Radiographic and clinical outcome after 1- and 2-level transsacral axial interbody fusion

Advances and Challenges in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Minimally invasive spine surgery continues to grow and develop. Over the past 50 years, there has been immense growth within this subspecialty of neurosurgery. A deep understanding of the historical context and future directions of this subspecialty is imperative to developing safe adoption and targeted innovation. This review aims to describe the advancements, and challenges that we face today in minimally invasive spine surgery.

Challenges Hindering Widespread Adoption of Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery

Minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) techniques offer several beneficial prospects and are being increasingly requested by patients. However, these techniques have not been uniformly adopted by spinal surgeons, and they remain controversial among some. Several barriers have prevented widespread adoption of MISS. These include concerns regarding high start-up costs, limited evidence base, and lack of surgeon training. In addition, the unique approaches involved in MISS expose spinal surgeons to unfamiliar anatomy. Further, while MISS can address a growing spectrum of spinal pathology, some conditions, as well as complications encountered during MISS procedures, require open surgery. This requires surgeons to not only acquire the new and specialized MISS skillset but also maintain their ability to perform open surgery. These factors present challenges common to developing and innovative surgical techniques. Here, we review the barriers preventing wider adoption of MISS and present a framework to promote the safe and effective growth of MISS.

Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: An Overview

Spinal surgery is undergoing a major transformation toward a minimally invasive paradigm. This shift is being driven by multiple factors, including the need to address spinal problems in an older and sicker population, as well as changes in patient preferences and reimbursement patterns. Increasingly, minimally invasive surgical techniques are being used in place of traditional open approaches due to significant advancements and implementation of intraoperative imaging and navigation technologies. However, in some patients, due to specific anatomic or pathologic factors, minimally invasive techniques are not always possible. Numerous algorithms have been described, and additional efforts are underway to better optimize patient selection for minimally invasive spinal surgery (MISS) procedures in order to achieve optimal outcomes. Numerous unique MISS approaches and techniques have been described, and several have become fundamental. Investigators are evaluating combinations of MISS techniques to further enhance the surgical workflow, patient safety, and efficiency.

Paracoccygeal Transsacral Approach: A Rare Approach for Axial Lumbosacral Interbody Fusion

Lumbosacral interbody fusion is a mainstay of surgical treatment for degenerative spinal pathologies causing chronic pain and functional impairment. However, the optimal technique for this procedure remains controversial. Well-established open approaches, including anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), have historically been the standard of practice. A recent paradigm shift in spinal surgery has led to the investigation of minimally invasive approaches to mitigate tissue damage without compromising outcomes. This extensive review aims to examine current clinical and biomechanical evidence on the paracoccygeal transsacral approach to an axial lumbosacral interbody fusion. Since this technique was first described in 2004, accumulating evidence suggests it results in high fusion rates, consistent improvements in pain and function, reduced perioperative morbidity, and low rates of complication. Although early clinical outcomes have been promising, there is a paucity of comparative data investigating outcomes of the paracoccygeal transsacral approach to traditional alternatives and other minimally invasive techniques. Here, we summarize current evidence and discuss pertinent topics for the spinal surgeon considering this novel approach, including indications, advantages, relevant anatomy, contraindications, and technical considerations.

Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Single Oblique PEEK Cage and Posterior Supplemental Fixation

BACKGROUND

To demonstrate the feasibility of an endoscopically assisted minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and to study clinical outcomes with the use of a static oblique bullet-shaped cannulated poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) lumbar interbody fusion cage in conjunction with platelet enriched plasma infused allograft cancellous chips and posterior supplemental fixation.

METHODS

In this retrospective study of 43 patients who underwent endoscopically assisted MIS-TLIF for spondylolisthesis (53.5%) and stenosis (46.3%), the Oswestry Disability Index, the visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and the modified Macnab criteria were used as primary clinical outcome measures. Clinical outcomes were cross-tabulated against fusion grade using the Bridwell classification of interbody fusion.

