Single position versus lateral-then-prone positioning for lateral interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation

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.

Biomechanical Comparison of Unilateral and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation after Multilevel Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Human Cadaveric Biomechanical Study.

OBJECTIVES

Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion (LLIF) utilizing a wide cage has been reported as having favorable biomechanical characteristics. We examine the biomechanical stability of unilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation after multilevel LLIF utilizing 26 mm wide cages compared to bilateral fixation.

METHODS

Eight human cadaveric specimens of L1-L5 were included. Specimens were attached to a universal testing machine (MTS 30/G). Three-dimensional specimen range of motion (ROM) was recorded using an optical motion-tracking device. Specimens were tested in 3 conditions: 1) intact, 2) L1-L5 LLIF (4 levels) with unilateral rod, 3) L1-L5 LLIF with bilateral rods.

RESULTS

From the intact condition, LLIF with unilateral rod decreased flexion-extension by 77%, lateral bending by 53%, and axial rotation by 26%. In LLIF with bilateral rods, flexion-extension decreased by 83%, lateral bending by 64%, and axial rotation by 34%. Comparing unilateral and bilateral fixation, LLIF with bilateral rods reduced ROM by a further 23% in flexion-extension, 25% in lateral bending, and 11% in axial rotation. The difference was statistically significant in flexion-extension and lateral bending (P < .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable decreases in ROM were observed after multilevel (4-level) LLIF utilizing 26 mm cages supplemented with both unilateral and bilateral pedicle screws and rods. The addition of bilateral fixation provides a 10-25% additional decrease in ROM. These results can inform surgeons of the incremental biomechanical benefit when considering unilateral or bilateral posterior fixation after multilevel LLIF.

Early Experience with Prone Lateral Interbody Fusion in Deformity Correction: A Single-Institution Experience

Background/Objectives: Lateral spine surgery offers effective minimally invasive deformity correction, but traditional approaches often involve separate anterior, lateral, and posterior procedures. The prone lateral technique streamlines this process by allowing single-position access for lateral and posterior surgery, potentially benefiting from the lordosing effect of prone positioning. While previous studies have compared prone lateral to direct lateral for adult degenerative diseases, this retrospective review focuses on the outcomes of adult deformity patients undergoing prone lateral interbody fusion. Methods: Ten adult patients underwent single-position prone lateral surgery for spine deformity correction, with a mean follow-up of 18 months. Results: Results showed significant improvements: sagittal vertical axis decreased by 2.4 cm, lumbar lordosis increased by 9.1°, pelvic tilt improved by 3.3°, segmental lordosis across the fusion construct increased by 12.2°, and coronal Cobb angle improved by 6.3°. These benefits remained consistent over the follow-up period. Correlational analysis showed a positive association between improvements in PROs and SVA and SL. When compared to hybrid approaches, prone lateral yielded greater improvements in SVA. Conclusions: Prone lateral surgery demonstrated favorable outcomes with reasonable perioperative risks. However, further research comparing this technique with standard minimally invasive lateral approaches, hybrid, and open approaches is warranted for a comprehensive evaluation.

Single position, prone oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF)-case illustration and technical considerations

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a powerful method to treat various spinal conditions and is frequently combined with posterior instrumentation. This is traditionally performed in dual positions, with the patient first in lateral then turned prone. Single position lateral surgery (SPS-L) has been studied in a bid to improve surgical efficiency and reduce operative costs, but various limitations have been identified. More recently, the single position prone surgery (SPS-P) has been described as an alternative to address some of these limitations. This case illustrates a patient who underwent SPS-P using an OLIF corridor with subsequent posterior decompression and instrumentation. The benefits and limitations of this procedure compared to the conventional techniques are highlighted in this case. We present the case of a 75-year-old female presenting with thoracic myelopathy over T11/12 and concurrent L2-4 spinal stenosis. She underwent OLIF of L2/3 and L3/4, posterior decompression of T11/12 and L2/3, and posterior instrumented fusion from T10-L4 via a single prone position. We aim to describe the advantages of this approach and the challenges encountered through our experience. SPS-P offers numerous benefits compared to the already powerful SPS-L. In the upper levels of the lumbar spine, a pre-psoas approach may also be feasible. However, the prone lateral technique does not replace all patients suited for a lateral interbody fusion but should be seen as a viable option for selected cases such as those with previous fusion at the L5/S1 with adjacent degeneration requiring extension and posterior fixation.

Does Flipping From Prone to Supine for Medial Malleolar Fixation of Trimalleolar Ankle Fractures Improve Results?

There has been a paradigm shift towards fixing the posterior malleolus in trimalleolar ankle fractures. This study evaluated whether a surgeon's preference to intraoperatively flip or not flip patients from prone to supine for medial malleolar fixation following repair of fibular and posterior malleoli impacted surgical outcomes. A retrospective patient cohort treated at a large urban academic center and level 1 trauma center was reviewed to identify all operative trimalleolar ankle fractures initially positioned prone. One hundred and forty-seven patients with mean 12-month follow-up were included and divided based on positioning for medial malleolar fixation, prone or supine (following closure, flip and re-prep, and drape). Data was collected on patient demographics, injury mechanism, perioperative variables, and complication rates. Postoperative reduction films were reviewed by orthopedic traumatologists to grade the accuracy of anatomic fracture reduction. Overall, 74 (50.3%) had the medial malleolus fixed prone, while 73 (49.7%) were flipped and fixed supine. No differences in demographics, injury details, and fracture type existed between the groups. The supine group had a higher rate of initial external fixation (p = .047), longer operative time in minutes (p < .001), and a higher use of plate and screw constructs for medial malleolar fixation (p = .019). There were no differences in clinical and radiographic outcomes and complication rates. This study demonstrated that intraoperative change in positioning for improved medial malleolar visualization in trimalleolar ankle fractures results in longer operative times but similar radiographic and clinical results. The decision of operative position should be based on surgeon comfort.

