Migrated XLIF cage: case report and discussion of surgical technique

Risk Factors for Cage Migration Following Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Posterior Instrumentation: A Multicenter Retrospective Study of 983 Cases

STUDY DESIGN

A multicenter retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elucidate the incidence and risk factors of lateral cage migration (LCM) after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) combined with posterior instrumentation.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

LLIF has recently become a widely accepted procedure for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Although LLIF complications include vascular, nerve, and abdominal organ injuries, few studies have identified specific risk factors for LCM after LLIF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2015 and December 2020, 983 patients with lumbar degenerative diseases or osteoporotic vertebral fractures underwent LLIF combined with posterior instrumentation. The fusion sites were located within the lumbosacral lesions. LCM was defined as a change of >3 mm in the movement of the radiopaque marker on radiographs. The patients were classified into LCM and non-LCM groups. Medical records and preoperative radiographs were also reviewed. The 1:5 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching technique was used to compare both groups, and radiologic parameters, including preoperative disk height (DH), preoperative sagittal disk angle, disk geometry, height variance (cage height minus DH), and endplate injury, were analyzed to identify the factors influencing LCM incidence.

RESULTS

There were 16 patients (1.6%) with LCM (10 men and 6 women; mean age 70.1 yr). The Cochran-Armitage trend test showed a linear trend toward an increased rating of LCM with an increasing number of fused segments ( P =0.003), and LCM occurred at the terminal cage-inserted disk level in all patients in the LCM group. After propensity-matched analysis, we identified high DH ( P <0.001), large sagittal disk angle ( P =0.009), round-type disk ( P =0.008), and undersized cage selection ( P <0.001) as risk factors for LCM.

CONCLUSION

We identified risk factors for LCM after LLIF combined with posterior instrumentation. To avoid this complication, it is important to select the appropriate cage sizes and enhance posterior fixation for at-risk patients.

Biomechanical analysis of stand-alone lumbar interbody cages versus 360° constructs: an in vitro and finite element investigation

OBJECTIVE

Low fusion rates and cage subsidence are limitations of lumbar fixation with stand-alone interbody cages. Various approaches to interbody cage placement exist, yet the need for supplemental posterior fixation is not clear from clinical studies. Therefore, as prospective clinical studies are lacking, a comparison of segmental kinematics, cage properties, and load sharing on vertebral endplates is needed. This laboratory investigation evaluates the mechanical stability and biomechanical properties of various interbody fixation techniques by performing cadaveric and finite element (FE) modeling studies.

METHODS

An in vitro experiment using 7 fresh-frozen human cadavers was designed to test intact spines with 1) stand-alone lateral interbody cage constructs (lateral interbody fusion, LIF) and 2) LIF supplemented with posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation (360° constructs). FE and kinematic data were used to validate a ligamentous FE model of the lumbopelvic spine. The validated model was then used to evaluate the stability of stand-alone LIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages with and without supplemental posterior fixation at the L4-5 level. The FE models of intact and instrumented cases were subjected to a 400-N compressive preload followed by an 8-Nm bending moment to simulate physiological flexion, extension, bending, and axial rotation. Segmental kinematics and load sharing at the inferior endplate were compared.

RESULTS

The FE kinematic predictions were consistent with cadaveric data. The range of motion (ROM) in LIF was significantly lower than intact spines for both stand-alone and 360° constructs. The calculated reduction in motion with respect to intact spines for stand-alone constructs ranged from 43% to 66% for TLIF, 67%-82% for LIF, and 69%-86% for ALIF in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In flexion and extension, the maximum reduction in motion was 70% for ALIF versus 81% in LIF for stand-alone cases. When supplemented with posterior fixation, the corresponding reduction in ROM was 76%-87% for TLIF, 86%-91% for LIF, and 90%-92% for ALIF. The addition of posterior instrumentation resulted in a significant reduction in peak stress at the superior endplate of the inferior segment in all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Stand-alone ALIF and LIF cages are most effective in providing stability in lateral bending and axial rotation and less so in flexion and extension. Supplemental posterior instrumentation improves stability for all interbody techniques. Comparative clinical data are needed to further define the indications for stand-alone cages in lumbar fusion surgery.