RESULTS

The majority of patients (90.7%) had excellent (8/43; 18.6%) and good (31/43; 72.1%) Macnab outcomes. There were significant VAS back score reductions from an average preoperative values of 8.9070 to a postoperative VAS score of 3.8605, and a score of 2.7674 at final follow-up (P < .0001). The reductions in the VAS leg scores were also significant from preoperative score of 5.58 to a postoperative value of 2.16, and a final follow-up score of 1.67 (P < .0001); the Oswestry Disability Index score went from a preoperative value of 54.4 to 23.3 postoperatively and 18.5 at the final follow-up (P < .0001). The vast majority of patients (92.9%) with Bridwell grade I fusion had excellent and good Macnab outcomes (P = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors recommend the use of an endoscope as an adjunct to MIS-TLIF, a minimally invasive spinal surgery technique in which many surgeons may be well versed and have a great deal of experience. Clinical outcomes with the endoscopic interbody fusion procedure with a static PEEK cage in conjunction with platelet-enriched bone allograft were favorable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Feasibility study.

Adjacent-segment disease following two-level axial lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

While long-term studies have evaluated adjacent-segment disease (ASD) following posterior lumbar spine arthrodesis, no such studies have assessed the incidence and prevalence of ASD following axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). The aim of this study was to estimate the incidence of ASD following AxiaLIF.

METHODS

The authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 149 patients who underwent two-level index AxiaLIF and had at least 2 years of radiographic and clinical follow-up. ASD and pre- and postoperative lumbar lordosis were evaluated in each patient. ASD was defined as both radiographic and clinically significant disease at a level adjacent to a previous fusion requiring surgical intervention. The mean duration of follow-up was 6.01 years.

RESULTS

Twenty (13.4%) of the 149 patients developed ASD during the data collection period. Kaplan-Meier analysis predicted a disease-free ASD survival rate of 95.3% (95% CI 90.4%-97.7%) at 2 years and 89.1% (95% CI 82.8%-93.2%) at 5 years for two-level fusion. A laminectomy adjacent to a fusion site was associated with 5.1 times the relative risk of developing ASD. Furthermore, the ASD group had significantly greater loss of lordosis than the no-ASD group (p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Following two-level AxiaLIF, the rate of symptomatic ASD warranting either decompression or arthrodesis was found to be 4.7% at 2 years and 10.9% at 5 years. Adjacent-segment decompression and postoperative loss of lumbar lordosis predicted future development of ASD. To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest reported cohort of patients to undergo two-level AxiaLIF in the United States.

Clinical and Radiologic Fate of the Lumbosacral Junction After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the Bottom of a Long Construct in CMIS Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity

Introduction:

Surgeons use numerous arthrodesis strategies for fusion of the lumbosacral junction including anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). The optimal L5-S1 fusion strategy remains inconclusive. The purpose of this study is to compare the fate of the lumbosacral junction in ALIF versus AxiaLIF patients in terms of clinical and radiographic outcomes.

Methods:

Adult spinal deformity patients, treated with CMIS techniques, with at least 2-year follow-up who underwent AxiaLIF or ALIF at the lumbosacral junction were included. Patients were separated into two groups: AxiaLIF (56 patients) and ALIF (38 patients). Outcome measures included segmental lordosis, sagittal vertical alignment, lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence–LL mismatch, and pseudarthrosis, major complication, and revision surgery rates.

Results:

The ALIF group achieved greater postoperative and delta segmental lordosis, higher delta sagittal vertical alignment, higher delta LL, and lower postoperative pelvic incidence–LL mismatch. The pseudarthrosis, major complication, and revision surgery rates were higher in the AxiaLIF group. Five cases of pseudarthrosis at L5-S1 were seen, all in the AxiaLIF group.

Discussion and Conclusion:

ALIF patients showed more favorable radiographic correction parameters and lower rates of pseudarthrosis, major complications, and revision surgeries. ALIF is the preferred strategy for L5-S1 arthrodesis at a bottom of a long construct.

Comparison of a Newer Versus Older Protocol for Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgical (CMIS) Correction of Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD)-Evolution Over a 10-Year Experience

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective.

OBJECTIVES

Compare circumferential minimally invasive surgical (CMIS) correction outcomes of patients treated for adult spinal deformity (ASD) with a newer versus older protocol SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CMIS techniques have become increasingly popular. Increasing experience and learning curve may help improve outcomes.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database was queried for all patients who underwent CMIS correction of ASD (Cobb angle >20° or sagittal vertical axis [SVA] >50 mm or pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch >10) at 3+ levels. Those without a full-length radiograph or 2-year follow-up were excluded. Patients were compared based on treatment using our original or newer protocol.