Advancing Prone-Transpsoas Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review and Evolution of Indications with Representative Cases

The Prone Transpsoas (PTP) approach to lumbar spine surgery, emerging as an evolution of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), offers significant advantages over traditional methods. PTP has demonstrated increased lumbar lordosis gains compared to LLIF, owing to the natural increase in lordosis afforded by prone positioning. Additionally, the prone position offers anatomical advantages, with shifts in the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus, reducing the likelihood of postoperative femoral plexopathy and moving critical peritoneal contents away from the approach. Furthermore, operative efficiency is a notable benefit of PTP. By eliminating the need for intraoperative position changes, PTP reduces surgical time, which in turn decreases the risk of complications and operative costs. Finally, its versatility extends to various lumbar pathologies, including degeneration, adjacent segment disease, and deformities. The growing body of evidence indicates that PTP is at least as safe as traditional approaches, with a potentially better complication profile. In this narrative review, we review the historical evolution of lateral interbody fusion, culminating in the prone transpsoas approach. We also describe several adjuncts of PTP, including robotics and radiation-reduction methods. Finally, we illustrate the versatility of PTP and its uses, ranging from 'simple' degenerative cases to complex deformity surgeries.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Following Prone Lateral Single-Position Approach to Same-Day Circumferential Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate surgical characteristics and postoperative 2-year results of the PL approach to spinal fusion.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Prone-lateral(PL) single positioning has recently gained popularity in spine surgery due to lower blood loss and operative time but has yet to be examined for other notable outcomes, including realignment and patient-reported measures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included circumferential spine fusion patients with a minimum one-year follow-up. Patients were stratified into groups based on undergoing PL approach versus same-day staged (Staged). Mean comparison tests identified differences in baseline parameters. Multivariable logistic regression, controlling for age, levels fused, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were used to determine the influence of the approach on complication rates, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes up to two years.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-two patients were included of which 72(59%) were same-day staged and 50(41%) were PL. PL patients were older with lower body mass index (both P <0.05). Patients undergoing PL procedures had lower estimated blood loss and operative time (both P <0.001), along with fewer osteotomies (63% vs. 91%, P <0.001). This translated to a shorter length of stay (3.8 d vs. 4.9, P =0.041). PL procedures demonstrated better correction in both PT (4.0 vs. -0.2, P =0.033 and pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis (-3.7 vs. 3.1, P =0.012). PL procedures were more likely to improve in GAP relative pelvic version (OR: 2.3, [1.5-8.8]; P =0.003]. PL patients suffered lesser complications during the perioperative period and greater improvement in NRS-Back (-6.0 vs. -3.3, P =0.031), with less reoperations (0.0% vs. 4.8%, P =0.040) by two years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing PL single-position procedures received less invasive procedures with better correction of pelvic compensation, as well as earlier discharge. The prone lateral cohort also demonstrated greater clinical improvement and a lower rate of reoperations by two years following spinal corrective surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level-III.

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.

Comparison of standard and modified prone positioning for lateral lumbar spine fusion: a feasibility study to reduce lumbar plexus injury

Single-prone-lateral (PL) positioning is a new technique that allows for simultaneous anterior and posterior lumbar spine surgery. However, there is a concern regarding the risk of lumbar plexus injury in PL positioning. This study compared the risk of lumbar plexus damage and the overall safety profile of a modified PL (mPL) position to the standard PL (sPL) position for lateral lumbar spine fusion surgery. A crossover soft cadaveric study was conducted with two raters examining the comparative outcomes of position A: sPL and position B: mPL. The mPL position differs from the sPL position in that the ipsilateral arm is placed at the side of the body rather than above the head. To assess positive results (no lumbar plexus injury) between positions A and B, a mixed effects logistic regression model was utilized. The odds ratio of a good result between positions B and A was also determined. The odds ratio of the favorable outcome between position B and A was 1.77, indicating significantly higher odds of a favorable outcome in the modified position B than in the control or position A. The mPL positioning outperformed the sPL positioning in terms of safety and efficacy for lateral lumbar spine fusion. The mPL positioning may reduce the risk of lumbar plexus injury by allowing for a more direct approach to the lumbar spine and by avoiding excessive stretching of the lumbar plexus.

Simultaneous Single-Position Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined With Unilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Single-Level Lumbar Tuberculosis: A 3-Year Retrospective Comparative Study

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate a simultaneous single-position oblique lateral interbody fusion (SPOLIF) combined with unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in treating single-level lumbar tuberculosis, compared with posterior-only approach in clinical and radiographic evaluations.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who had undergone surgeries for single-level lumbar tuberculosis from January 2018 to December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients included were divided into SP-OLIF and posterior-only groups according to surgical methods applied, with follow-up for at least 36 months. Outcomes included estimated blood loss, operative time, and complications for safety evaluation; visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for efficacy evaluation; erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) for evaluating tuberculosis activity; x-ray and computed tomography scan were used for radiographic evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 136 patients had been enrolled in the study (60 for SP-OLIF and 76 for Posterior-only). The median operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay in SP-OLIF group were significantly less, with a lower complication rate. Meanwhile, the SP-OLIF group showed substantially lower VAS in 1 and 7 days and decreased ODI in the first month postoperatively, without significant difference afterward. Similarly, the median CRP and ESR in SP-OLIF group were significantly lower in 3 and 7 days postoperatively. All indicators had reduced to normal after 3 months. No recurrence had been reported throughout the whole follow-up.

CONCLUSION

SP-OLIF was an efficient minimally invasive protocol for single-level lumbar tuberculosis, facilitating earlier clinical improvement, with decreased blood loss, operative time and hospital stay compared with posterior-only approach.

Early Radiological Assessment of Static and Expandable Cages in Lateral Single Position for Indirect Decompression- Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the postoperative alignment of static and expandable cages in lateral single-position (LSP) for indirect decompression in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

We included sixty-seven patients who underwent LSP-LLIF for lumbar degenerative disease. We performed radiological assessments preoperatively and two weeks postoperatively using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. We divided the patients into the expandable cage group (23 patients) and the static cage group (44 patients). We measured disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), and foraminal area (FA) from computed tomography images and the area of the dural sac from magnetic resonance imaging. We recorded surgical outcomes and complications.

