates After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The evidence regarding the consequences of subsidence with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has been sparse. The objective of this study is to calculate the incidence of subsidence and reoperation for subsidence after LLIF. A secondary outcome examined the quantitative degree of subsidence by calculating the percent change in the height of the intervertebral space secondary to interbody subsidence at various postoperative follow-up times.

METHODS

Following the MOOSE (Meta-analysis [and Systematic Review] Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines, a systematic review searched for all cohort studies that focused on subsidence rates after LLIF, including extreme lateral interbody fusions (XLIFs) and direct lateral interbody fusion. Neoplastic, infectious, and/or metabolic indications for LLIF were similarly excluded because these diseases may compromise bone quality and, thus, confound the rate of cage subsidence. Corpectomies were removed from the systematic review because 1) indications for removal of vertebral body typically reflect those excluded diseases and 2) subsidence refers to a different biomechanical process.

RESULTS

This systematic review identified a subsidence incidence with LLIF of 10.3% (N = 141/1362 patients in 14 articles) and reoperation rate for subsidence of 2.7% (N = 41/1470 patients in 16 articles). In the secondary outcome measure, the disc height decreased from 5.6% after 3 months, 6.0% after 6 months, and 10.2% after 12 months, to 8.9% after 24 months (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Subsidence after LLIF carries a nonnegligible risk that may be incorporated in surgical consent discussions in selected patients.

Biomechanics of L5/S1 in Long Thoracolumbosacral Constructs: A Cadaveric Study

STUDY DESIGN

In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVES

Despite numerous techniques employed to establish solid lumbosacral fixation, there are little biomechanical data correlating fixation methods at L5/S1 to thoracolumbosacral (TLS) construct length. We aimed to determine the optimal construct with the hypothesis that under physiological loads, lumbosacral constructs can be stabilized by L5/S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) alone, without iliac screw fixation (ISF), and that TLS constructs would require ISF, with or without ALIF.

METHODS

By using a robot capable of motion in 6 axes, force-moment sensor, motion-tracking camera system and software, we simulated the spinal loading effects in flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending, and compared torques in different construct groups of T4-S1, T10-S1, and L2-S1. By conducting multidirectional flexibility testing we assessed the effects of constructs of various lengths on the L5/S1 segment.

RESULTS

L2-S1 constructs may be equivalently stabilized by L5/S1 ALIF alone without ISF. Longer TLS constructs exerted increasing motion at L5/S1, exhibiting trends in favor of ISF when extending to T10 and statistically improved fixation when extending to T4. Lastly, TLS constructs with ISF exhibited a statistically significant reduction in L5-S1 range of motion from the addition of ALIF when extending to T4-pelvis but not T10-pelvis.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that ALIF alone may sufficiently support the L2-S1 construct, reducing L5/S1 range of motion and transmitting loads instead to the sacropelvis. Furthermore, ALIF was found to add significant stability to the T4-pelvis construct when added to ISF. This difference was not significant for the T10-pelvis construct.

Spinal Biologics in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Surgery

As the use of minimally invasive spine (MIS) fusion approaches continues to grow, increased scrutiny is being placed on its outcomes and efficacies against traditional open fusion surgeries. While there are many factors that contribute to the success of achieving spinal arthrodesis, selecting the optimal fusion biologic remains a top priority. With an ever-expanding market of bone graft substitutes, it is important to evaluate each of their use as it pertains to MIS techniques. This review will summarize the important characteristics and properties of various spinal biologics used in minimally invasive lumbar surgeries and compare their fusion rates via a systematic review of published literature.