RESULTS

The original protocol had 76 patients with an average age of 66.99 years (range 46-81, standard deviation [SD] 9.03), and the new protocol had 53 patients with average age of 65.85 years (range 48-85, SD 8.08). Preoperative and latest visual analog scale (VAS) scores in the original were 6.85 and 3.45 (p = .001) and in the new were 6.19 and 2.27 (p = .004). Delta-VAS scores were 3.27 and 4.27. The Oswestry disability index (ODI) reduced from 45.84 to 32.91 (p = .041) in the original and from 44.21 to 25.39 (p = .017) in the new. Average delta-ODIs were 22.25 and 24.01. Preoperative, latest, and delta-SF physical component scores for the original were 35.38, 42.42, and 10.06 and for the new, 30.89, 39.49, and 11.93. SF mental component scores were 50.96, 55.19, and 12.84 and 50.12, 52.99, and 8.85. The original and new protocols had latest Cobb angles of 11.54° and 11.12° (p = .789), delta-Cobb angles of 14.51° and 20.03° (p < .05), latest SVAs of 42.85 and 30.58 mm (p < .05) and latest PI-LL mismatch of 15.49 and 9.00 mm (p < .05). In the original and the new, the average preoperative SVAs that reliably achieved a postoperative SVA of 50 mm or less were 84 and 119 mm, respectively, and the maximum delta-SVAs were 89 and 120 mm. The new protocol had fewer surgical complications (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Improvements in radiographic scores, functional outcomes, and limits of SVA correction and lower complication rates suggest that the new protocol may help improve outcomes. These findings may be a reflection of our 10-year experience and advances in the learning curve.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

L5/S1 Fusion Rates in Degenerative Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review Comparing ALIF, TLIF, and Axial Interbody Arthrodesis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the fusion rate of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and axial arthrodesis at the lumbosacral junction in adult patients undergoing surgery for 1- and 2-level degenerative spine conditions.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An L5/S1 interbody fusion is a commonly performed procedure for pathology such as spondylolisthesis with stenosis; however, it is unclear if 1 technique leads to superior fusion rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE was conducted for literature published between January 1, 1992 and August 17, 2014. All peer-reviewed articles related to the fusion rate of L5/S1 for an ALIF, TLIF, or axial interbody fusion were included.

RESULTS

In total, 42 articles and 1507 patients were included in this systematic review. A difference in overall fusion rates was identified, with a rate of 99.2% (range, 96.4%-99.8%) for a TLIF, 97.2% (range, 91.0%-99.2%) for an ALIF, and 90.5% (range, 79.0%-97.0%) for an axial interbody fusion (P=0.005). In a paired analysis directly comparing fusion techniques, only the difference between a TLIF and an axial interbody fusion was significant. However, when only cases in which bilateral pedicle screws supported the interbody fusion, no statistical difference (P>0.05) between the 3 techniques was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature available to guide the treatment of L5/S1 pathology is poor, but the available data suggest that a high fusion rate can be expected with the use of an ALIF, TLIF, or axial interbody fusion. Any technique-dependent benefit in fusion rate can be eliminated with common surgical modifications such as the use of bilateral pedicle screws.

Axial interbody arthrodesis of the L5-S1 segment: a systematic review of the literature

OBJECT

The object of this study was to determine the fusion rate and safety profile of an axial interbody arthrodesis of the L5-S1 motion segment.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE was conducted for literature published between January 1, 2000, and August 17, 2014. All peer-reviewed articles related to the fusion rate of L5-S1 and the safety profile of an axial interbody arthrodesis were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy-four articles were identified, but only 15 (13 case series and 2 retrospective cohort studies) met the study inclusion criteria. The overall pseudarthrosis rate at L5-S1 was 6.9%, and the rate of all other complications was 12.9%. A total of 14.4% of patients required additional surgery, and the infection rate was 5.4%. Deformity studies reported a significantly increased rate of complications (46.3%), and prospectively collected data demonstrated significantly higher complication (36.8%) and revision (22.6%) rates. Lastly, studies with a conflict of interest reported lower complication rates (12.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic review of the literature indicates that an axial interbody fusion performed at the lumbosacral junction is associated with a high fusion rate (93.15%) and an acceptable complication rate (12.90%). However, these results are based mainly on retrospective case series by authors with a conflict of interest. The limited prospective data available indicate that the actual fusion rate may be lower and the complication rate may be higher than currently reported.