RESULTS

Both static and expandable cages demonstrated improvements in DH, SL, FA, and dural sac expansion. However, we found no statistically significant differences in the average change in DH (4.4 ± 2.1 mm vs. 4.2 ± 1.8 mm, P = 0.685), the average change in SL (1.0 ± 4.4° vs. 1.9 ± 3.6°, P = 0.310), or FA change (32.5 ± 31.7 mm2 vs. 34.9 ± 29.5 mm2, P = 0.966) between the expandable and static cage groups. We also found no statistically significant difference in dural sac enlargement between the two groups. We observed no significant differences in operation time, estimated blood loss, or length of hospital stay between the two groups. No severe adverse events or additional surgeries were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In LSP-LLIF without facet joint resection or other posterior techniques, static and expandable cages showed comparable effectiveness in achieving increased DH, SL, FA, and indirect decompression.

Robotic-Assisted Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Background

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a widely utilized minimally invasive surgical procedure for anterior fusion of the lumbar spine. However, posterior decompression or instrumentation often necessitates patient repositioning, which is associated with increased operative time and time under anesthesia1-3. The single-position prone transpsoas approach is a technique that allows surgeons to access both the anterior and posterior aspects of the spine, bypassing the need for intraoperative repositioning and therefore optimizing efficiency4. The use of robotic assistance allows for decreased radiation exposure and increased accuracy, both with placing instrumentation and navigating the lateral corridor.

Description

The patient is placed in the prone position, and pedicle screws are placed prior to interbody fusion. Pedicle screws are placed with robotic guidance. After posterior instrumentation, a skin incision for LLIF is made in the cephalocaudal direction, orthogonal to the disc space, with use of intraoperative (robotic) navigation. Fascia and abdominal muscles are incised to enter the retroperitoneal space. Under direct visualization, dilators are placed through the psoas muscle into the disc space, and an expandable retractor is placed and maintained with use of the robotic arm. Following a thorough discectomy, the disc space is sized with trial implants. The expandable cage is placed, and intraoperative fluoroscopy is utilized to verify good instrumentation positioning. Finally, posterior rods are placed percutaneously.

Alternatives

An alternative surgical approach is a traditional LLIF with the patient beginning in the lateral position, with intraoperative repositioning from the lateral to the prone position if circumferential fusion is warranted. Additional alternative surgical procedures include anterior or posterior lumbar interbody fusion techniques.

Rationale

LLIF is associated with reported advantages of decreased risks of vascular injury, visceral injury, dural tear, and perioperative infection5,6. The single-position prone transpsoas approach confers the added benefits of reduced operative time, anesthesia time, and surgical staffing requirements7. Other potential benefits of the prone lateral approach include improved lumbar lordosis correction, gravity-induced displacement of peritoneal contents, and ease of posterior decompression and instrumentation8-11. Additionally, the use of robotic assistance offers numerous benefits to minimally invasive techniques, including intraoperative navigation, instrumentation templating, a more streamlined workflow, and increased accuracy in placing instrumentation, while also providing a reduction in radiation exposure and operative time. In our experience, the table-mounted LLIF retractor has a tendency to drift toward the floor-i.e., anteriorly-when the patient is positioned prone, which may, in theory, increase the risk of iatrogenic bowel injury. The rigid robotic arm is much stiffer than the traditional retractor, thereby reducing this risk.

Expected Outcomes

Compared with traditional LLIF, with the patient in the lateral and then prone positions, the single-position prone LLIF has been shown to have several benefits. Guiroy et al. performed a systematic review comparing single and dual-position LLIF and found that the single-position surgical procedure was associated with significantly lower operative time (103.1 versus 306.6 minutes), estimated blood loss (97.3 versus 314.4 mL), and length of hospital stay (1.71 versus 4.08 days)17. Previous studies have reported improved control of segmental lordosis in the prone position, which may be advantageous for patients with sagittal imbalance18,19.

Important Tips

Adequate release of the deep fascial layers is critical for minimizing deflection of retractors and navigated instruments.The hip should be maximally extended to maximize lordosis, allowing for posterior translation of the femoral nerve and increasing the width of the lateral corridor.A bolster is placed against the rib cage to provide resistance to the laterally directed force when impacting the graft.The cranial and caudal limits of the approach are bounded by the ribcage and iliac crest; thus, surgery at the upper or lower lumbar levels may not be feasible for this approach. Preoperative radiographs should be evaluated to determine the feasibility of this approach at the intended levels.When operating at the L4-L5 disc space, posterior retraction places substantial tension on the femoral nerve. Thus, retractor time should be minimized as much as possible and limited to a maximum of approximately 20 minutes20-22.A depth of field (distance from the midline to the flank) of approximately 20 cm may be the limit for this approach with the current length of retractor blades19.In robotic-assisted surgical procedures, minor position shifts in surface landmarks, the robotic arm, or the patient may substantially impact the navigation software. It is critical for the patient and navigation components to remain fixed throughout the operation.In addition to somatosensory evoked potential and electromyographic monitoring, additional motor evoked potential neuromonitoring or monitoring of the saphenous nerve may be considered22.In the prone position, the tendency is for the retractor to migrate superficially and anteriorly. It is critical to be aware of this tendency and to maintain stable retractor positioning.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

LLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusionMIS = minimally invasive surgeryPTP = prone transpsoasy.o. = years oldASIS = anterior superior iliac spinePSIS = posterior superior iliac spineALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionTLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionMEP = motor evoked potentialSSEP = somatosensory evoked potentialEMG = electromyographyCT = computed tomographyMRI = magnetic resonance imagingOR = operating roomPOD = postoperative dayIVC = inferior vena cavaA. = aortaPS. = psoas.

Prone position lateral interbody fusion-a narrative review

Background and Objective

Lateral access lumbar interbody fusion is an increasingly popular procedure that allows for anterior column support through discectomy, endplate preparation, and interbody insertion. This procedure was initially described and performed with the patient in the lateral decubitus position. This would typically be followed by repositioning the patient to the prone position for pedicle screw fixation. Increasingly common is the lateral access lumbar interbody fusion in the prone position. This narrative review seeks to summarize the available literature on advantages, disadvantages, and unique features of the prone position lateral access lumbar interbody fusion.

Methods

We performed a narrative review of articles published up to 01 November 2022 through a PubMed search. The search terms "prone lateral spine surgery" and "lateral approach spine surgery" AND "prone position" were used. Articles not available in English were excluded. The search result abstracts were independently reviewed by 2 authors and 28 full text articles were reviewed. Both reviewing authors were orthopedic surgery chief residents.