Incidence and risk factors of lateral cage migration occurred after the first-stage lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery

BACKGROUND

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a novel, minimally invasive technique for the surgical treatment of lumbar diseases. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence and risk factors of lateral cage migration (LCM) occurred after the first-stage LLIF.

HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis was that LCM occurred after the first-stage LLIF was associated with some demographic characteristics, surgical variables and radiographic parameters.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between June 2016 and August 2020, 335 patients (901 levels) underwent staged LLIF were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into LCM and non-LCM group based on the experience of LCM before the second-stage posterior instrumentation. 100 patients in non-LCM were randomly sampled as a control group. Incidence of LCM was determined; demographic characteristics, surgical variables and radiographic parameters associated with LCM were compared between the LCM and control group. Univariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to identify the risk factors.

RESULTS

LCM occurred after the first-stage LLIF was found in 19 (5.7%) patients. Bony endplate injury (OR, 106.255; 95% CI, 1.265-8924.765; p=0.039) and greater preoperative range of motion (ROM) (OR, 2.083, 95% CI, 1.068-4.066, p=0.031) were high risk factors for LCM. LCM occurred mainly 3 days later after the first-stage LLIF, while 4 cases experienced severe neural symptoms, intolerable low back pain and finally underwent reoperation.

DISCUSSION

LCM occurred after the first-stage LLIF was significantly associated with bony endplate injury and greater preoperative ROM. Second-stage posterior fixation should be performed as soon as possible or a supplement lateral fixation/self-locking cage should be used in high-risk patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Perioperative Complications in 255 Patients Who Underwent Lateral Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LaLIF) Surgery

PURPOSE

To investigate the perioperative complications of lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion (LaLIF) surgery.

METHODS

The participants were patients who underwent LaLIF surgery for degenerative lumbar diseases between April 2016 and November 2020. The collected data were classified into intraoperative and early-stage postoperative (1 month) complications. Intraoperative complications were subcategorized into nerve root injury, sympathetic chain injury, segmental artery injury, iliolumbar vein injury, peritoneum laceration, temporary psoas injury, endplate damage, and vertebral body fractures. Postoperative complications were subcategorized into surgical site infection, cage migration, cage subsidence and psoas major hematoma.

RESULTS

In the 255 included patients, 39 complications (15.3%) were reported. One patient (0.4%) had residual neurological symptoms (numbness) at the last follow-up after conservative management. The most common complications were temporary psoas injury (3.9%), followed by sympathetic chain injury (2.7%) and endplate damage (2.0%). The most frequent postoperative complication was cage migration (1.6%), followed by cage subsidence (1.2%), and surgical site infection (0.8%).

CONCLUSION

The complication rates for LaLIF are generally low and comparable to those for conventional OLIF and XLIF that have been reported in other studies. Almost all complications were transient after LaLIF. Severe complications can be avoided by using sufficient muscle relaxant, instruments with the required characteristics and vertical trajectories in multiple steps.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Review of Surgical Technique and Postoperative Multimodality Imaging Findings

