The axial transsacral approach to interbody fusion at L5-S1

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.

A Posterior Oblique Approach to the Lumbar Disk Spaces, Vertebral Bodies, and Lumbar Plexus: A Cadaveric Feasibility Study

STUDY DESIGN

A laboratory cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of a posterior oblique approach, sharing the same advantages as the transpsoas technique while minimizing the risk of lumbar plexus or psoas muscle injuries.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The transpsoas approach for interbody fusion and corpectomy offers advantages over posterior and anterior approaches. However, possible risks include traumatization of the psoas muscle or lumbar plexus.

METHODS

All lumbar disk spaces and vertebral bodies were exposed by a posterior oblique approach from left and right on a human cadaveric specimen. The exposure obtained and a step-by-step documentation of the procedure is outlined in detail.

RESULTS

We were able to achieve wide exposure of all lumbar disk spaces and vertebral bodies above the L5/S1 disk space. Only the psoas muscle was retracted, and the lumbar plexus nerves were easily visualized and gently retracted. Sharp dissection was only required around the tip of the transverse processes.

CONCLUSIONS

A posterior oblique approach seems to be less invasive than the transpsoas approach. Exposure of the anterior column structures above the iliac crest is comparable. The oblique approach offers direct access to the lumbar plexus and the extraforaminal segments of the nerve roots.

Interbody Fusion Techniques in the Surgical Management of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The various lumbar interbody fusion (IBF) techniques and the evidence for their use in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) are described in this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

The existing evidence is mixed regarding the indications for and utility of IBF in DLS, but its use in the setting of pre-operative instability is most strongly supported. Anterior (ALIF), lateral (LLIF), posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), and axial (AxiaLIF) lumbar IBF approaches have been described. While the current data are limited, TLIF may be a better option than PLIF in DLS due the increased operative morbidity and peri-operative complications observed with the latter. LLIF also appears superior to PLIF in light of improved radiologic outcomes, fewer intra-operative complications, and potentially greater improvements in disability. The data comparing LLIF to TLIF are less conclusive. No studies specifically comparing ALIF or AxiaLIF to other IBF techniques could be identified. Instability may be the strongest indication for IBF in DLS. When IBF is employed, the authors' preferred technique is TLIF with posterior segmental spinal instrumentation. Further research is needed.

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.