Key Content and Findings

There are several unique advantages as well as disadvantages to the prone position lateral interbody fusion. Some advantages include ease of placing pedicle screws, simultaneous posterior and lateral access, greater ease in achieving segmental lumbar lordosis, and a relatively safer positioning of the psoas muscle, lumbar plexus, and abdominal structures. Disadvantages include more difficulties with exposure and retraction, as well as visualization, positioning and ergonomics of surgery.

Conclusions

Prone position lateral interbody fusion is an increasingly prevalent and useful surgical technique with several advantages and disadvantages when compared to lateral interbody fusion in the lateral decubitus position. There are several surgical indications and goals for which prone lateral interbody fusion may provide significant benefit when compared to other interbody fusion techniques.

Location of the Femoral Nerve in the Lateral Decubitus Versus Prone Position

STUDY DESIGN

Cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the position of the femoral nerve within the lumbar plexus at the L4-L5 disc space in the lateral decubitus vs prone position.

METHODS

Seven lumbar plexus specimens were dissected and the femoral nerve within the psoas muscle was identified and marked with radiopaque paint. Lateral fluoroscopic images of the cadaveric specimens in the lateral decubitus vs prone position were obtained. The location of the radiopaque femoral nerve at the L4-L5 disc space was normalized as a percentage of the L5 vertebral body (0% indicates posterior location and 100% indicates anterior location at the L4-L5 disc space). The location of the femoral nerve at L4-L5 in the lateral decubitus vs prone position was compared using a paired t test.

RESULTS

In the lateral decubitus position, the femoral nerve was located 28% anteriorly from the posterior edge of the L4-L5 disc space, and in the prone position, the femoral nerve was relatively more posterior, located 18% from the posterior edge of the L4-L5 disc space (P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

The femoral nerve was on average more posteriorly located at the L4-L5 disc space in the prone position compared to lateral decubitus. This more posterior location allows for a larger safe zone at the L4-L5 disc space, which may decrease the incidence of neurologic complications associated with Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in the prone vs lateral decubitus position; however, further studies are needed to evaluate this possible clinical correlation.

The Feasibility of 3D Intraoperative Navigation in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Perioperative Outcomes, Accuracy of Cage Placement and Radiation Exposure

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using 3D intraoperative navigation (ION), compared to conventional 2D fluoroscopy only.

METHODS

The perioperative outcomes and accuracy of cage placement were examined in all patients who underwent LLIF using ION (ION group) or fluoroscopy only (non-ION group) by a single surgeon. The radiation exposure was examined in patients who underwent stand-alone LLIF.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients with 154 levels (ION 49 patients with 79 levels/ non-ION 38 patients with 75 levels) were included. There were no significant differences in operative time (ION 143.5 min vs. non-ION 126.0 min, P = .406), time from induction end to surgery start (ION 31.0 min vs. non-ION 31.0 min, P = .761), estimated blood loss (ION 37.5 ml vs. non-ION 50.0 ml, P = .351), perioperative complications (ION 16.3% vs. non-ION 7.9%, P = .335) and length of stay (ION 50.6 hours vs. non-ION 41.7 hours, P = .841). No significant difference was found in the accuracy of cage placement (P = .279). ION did not significantly increase total radiation dose (ION 51.0 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .237) and tended to reduce radiation dose during the procedure (ION 32.2 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .932).

CONCLUSIONS

The perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in LLIF using ION were comparable to those using fluoroscopy only. The use of ION in LLIF was feasible, safe and accurate and may reduce radiation dose to the surgeon and surgical team.

Single-Position Transpsoas Corpectomy and Posterior Instrumentation in the Thoracolumbar Spine for Different Clinical Scenarios

BACKGROUND

The concept of single-position spine surgery has been gaining momentum because it has proven to reduce operative time, blood loss, and hospital length of stay with similar or better outcomes than traditional dual-position surgery. The latest development in single-position spine surgery techniques combines either open or posterior pedicle screw fixation with transpsoas corpectomy while in the lateral or prone positioning.

OBJECTIVE

To provide, through a multicenter study, the results of our first patients treated by single-position corpectomy.

METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent corpectomy and instrumentation in the lateral or prone position without repositioning between the anterior and posterior techniques. Data regarding demographics, diagnosis, neurological status, surgical details, complications, and radiographic parameters were collected. The minimum follow-up for inclusion was 6 months.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were finally included in our study (24 male patients and 10 female patients), with a mean age of 51.2 (SD ± 17.5) years. Three-quarter of cases (n = 27) presented with thoracolumbar fracture as main diagnosis, followed by spinal metastases and primary spinal infection. Lateral positioning was used in 27 cases, and prone positioning was used in 7 cases. The overall rate of complications was 14.7%.

CONCLUSION

This is the first multicenter series of patients who underwent single-position corpectomy and fusion. This technique has shown to be safe and effective to treat a variety of spinal conditions with a relatively low rate of complications. More series are required to validate this technique as a possible standard approach when thoracolumbar corpectomies are indicated.

Early Clinical Outcomes of the Prone Transpsoas Lumbar Interbody Fusion Technique

BACKGROUND

The prone transpsoas (PTP) approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a relatively novel technique. Currently, little is known about its associated complications and early patient-reported outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of LLIF performed via the PTP approach on sagittal radiographic parameters, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and rates of complications.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of 82 consecutive patients who underwent LLIF via a PTP technique. Lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), anterior disc height (ADH), and posterior disc height (PDH) were measured on preoperative, initial postoperative, and 3-month postoperative radiographs. PROMs including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI); the visual analog scale (VAS); and pain portions of the EQ5D, VAS back, and VAS leg ratings were collected at the preoperative and subsequent postoperative visits. Length of hospital stay and postoperative complications related to the procedure were recorded.