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) approach is a minimally invasive surgery that can be used as an alternative to traditional lumbar interbody fusion techniques. LLIF accesses the intervertebral disk through the retroperitoneum and psoas muscle to avoid major vessels and visceral organs. The exposure of retroperitoneal structures during LLIF leads to unique complications compared with other surgical approaches. An understanding of the surgical technique and its associated potential complications is necessary for radiologists who interpret imaging before and after LLIF. Preoperative imaging must carefully assess the location of anatomic structures, including major retroperitoneal vasculature, lumbar nerve roots, lumbosacral plexus, and the genitofemoral nerve, relative to the psoas muscle. Multiple imaging modalities can be used in postoperative assessment including radiographs, CT, CT myelography, and MRI. Of these, CT is the preferred modality, because it can assess a range of complications relating to both the retroperitoneal exposure and the spinal instrumentation, as well as bone integrity and fusion status. This article describes surgical approaches for lumbar interbody fusion, comparing the approaches' indications, contraindications, advantages, and disadvantages; reviews the surgical technique of LLIF and relevant anatomic considerations; and illustrates for interpreting radiologists the normal postoperative findings and potential postsurgical complications of LLIF.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Outcomes and Complications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a relatively new, minimally invasive technique for interbody fusion. The goal of this review is to provide a general overview of LLIF with a special focus on outcomes and complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Since the first description of the technique in 2006, the indications for LLIF have expanded and the rate of LLIF procedures performed in the USA has increased. LLIF has several theoretical advantages compared to other approaches including the preservation of the anterior and posterior annular/ligamentous structures, insertion of wide cages resting on the dense apophyseal ring bilaterally, and augmentation of disc height with indirect decompression of neural elements. Favorable long-term outcomes and a reduced risk of visceral/vascular injuries, incidental dural tears, and perioperative infections have been reported. However, approach-related complications such as motor and sensory deficits remain a concern. In well-indicated patients, LLIF can be a safe procedure used for a variety of indications.

Non-neurological major complications of extreme lateral and related lumbar interbody fusion techniques

BACKGROUND

Complications exclusive of new neurological deficits/injuries that follow extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) and related lateral lumbar interbody techniques should be better recognized to determine the safety of these procedures. Unfortunately, a review of the XLIF literature did not accurately reflect the frequency of these "other complications" as few US surgeons publish such adverse events that may lead to medicolegal suits.

METHODS

Major complications occurring with XLIF included sympathectomy, major vascular injuries, bowel perforations, sterile seromas, and instrumentation failures.

RESULTS

The frequency of sympathectomy was 4% for XLIF vs. 15% for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). There were three major vascular injuries for XLIF; one fatal intraoperative event, one life-threatening retroperitoneal hematoma, and one iatrogenic lumbar artery pseudoaneurysm that was successfully embolized. Two bowel perforations were reported, whereas a third was a "direct communication." One patient developed a sterile recurrent seroma due to vancomycin powder utilized for an XLIF. One study cited malpositioning of an XLIF cage resulting in a lateral L3-L4 extrusion, whereas the second series looked at the 45% risk of cage-overhang when XLIF devices were placed in the anterior one-third of the vertebral body.

CONCLUSION

Excluding new neurological deficits, XLIF techniques resulted in multiple other major complications. However, these small numbers likely reflect just the tip of the iceberg (e.g., 10%) and the remaining 90% may never be known as many US-based spine surgeons fail to publish such adverse events as they are discoverable in a court of law and may lead to medicolegal suits.

Stand-alone LLIF Lateral Cage Migration: A Case Report

Lateral approaches to the lumbar disc space have become popular in recent years with very few reported complications. We report on a rare case of a stand-alone cage migration. A 77-year-old female presented with a right L2-3 radiculopathy that was refractory to maximum medical management. This was secondary to foraminal compression at L2-3 and L3-4 due to degenerative disc disease and levoscoliosis, as well as Grade 1 spondylolisthesis at both levels. A left-sided approach lateral lumbar interbody fusion was performed at L2-3 and L3-4 using a lordotic polyetheretherketone (PEEK) graft (50 mm length x 18 mm width x 9 mm height) packed with demineralized bone matrix (DBM). A contralateral release of the annulus fibrosis was performed during the decompression prior to graft insertion. Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral x-ray imaging confirmed good position of interbody grafts, correction of scoliosis as well as spondylolisthesis, and restoration of disc height achieving foraminal indirect decompression. A routine postoperative x-ray at three months demonstrated asymptomatic ipsilateral cage migration at the L2-3 level with evidence of arthrodesis in the disc space. This was managed conservatively without further surgical intervention. Placement of a lateral plate or interbody intradiscal plating system in patients with scoliosis and significant coronal deformity is an option that can be considered to prevent this rare LLIF complication. Moreover, asymptomatic cage migration may be conservatively managed without reoperation.