The axial transsacral approach to interbody fusion at L5-S1

Lumbosacral interbody fusion may be indicated to treat degenerative disc disease at L5-S1, instability or spondylolisthesis at that level, and severe neural foraminal stenosis resulting from loss of disc space height. In addition, L5-S1 interbody fusion may provide anterior support to a long posterior fusion construct and help offset the stresses experienced by the distal-most screws. There are 3 well-established techniques for L5-S1 interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Each of these has advantages and pitfalls. A more recently described axial transsacral technique, utilizing the presacral corridor, may represent a minimally invasive approach to obtaining lumbosacral interbody arthrodesis. Biomechanical studies demonstrate that the stiffness of the axial rod is comparable to existing fixation devices, suggesting that, biomechanically, it may be a good implant for obtaining lumbosacral interbody fusion. Clinical studies have demonstrated good early results with the use of the axial transsacral approach in obtaining lumbosacral interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and below long posterior fusion constructs. The technique is exacting and complications can be major, including rectal perforation and fistula, loss of correction, and pseudarthrosis.

Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions

The overarching goals of treatments for orthopedic conditions are generally to improve or restore function and alleviate pain. Results of clinical trials are generally used to determine whether a treatment is efficacious; however, a statistically significant improvement may not actually be clinically important, i.e., meaningful to the patient. To determine whether an intervention has produced clinically important benefits requires a two-step process: first, determining the magnitude of change considered clinically important for a particular measure in the relevant population and, second, applying this yardstick to a patient's data to determine whether s/he has benefited from treatment. Several metrics have been devised to quantify clinically important differences, including the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and clinically important difference (CID). Herein, we review the methods to generate the MCID and other metrics and their use and interpretation in clinical trials and practice. We particularly highlight the many pitfalls associated with the generation and utilization of these metrics that can impair their correct use. These pitfalls include the fact that different pain measures yield different MCIDs, that efficacy in clinical trials is impacted by various factors (population characteristics, trial design), that the MCID value is impacted by the method used to calculate it (anchor, distribution), by the type of anchor chosen and by the definition (threshold) of improvement. The MCID is also dependent on the population characteristics such as disease type and severity, sex, age, etc. For appropriate use, the MCID should be applied to changes in individual subjects, not to group changes. The MCID and CID are useful tools to define general guidelines to determine whether a treatment produces clinically meaningful effects. However, the many pitfalls associated with these metrics require a detailed understanding of the methods to calculate them and their context of use. Orthopedic surgeons that will use these metrics need to carefully understand them and be aware of their pitfalls.

Segmental and global lordosis changes with two-level axial lumbar interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation

Background

Loss of lumbar lordosis has been reported after lumbar interbody fusion surgery and may portend poor clinical and radiographic outcome. The objective of this research was to measure changes in segmental and global lumbar lordosis in patients treated with presacral axial L4-S1 interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation and to determine if these changes influenced patient outcomes.

Methods

We performed a retrospective, multi-center review of prospectively collected data in 58 consecutive patients with disabling lumbar pain and radiculopathy unresponsive to nonsurgical treatment who underwent L4-S1 interbody fusion with the AxiaLIF two-level system (Baxano Surgical, Raleigh NC). Main outcomes included back pain severity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Odom's outcome criteria, and fusion status using flexion and extension radiographs and computed tomography scans. Segmental (L4-S1) and global (L1-S1) lumbar lordosis measurements were made using standing lateral radiographs. All patients were followed for at least 24 months (mean: 29 months, range 24-56 months).

Results

There was no bowel injury, vascular injury, deep infection, neurologic complication or implant failure. Mean back pain severity improved from 7.8±1.7 at baseline to 3.3±2.6 at 2 years (p < 0.001). Mean ODI scores improved from 60±15% at baseline to 34±27% at 2 years (p < 0.001). At final follow-up, 83% of patients were rated as good or excellent using Odom's criteria. Interbody fusion was observed in 111 (96%) of 116 treated interspaces. Maintenance of lordosis, defined as a change in Cobb angle ≤ 5°, was identified in 84% of patients at L4-S1 and 81% of patients at L1-S1. Patients with loss or gain in segmental or global lordosis experienced similar 2-year outcomes versus those with less than a 5° change.

Conclusions/Clinical Relevance

Two-level axial interbody fusion supplemented with posterior fixation does not alter segmental or global lordosis in most patients. Patients with postoperative change in lordosis greater than 5° have similarly favorable long-term clinical outcomes and fusion rates compared to patients with less than 5° lordosis change.