RESULTS

Significant improvements were seen at the initial (4.5° ± 8.6°, P < 0.001) and 3-month (4.4° ± 7.2°, P < 0.001) postoperative periods for LL, as well as SL (6.8° ± 4.8°, P < 0.001; 6.7° ± 4.4°, P < 0.001), ADH (8.0 mm ± 3.6, P < 0.001; 7.4 mm ± 3.6, P < 0.001), and PDH (3.3 mm ± 2.4, P < 0.001; 3.1 mm ± 2.5, P < 0.001). Significant improvements were seen at 3 months postoperatively for ODI (P < 0.001), EQ5D pain (P = 0.016), VAS leg (P < 0.001), and VAS back (P < 0.001). The average length of stay was 2.7 ± 4.5 days. The most common complications were ipsilateral thigh pain/numbness (45.1%), ipsilateral hip flexor weakness (39.0%), and contralateral thigh pain/numbness (14.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

While early PROMs and correction of sagittal radiographic parameters show promising results for the PTP approach for LLIF, it is not without risks.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

PTP interbody fusion is an emerging technique that allows for simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior columns of the lumbar spine. This early case series demonstrates significant improvement in functional outcomes and lumbar lordosis with a safety profile comparable to other well-established techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

The Prone Lateral Approach for Lumbar Fusion-A Review of the Literature and Case Series

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion is an evolving procedure in spine surgery allowing for the placement of large interbody devices to achieve indirect decompression of segmental stenosis, deformity correction and high fusion rates through a minimally invasive approach. Traditionally, this technique has been performed in the lateral decubitus position. Many surgeons have adopted simultaneous posterior instrumentation in the lateral position to avoid patient repositioning; however, this technique presents several challenges and limitations. Recently, lateral interbody fusion in the prone position has been gaining in popularity due to the surgeon's ability to perform simultaneous posterior instrumentation as well as decompression procedures and corrective osteotomies. Furthermore, the prone position allows improved correction of sagittal plane imbalance due to increased lumbar lordosis when prone on most operative tables used for spinal surgery. In this paper, we describe the evolution of the prone lateral approach for interbody fusion and present our experience with this technique. Case examples are included for illustration.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior posterior surgery improves operative efficiency, improves perioperative outcomes, and maintains radiological outcomes comparable with traditional anterior posterior fusion at minimum 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The advantages of Lateral Single Position surgery (LSPS) in the perioperative period has previously been demonstrated, however 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively.

PURPOSE

Evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSPS versus gold-standard FLIP STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multi-center retrospective cohort review.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Four hundred forty- two patients undergoing lumbar fusion via LSPS or FLIP OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, and reasons for reoperation at 30-days, 90-days, 1-year, and 2-years. Radiographic outcomes included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch, and segmental lumbar lordosis.

METHODS

Patients were grouped as LSPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure under the same anesthetic. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2-years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<.05.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty- two pts met inclusion, including 352 LSPS and 90 FLIP pts. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs 56.9; p≤.001) and smoking status (7% vs 16%; p=.023) between the LSPS and FLIP groups. LSPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p<.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p<.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p<.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs 3.61 days; p<.001) compared to FLIP. LSPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9%vs 34.4%; p=.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p<.001). No differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%LSPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=.125), 90-day (5.1%LSPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.441). LSPS group had a significantly lower preoperative PI-LL (4.1° LSPS vs 8.6°FLIP, p=.018), and a significantly greater postoperative LL (56.6° vs 51.8°, p = .006). No significant differences were noted in rates of fusion (94.3% LSPS vs 97.8% FLIP; p=.266) or subsidence (6.9% LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.260).

CONCLUSIONS

LSPS and circumferential fusions have similar outcomes at 2-years post-operatively, while reducing perioperative complications, improving perioperative efficiency and safety.

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.

Lumbar plexus safe working zones with lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Significant risk of injury to the lumbar plexus and its departing motor and sensory nerves exists with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Several cadaveric and imaging studies have investigated the lumbar plexus position with respect to the vertebral body anteroposterior plane. To date, no systematic review and meta-analysis of the lumbar plexus safe working zones for LLIF has been performed.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies reporting on the position of the lumbar plexus with relation to the vertebral body in the anteroposterior plane were identified from a PubMed database query. Quantitative analysis was performed using Welch's t test.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were included, encompassing 1005 subjects and 2472 intervertebral levels. Eleven studies used supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with in vivo subjects. Seven studies used cadavers, five of which performed dissection in the left lateral decubitus position. A significant correlation (p < 0.001) existed between anterior lumbar plexus displacement and evaluation with in vivo MRI at all levels between L1-L5 compared with cadaveric measurement. Supine position was also associated with significant (p < 0.001) anterior shift of the lumbar plexus at all levels between L1-L5.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the lumbar neural components and safe working zones for LLIF. Our analysis suggests that the lumbar plexus is significantly displaced ventrally with the supine compared to lateral decubitus position, and that MRI may overestimate ventral encroachment of lumbar plexus.

Single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion: an overview of terminology, concepts, rationale and the current evidence base

PURPOSE

To provide definitions and a conceptual framework for single position surgery (SPS) applied to circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine.

METHODS

Narrative literature review and experts' opinion.

RESULTS

Two major limitations of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been (a) a perceived need to reposition the patient to the prone position for posterior fixation, and (b) the lack of a robust solution for fusion at the L5/S1 level. Recently, two strategies for performing single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion have been described. The combination of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position (LALIF), LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (pPSF) in the lateral decubitus position is known as lateral single-position surgery (LSPS). Prone LLIF (PLLIF) involves transpsoas LLIF done in the prone position that is more familiar for surgeons to then implant pedicle screw fixation. This can be referred to as prone single-position surgery (PSPS). In this review, we describe the evolution of and rationale for single-position spinal surgery. Pertinent studies validating LSPS and PSPS are reviewed and future questions regarding the future of these techniques are posed. Lastly, we present an algorithm for single-position surgery that describes the utility of LALIF, LLIF and PLLIF in the treatment of patients requiring AP lumbar fusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Single position surgery in circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine includes posterior fixation in association with any of the following: lateral position LLIF, prone position LLIF, lateral position ALIF, and their combination (lateral position LLIF+ALIF). Preliminary studies have validated these methods.

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.

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

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.

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.

Anatomical positional changes in the lateral lumbar interbody fusion

INTRODUCTION

ALIFs and LLIFs are now becoming more utilized for adult spinal disease. As technologies advance, so do surgical techniques, with surgeons now modifying traditional supine-ALIF and lateral-LLIF to lateral-ALIF and prone-LLIF approaches to allow for more efficient surgeries. The objective of this study is to characterize the anatomical changes in the surgical corridor that occur with changes in patient positioning.