Technical Note - Lateral Approach to the Lumbar Spine for the Removal of Interbody Cages

Revision surgery to address the migration or fracture of a lumbar interbody cage can be technically challenging. Scar tissue and fibrosis, among other anatomic barriers, can make removal of the cage a complicated procedure, potentially increasing postoperative pain as well as the probability of neurologic deficits. Use of the lateral surgical technique for removal of the cage can avoid these potential complications. In this case report, we describe the removal of interbody cages through a lateral approach in three patients without the necessity of additional posterior hardware revision.

Multilevel extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) and osteotomies for 3-dimensional severe deformity: 25 consecutive cases

Background

This is a retrospective review of 25 patients with severe lumbar nerve root compression undergoing multilevel anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation for deformity. The objective is to analyze the outcomes and clinical results from anterior interbody fusions performed through a lateral approach and compare these with traditional surgical procedures.

Methods

A consecutive series of 25 patients (78 extreme lateral interbody fusion [XLIF] levels) was identified to illustrate the primary advantages of XLIF in correcting the most extreme of the 3-dimensional deformities that fulfilled the following criteria: (1) a minimum of 40° of scoliosis; (2) 2 or more levels of translation, anterior spondylolisthesis, and lateral subluxation (subluxation in 2 planes), causing symptomatic neurogenic claudication and severe spinal stenosis; and (3) lumbar hypokyphosis or flat-back syndrome. In addition, the majority had trunks that were out of balance (central sacral vertical line ≥2 cm from vertical plumb line) or had sagittal imbalance, defined by a distance between the sagittal vertical line and S1 of greater than 3 cm. There were 25 patients who had severe enough deformities fulfilling these criteria that required supplementation of the lateral XLIF with posterior osteotomies and pedicle screw instrumentation.

Results

In our database, with a mean follow-up of 24 months, 85% of patients showed evidence of solid arthrodesis and no subsidence on computed tomography and flexion/extension radiographs. The complication rate remained low, with a perioperative rate of 2.4% and postoperative rate of 12.2%. The lateral listhesis and anterior spondylolisthetic subluxation were anatomically reduced with minimally invasive XLIF. The main finding in these 25 cases was our isolation of the major indication for supplemental posterior surgery: truncal decompensation in patients who are out of balance by 2 cm or more, in whom posterior spinal osteotomies and segmental pedicle screw instrumentation were required at follow up. No patients were out of sagittal balance (sagittal vertical line <3 cm from S1) postoperatively. Segmental instrumentation with osteotomies was also more effective for restoration of physiologic lumbar lordosis compared with anterior stand-alone procedures.

Conclusions

This retrospective study supports the finding that clinical outcomes (coronal/sagittal alignment) improve postoperatively after minimally invasive surgery with multilevel XLIF procedures and are improved compared with larger extensile thoracoabdominal anterior scoliosis procedures.

The lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar and thoracic spine: A review

Background:

In the last several years, the lateral transpsoas approach to the thoracic and lumbar spine, also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) or direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), has become an increasingly common method to achieve fusion. Several recent large series describe several advantages to this approach, including less tissue dissection, smaller incisions, decreased operative time, blood loss, shorter hospital stay, reduced postoperative pain, enhanced fusion rates, and the ability to place instrumentation through the same incision. Indications for this approach have expanded and now include degenerative disease, tumor, deformity, and infection.

Methods:

A lateral X-ray confirms that the patient is in a truly lateral position. Next, a series of tubes and dilators are used, along with fluoroscopy, to identify the mid-position of the disk to be incised. After continued dilation, the optimal site to enter the disk space is the midpoint of the disk, or a position slightly anterior to the midpoint of the disk. XLIF typically allows for a larger implant to be inserted compared to TLIF or PLIF, and, if necessary, instrumentation can be inserted percutaneously, which would allow for an overall minimally invasive procedure.

Results:

Fixation techniques appear to be equal between XLIF and more traditional approaches. Some caution should be exercised because common fusion levels of the lumbar spine, including L4-5 and L4-S1, are often inaccessible. In addition, XLIF has a unique set of complications, including neural injuries, psoas weakness, and thigh numbness.

Conclusion:

Additional studies are required to further evaluate and monitor the short and long-term safety, efficacy, outcomes, and complications of XLIF procedures.