Many Intraoperative Monitoring Modalities Have Been Developed To Limit Injury During Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF/MIS XLIF): Does That Mean XLIF/MIS XLIF Are Unsafe?

Towards a More Realistic Appraisal of Complications Following Staged Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Single Institution Series

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

With steadily increasing implementation of far lateral approaches in spine surgery, surgeons can utilize the advantages of different approaches synergistically to ensure an optimal patient outcome. Our single institution study aimed to assess the complication rates of patients who underwent a lateral interbody fusion as the index procedure and additional anterior or posterior instrumentation as part of a planned staged surgical reconstruction effort.

METHODS

This study was approved by our institutional review board (STUDY2021000113). We included 576 patients who received a lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) as the index procedure followed by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) between 2016 and 2020. Primary outcomes were complications identified during the initial inpatient stay, which were categorized into approach-related and secondary complications. Secondary outcomes tracked up to 6 years post-surgery.

RESULTS

The overall complication rate was 19.2% (10.5% approach related, 8.7% secondary complications). Significant intraoperative hemorrhage (mean 659.3 mL vs 131.4 mL, P < .01) was the most common approach related complication with an incidence of 4%, followed by temporary hip flexor weakness in 2.6%. A permanent (femoral) nerve damage was verified in 1 patient. The most common secondary complication was impaired wound healing in 12 patients (2.1%). We identified a 7.1% (41 of 576 patients) rate of revision surgery, on average after 372 days (±34 days).

CONCLUSIONS

We recorded an overall complication rate of 19.2% for staged adult deformity corrective surgeries utilizing far lateral interbody fusions at several lumbar levels followed by a more comprehensive posterior surgical reconstruction.

Perspective; high frequency of intraoperative errors due to extreme, oblique, and lateral lumbar interbody fusions (XLIF, OLIF, LLIF): Are they "safe"?

Background

Extreme Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions (XLIF), Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF,) and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) were largely developed to provide indirect lumbar decompressions for spinal stenosis, deformity, and/or instability.

Methods

Here, we have reviewed and updated the incidence of intraoperative errors attributed to XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF. Specifically, we focused on how often these procedures caused new neurological deficits, major vessel, visceral, and other injuries, including those warranting secondary surgery.

Results

Performing XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF can lead to significant intraoperative surgical errors that include varying rates of; new neurological injuries (i.e. iliopsoas motor deficits (4.3-19.7-33.6-40%), proximal hip/upper thigh sensory loss/dysesthesias (5.1% to 21.7% to 40%)), life-threatneing vascular injuries (i.e., XLIF (0% - 0.4%-1.8%), OLIF (3.2%), and LLIF (2%) involving the aorta, iliac artery, inferior vena cava, iliac vein, and segmental arteries), and bowel/viscarl injuries (0.03%-0.4%) leading to reoperations (i.e., XLIF (1.8%) vs. LLIF (3.8%) vs. XLIF/LLIF/OLIF 2.2%)).

Conclusion

Varying reports documented that XLIF, OLIF and LLIF caused up to a 40% incidence of new sensory/motor deficits, up to a 3.2% incidence of major vascular insults, a 0.4% frequency of visceral/bowel perforations, and a 3.8% need for reoperations. These high frequencies of intraoperative surgical errors attributed to XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF should prompt reconsideration of whether these procedures are "safe."

Complication rates following stand-alone lateral interbody fusion: a single institution series after 10 years of experience

PURPOSE

This retrospective single institution study's goal was to analyze and report the complications from stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIF).

METHODS

This research was approved by the institutional review board (STUDY2021000113). We retrospectively reviewed the database of patients with adult degenerative spine deformity treated via LLIF at our institution between January 2016 and December 2020.

RESULTS

Stand-alone LLIF was performed in 158 patients (145 XLIF, 13 OLIF; mean age 65 y.; 88 f., 70 m.). Mean surgical time was 85 min (± 24 min). Mean follow-up was 14 months (± 5 m). Surgical blood loss averaged 120 mL (± 187 mL) and the mean number of fused levels was 1.2 (± 0.4 levels). Overall complication rate was 19.6% (31 total; 23 approach-related, 8 secondary complications).

CONCLUSION

Lateral interbody fusion appears to be a safe surgical intervention with relatively low complication- and revision rates.

Roadmap for Motor Evoked Potential (MEP) Monitoring for Patients Undergoing Lumbar and Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Procedures

MEPs are recommended for patients undergoing lumbar and lumbosacral procedures in which intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) is being utilized. While electromyography (EMG) provides critical nerve root proximity information, spontaneous EMG discharges are relatively poor at reliably diagnosing spinal nerve root dysfunction. In contrast, research indicates that MEPs are both sensitive and specific in diagnosing evolving spinal nerve root dysfunction. There is conflicting evidence, however, and it must be emphasized that the value of adding MEPs is only realized when practices and techniques are optimized. The ideal anesthetic plan is an optimized total intravenous anesthetic (TIVA) regimen. Selection of appropriate anesthetics and dosing is important for optimizing baseline response amplitudes and promoting diagnostic confidence in analyzing signal changes. An adaptive set of alert criteria that account for baseline amplitude and morphology fluctuations should guide the determination of significant signal change. The therapeutic impact of accurate diagnostic information depends on the timeliness of diagnosis and intervention. Prior to the start of surgery, a plan to obtain MEPs at least once every 10 minutes during the active part of the procedure and after every significant surgical maneuver should be agreed upon, and the intervention plan should include but not be limited to possible removal of hardware and release of retraction or distractive forces. In summary, MEPs can improve monitoring of at-risk nerve root function, but the accuracy and therapeutic impact of such monitoring depend on perioperative planning and communication that optimize use of this modality.