METHODS

MRIs of ten healthy volunteers were evaluated in five positions: supine, prone with hips flexed, prone with hips extended, lateral with hips flexed, and lateral with hips extended. All lateral scans were in the left lateral decubitus position. The anatomical changes of the psoas muscles, inferior vena cava, aorta, iliac vessels were assessed with relation to fixed landmarks on the disc spaces from L1 to S1.

RESULTS

The most anteriorly elongated ipsilateral to approach psoas when compared to supine was seen in lateral-flexed position (- 5.82 mm, p < 0.001), followed by lateral-extended (- 2.23 mm, p < 0.001), then prone-flexed (- 1.40 mm, p = 0.014), and finally supine and prone-extended (- 0.21 mm, p = 0.643). The most laterally extending or "thickest" psoas was seen in prone-flexed (- 1.40 mm, p = 0.004) and prone-extended (- 1.17 mm, p = 0.002). The psoas was "thinnest" in lateral-extended (2.03 mm, p < 0.001) followed by lateral-flexed (1.11 mm, p = 0.239). The contralateral psoas did not move as anteriorly as the ipsilateral. 3D volumetric analysis showed that the greatest changes in the psoas occur at its proximal and distal poles near T12-L1 and L4-S1. In lateral-flexed compared to prone-extended, the IVC moves medially to the left (p < 0.001). The aorta moves laterally to the left (p = 0.005). The venous structures appeared more full and open in the lateral positions and flattened in the supine and prone positions. The arteries remain in full calibre.

CONCLUSION

The MRI anatomical evaluation shows that the psoas, and therefore lumbar plexus, and vasculature move significantly with changes in positioning. This is important for preoperative planning for proper intraoperative execution from preoperative supine MRI. Understanding that the psoas and vessels move the most anteriorly in the lateral-flexed position and to a least degree in the prone-extended is essential for safe and efficient utilization of techniques such as the traditional LLIF, traditional ALIF, prone-LLIF.

Single-Position Anterior Column Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Lateral lumbar fusion is a commonly used spinal fusion technique that allows for indirect neural decompression while correcting sagittal malalignment. The lateral position has evolved to include placement of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation, anterior longitudinal ligament release, and approach the L5-S1 segment. This review article focuses on the anatomy and technique of the single-position anterior column spinal fusion and highlights the recent trends, outcomes, and future directions for the approach.

When to Consider Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Is There a Role for a Comeback With New Implants?

OBJECTIVE

To perform a comprehensive review of the literature about the role of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

METHODS

A MEDLINE review was conducted including studies about stand-alone LLIF for any condition. The opinions of the authors were also considered. Studies that included biomechanical, cadaveric, or clinical aspects of stand-alone cages were revised to obtain data about the pros, cons, and limitations of the technique. Comparative studies with 360° (lateral + posterior) fusions were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies were identified. After reviewing the abstracts, 18 full articles of interest for the objective of this review were analyzed. Recommendations based on the literature were made. Although most of the recommendations in the literature were about augmentation with pedicle screws, there may be a role for stand-alone LLIF in some particular cases. Specific technical aspects should be considered to reduce the failure rate.

CONCLUSION

Although there might be some specific indications for stand-alone LLIF, it should be considered an exception rather than the rule.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

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 Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Instrumentation Utilizing Computer Navigation and Robotic Assistance: Retrospective case review and surgical technique considerations

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine safety and short-term outcomes of single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with bilateral posterior instrumentation and robotic assistance. The article also describes surgical technique considerations for the procedure.

METHODS

20 patients underwent single-position LLIF with posterior instrumentation and robotic assistance. The patients were followed for a minimum of 3 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

Average operative time was 211 ± 34 minutes, average blood loss was 51.25 ± 17 cc's, and average length of stay was 1.4 ± .75 days. There were no intraoperative complications, readmissions, revision surgeries, and no incidence of hardware malposition. Significant improvement in pain and ODI scores was noted at 3 month follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated safety and short-term clinical efficacy of minimally invasive single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral posterior instrumentation utilizing robotic assistance and navigation. There are certain surgical technique considerations that must be followed to ensure optimal surgical workflow and predictable outcomes.

Single position lateral decubitus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior fusion reduces complications and improves perioperative outcomes compared with traditional anterior-posterior lumbar fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion utilizing anterior lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous posterior fixation is a novel, minimally invasive surgical technique. Single position lumbar surgery (SPLS) with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has been shown to be a safe, effective technique. This study directly compares perioperative outcomes of SPLS with lateral ALIF vs. traditional supine ALIF with repositioning (FLIP) for degenerative pathologies.

PURPOSE

To determine if SPLS with lateral ALIF improves perioperative outcomes compared to FLIP with supine ALIF.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Multicenter retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients undergoing primary AP fusions with ALIF at 5 institutions from 2015 to 2020.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Levels fused, inclusion of L4-L5, L5-S1, radiation dosage, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and PI-LL mismatch.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of primary ALIFs with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L4-S1 over 5 years at 5 institutions. Patients were grouped as FLIP or SPLS. Demographic, procedural, perioperative, and radiographic outcome measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p <.05. Cohorts were propensity-matched for demographic or procedural differences.

RESULTS

A total of 321 patients were included; 124 SPS and 197 Flip patients. Propensity-matching yielded 248 patients: 124 SPLS and 124 FLIP. The SPLS cohort demonstrated significantly reduced operative time (132.95±77.45 vs. 261.79±91.65 min; p <0.001), EBL (120.44±217.08 vs. 224.29±243.99 mL; p <.001), LOS (2.07±1.26 vs. 3.47±1.40 days; p <.001), and rate of perioperative ileus (0.00% vs. 6.45%; p =.005). Radiation dose (39.79±31.66 vs. 37.54±35.85 mGy; p =.719) and perioperative complications including vascular injury (1.61% vs. 1.61%; p =.000), retrograde ejaculation (0.00% vs. 0.81%, p =.328), abdominal wall (0.81% vs. 2.42%; p =.338), neuropraxia (1.61% vs. 0.81%; p =.532), persistent motor deficit (0.00% vs. 1.61%; p =.166), wound complications (1.61% vs. 1.61%; p =.000), or VTE (0.81% vs. 0.81%; p =.972) were similar. No difference was seen in 90-day return to OR. Similar results were noted in sub-analyses of single-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 fusions. On radiographic analysis, the SPLS cohort had greater changes in LL (4.23±11.14 vs. 0.43±8.07 deg; p =.005) and PI-LL mismatch (-4.78±8.77 vs. -0.39±7.51 deg; p =.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Single position lateral ALIF with percutaneous posterior fixation improves operative time, EBL, LOS, rate of ileus, and maintains safety compared to supine ALIF with prone percutaneous pedicle screws between L4-S1.

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.

Surgical fixation of pathologic and traumatic spinal fractures using single position surgery technique in lateral decubitus position

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Case Series.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to determine complications, readmission, and revision surgery rates in patients undergoing single position surgery (SPS) for surgical treatment of traumatic and pathologic thoracolumbar fractures.

METHODS

A multi-center review of patients who underwent SPS in the lateral decubitus position (LSPS) for surgical management of traumatic or pathologic thoracolumbar fractures between January 2016 and May 2020 was conducted. Operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmissions, and revision surgeries were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 12 patients with a mean age of 45 years (66.67% male) were included. The majority of patients underwent operative treatment for acute thoracolumbar trauma (66.67%) with a mean injury severity score (ISS) of 16.71. Mean operative time was 175.5 min, mean EBL of 816.67 cc. Five patients experienced a complication, two of which required revision surgery for additional decompression during the initial admission. All ambulatory patients were mobilized on postoperative day 1. The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was 9.67 days.

CONCLUSION

The results of this case series supports LSPS as a feasible alternative to the traditional combined anterior-posterior approach for surgical treatment of pathologic and thoracolumbar fractures. These results are similar to reductions in operative time, EBL, and LOS seen in the elective spine literature with LSPS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

State of the art review of new technologies in spine deformity surgery-robotics and navigation

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS

Review article.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this article is to review the available evidence for computerized navigation and robotics as an accuracy improvement tool for spinal deformity surgery, as well as to consider potential complications, impact on clinical outcomes, radiation exposure, and costs. Pedicle screw and rod construct are widely utilized for posterior spinal fixation in spinal deformity correction. Freehand placement of pedicle screws has long been utilized, although there is variable potential for inaccuracy depending on surgeon skill and experience. Malpositioned pedicle screws may have significant clinical implications ranging from nerve root irritation, inadequate fixation, CSF leak, perforation of the great vessels, or spinal cord damage. Computer-based navigation and robotics systems were developed to improve pedicle screw insertion accuracy and consistency, and decrease the risk of malpositioned pedicle fixation. The available evidence suggests that computer-based navigation and robotic-assisted guidance systems for pedicle cannulation are at least equivalent, and in several reports superior, to freehand techniques in terms of accuracy. CT and robotic navigation systems do appear to decrease radiation exposure to the operative team in some reports. Published reports do indicate longer operative times with use of robotic navigation compared with traditional freehand techniques for pedicle screw placement. To date, there is no conclusive evidence that use of CT or robotic navigation has any measurable impact on patient outcomes or overall complication reduction. There are theoretical advantages with robotic and CT navigation in terms of both speed and accuracy for severe spinal deformity or complex revision cases, however, there is a need for studies to investigate this technology in these specific cases. There is no evidence to date demonstrating the cost effectiveness of CT or robotic navigation as compared with traditional pedicle cannulation techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The review of available evidence suggests that computer-based navigation and robotic-assisted guidance systems for pedicle cannulation are at least equivalent, and in several reports superior, to freehand techniques in terms of radiographic accuracy. There is no current clinical evidence that the use of navigation or robotic techniques leads to improved patient outcomes or decreased overall complications or reoperation rates, and the use of these systems may substantially increase surgical costs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Single-position prone lateral transpsoas approach: early experience and outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) via a transpsoas approach is a workhorse minimally invasive approach for lumbar arthrodesis that is often combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation. There has been increasing interest in performing single-position surgery, allowing access to the anterolateral and posterior spine without requiring patient repositioning. The feasibility of the transpsoas approach in patients in the prone position has been reported. Herein, the authors present a consecutive case series of all patients who underwent single-position prone transpsoas LLIF performed by an individual surgeon since adopting this approach.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of a consecutive case series of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) who underwent single-position prone LLIF for any indication between October 2019 and November 2020. Pertinent operative details (levels, cage use, surgery duration, estimated blood loss, complications) and 3-month clinical outcomes were recorded. Intraoperative and 3-month postoperative radiographs were reviewed to assess for interbody subsidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight of 29 patients (97%) underwent successful treatment with the prone lateral approach over the study interval; the approach was aborted in 1 patient, whose data were excluded. The mean (SD) age of patients was 67.9 (9.3) years; 75% (21) were women. Thirty-nine levels were treated: 18 patients (64%) had single-level fusion, 9 (32%) had 2-level fusion, and 1 (4%) had 3-level fusion. The most commonly treated levels were L3-4 (n = 15), L2-3 (n = 12), and L4-5 (n = 11). L1-2 was fused in 1 patient. The mean operative time was 286.5 (100.6) minutes, and the mean retractor time was 29.2 (13.5) minutes per level. The mean fluoroscopy duration was 215.5 (99.6) seconds, and the mean intraoperative radiation dose was 170.1 (94.8) mGy. Intraoperative subsidence was noted in 1 patient (4% of patients, 3% of levels). Intraoperative lateral access complications occurred in 11% of patients (1 cage repositioning, 2 inadvertent ruptures of anterior longitudinal ligament). Subsidence occurred in 5 of 22 patients (23%) with radiographic follow-up, affecting 6 of 33 levels (18%). Postoperative functional testing (Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36, visual analog scale-back and leg pain) identified significant improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

This single-surgeon consecutive case series demonstrates that this novel technique is well tolerated and has acceptable clinical and radiographic outcomes. Larger patient series with longer follow-up are needed to further elucidate the safety profile and long-term outcomes of single-position prone LLIF.

Intraoperative computed tomography-guided navigation versus fluoroscopy for single-position surgery after lateral lumbar interbody fusion

There are no reports comparing fluoroscopy and intraoperative computed tomography (CT) navigation in lateral single-position surgery (SPS) in terms of surgical outcomes or implant-related complications. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use radiological evaluation to compare the incidence of instrument-related complications in SPS of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using fluoroscopy with that using CT navigation techniques. We evaluated 99 patients who underwent lateral SPS. Twenty-six patients had a percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) inserted under fluoroscopy (SPS-C group), and 73 patients had a PPS inserted under intraoperative CT navigation (SPS-O group). Average operation time was shorter in the SPS-C group than in the SPS-O group (88.4 ± 24.4 min versus 111.9 ± 35.3 min, respectively, P = 0.003). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in postoperative thigh symptoms or reoperation rate. The screw insertion angle of the SPS-C group was smaller than that of the SPS-O group, but there was no significant difference in the rate of screw misplacement (4.6% versus 3.4%, respectively, P = 0.556). By contrast, facet joint violation (FJV) was significantly lower in the SPS-O group than in the SPS-C group (8.4% versus 21.3%, respectively, P < 0.001). While fluoroscopy was superior to intraoperative CT navigation in terms of mean surgery time, there was no significant difference in the accuracy of PPS insertion between fluoroscopy and intraoperative CT navigation. The advantage of intraoperative CT navigation over fluoroscopy is that it significantly decreases the occurrence of FJV in SPS.

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.

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.

Intraoperative image guidance for lateral position surgery

Recent advances in minimally invasive spine surgery techniques have precipitated the popularity of lateral position spine surgery, such as lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Lateral position surgery offers a unique, minimally invasive approach to the lumbar spine that allows for preservation of anterior and posterior spinal elements. Traditionally, surgeons have relied upon fluoroscopy for triangulation and implant placement. Over the last decade, intraoperative 3-dimensional navigation (ION) has risen to the forefront of innovation in LLIF and OLIF. This technology utilizes intra-operative advanced imaging, such as comminuted tomography (CT), to map the patient’s 3D anatomy and allows the surgeon to accurately visualize instruments and implants in spatial relationship to the patient’s anatomy in real time. ION has the potential to improve accuracy during instrumentation, decrease operating room times, lower radiation exposure to the surgeon and staff, and increase feasibility of single-position surgery during which the spine is instrumented both laterally and posteriorly while the patient remains in the lateral decubitus position. Despite the advantages of ION, the intra-operative radiation exposure risk to patients is controversial. Future directions include continued innovation in ultra low radiation imaging (ULRI) techniques and image enhancement technology and in uses of robot-assisted navigation in single-position spine surgery.

Single-position prone lateral approach: cadaveric feasibility study and early clinical experience

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a useful minimally invasive technique for achieving anterior interbody fusion and preserving or restoring lumbar lordosis. However, achieving circumferential fusion via posterior instrumentation after an LLIF can be challenging, requiring either repositioning the patient or placing pedicle screws in the lateral position. Here, the authors explore an alternative single-position approach: LLIF in the prone lateral (PL) position.

METHODS

A cadaveric feasibility study was performed using 2 human cadaveric specimens. A retrospective 2-center early clinical series was performed for patients who had undergone a minimally invasive lateral procedure in the prone position between August 2019 and March 2020. Case duration, retractor time, electrophysiological thresholds, implant size, screw accuracy, and complications were recorded. Early postoperative radiographic outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

A PL LLIF was successfully performed in 2 cadavers without causing injury to a vessel or the bowel. No intraoperative subsidence was observed. In the clinical series, 12 patients underwent attempted PL surgery, although 1 case was converted to standard lateral positioning. Thus, 11 patients successfully underwent PL LLIF (89%) across 14 levels: L2–3 (2 of 14 [14%]), L3–4 (6 of 14 [43%]), and L4–5 (6 of 14 [43%]). For the 11 PL patients, the mean (± SD) age was 61 ± 16 years, mean BMI was 25.8 ± 4.8, and mean retractor time per level was 15 ± 6 minutes with the longest retractor time at L2–3 and the shortest at L4–5. No intraoperative subsidence was noted on routine postoperative imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing single-position lateral transpsoas interbody fusion with the patient prone is anatomically feasible, and in an early clinical experience, it appeared safe and reproducible. Prone positioning for a lateral approach presents an exciting opportunity for streamlining surgical access to the lumbar spine and facilitating more efficient surgical solutions with potential clinical and economic advantages.

Rate of failure of indirect decompression in lateral single-position surgery: clinical results

OBJECTIVE

Lateral single-position surgery (LSPS) of the lumbar spine generally involves anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) performed in the lateral position (LALIF) at L5–S1 with or without lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) at L4–5 and above, followed by bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PSF) without repositioning the patient. One obstacle to more widespread adoption of LSPS is the perceived need for direct decompression of the neural elements, which typically requires flipping the patient to the prone position. The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of failure of indirect decompression in a cohort of patients undergoing LSPS from L4 to S1.

METHODS

A multicenter, post hoc analysis was undertaken from prospectively collected data of patients at 3 institutions who underwent LALIF at L5–S1 with or without LLIF at L4–5 with bilateral PSF in the lateral decubitus position between March 2018 and March 2020. Inclusion criteria were symptoms of radiculopathy or neurogenic claudication, central or foraminal stenosis (regardless of degree or etiology), and indication for interbody fusion at L5–S1 or L4–S1. Patients with back pain only; those who were younger than 18 years; those with tumor, trauma, or suspicion of infection; those needing revision surgery; and patients who required greater than 2 levels of fusion were excluded. Baseline patient demographic information and surgical data were collected and analyzed. The number of patients in whom indirect decompression failed was recorded and each individual case of failure was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 178 consecutive patients underwent LSPS during the time period (105 patients underwent LALIF at L5–S1 and 73 patients underwent LALIF at L5–S1 with LLIF at L4–5). The mean follow-up duration was 10.9 ± 6.5 months. Bilateral PSF was placed with the patient in the lateral decubitus position in 149 patients, and there were 29 stand-alone cases. The mean case time was 101.9 ± 41.5 minutes: 79.3 minutes for single-level cases and 134.5 minutes for 2-level cases. Three patients (1.7%) required reoperation for failure of indirect decompression.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of failure of indirect decompression in LSPS from L4 to S1 is exceedingly low. This low risk of failure should be weighed against the risks associated with direct decompression as well as the risks of the extra operative time needed to perform this decompression.