Anterior lumbar interbody fusion: two-year results with a modular interbody device

Outcomes and Spinopelvic Changes After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Novel Interbody Fusion Device: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Interbody devices in anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) are currently a focus of innovation due to their potential to improve clinical outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to analyze complications and changes in spinopelvic parameters after ALIF with the novel Medacta MectaLIF interbody fusion device.

METHODS

Patients aged 18 to 80 years who underwent multilevel ALIF using this novel implant were identified. Demographic and surgical data were collected. Patients were divided into short- and long-fusion cohorts. A comparison of outcomes between the short- and long-fusion groups was performed using the Student t test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test and the χ2 test for categorical variables. Analysis of the pre- vs postoperative radiographic data for the entire cohort was performed using the 2-tailed Student t test.

RESULTS

One hundred and eight patients met the inclusion criteria. No significant postoperative change was observed in L1-4 lumbar lordosis (LL). L1-S1 LL increased to a mean of 55.1 ± 12.8 (a mean change of 10.7 ± 14.5), and L4-S1 LL increased to a mean of 38.4 ± 8.7 (a mean increase of 7.5 ± 8.2), with pelvic incidence LL mismatch changing from 8.9 ± 15.1 to 1.1 ± 13.5 (n = 102). Related changes in sacral slope and pelvic tilt were also observed (33.0 ± 11.0 to 37.6 ± 10.9 and 19.6 ± 9.5 to 18.2 ± 9.1 [n = 103], respectively). Five patients (4.6%) experienced implant subsidence, 1 (0.9%) had implant migration, and 6 (5.6%) experienced a nonunion. There was no difference in the rates of complications associated with the novel implant in the short- and long-fusion cohorts.

CONCLUSION

This novel implant achieves correction of spinopelvic parameters with minimal complications. The ability to modify the implant intraoperatively based on the patient's anatomy can help achieve maximal contact area and therefore help reduce the risk of subsidence.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This modular implant can achieve correction of spinopelvic parameters with minimal medical and surgical complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

An Update in Complication Rates Associated With Anterior Lumbar Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of complications associated with different anterior fusion techniques/approaches and adjuvant resources (i.e., computed tomography angiography (CTA), rhBMP-2, and access surgeons).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted from 1/1/2014-4/1/2024 for studies evaluating the incidence of complications associated with anterior lumbar procedures. Comparisons of complications were made between surgical approach, use of CTA, rhBMP-2, and access surgeons. Meta-analyses were conducted using a generalized linear mixed model.

RESULTS

54 studies were included in the final analysis with 8066 patients and an average follow-up of 31.2 months. The overall complication rate associated with anterior lumbar surgery was 13.1%, including an intraoperative complication rate of 3.8%, postoperative complication rate of 7.4%, infection rate of 1.5%, and reoperation rate of 1.7%. Forest plot analysis showed no significant difference in overall complication rates between open and mini-open techniques, although mini-open techniques were associated with lower overall reoperation rates. The use of CTA was associated with an increase in intraoperative and overall complications, and the use of an access surgeon was associated with a decreased risk of reoperation. The use of rhBMP-2 was not associated with overall complication risk.

CONCLUSIONS

While anterior lumbar surgery provides numerous benefits, surgeons and patients alike should be aware of the complication and safety profile prior to surgery. High quality studies are warranted to help elucidate the true benefit of certain techniques and adjuvant resources in reducing complications.

Defining cage subsidence in anterior, oblique, and lateral lumbar spine fusion approaches: a systematic review of the literature

One of the most common complications of lumbar fusions is cage subsidence, which leads to collapse of disc height and reappearance of the presenting symptomology. However, definitions of cage subsidence are inconsistent, leading to a variety of subsidence calculation methodologies and thresholds. To review previously published literature on cage subsidence in order to present the most common methods for calculating and defining subsidence in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) approaches. A search was completed in PubMed and Embase with inclusion criteria focused on identifying any study that provided descriptions of the method, imaging modality, or subsidence threshold used to calculate the presence of cage subsidence. A total of 69 articles were included in the final analysis, of which 18 (26.1%) reported on the ALIF approach, 22 (31.9%) on the OLIF approach, and 31 (44.9%) on the LLIF approach, 2 of which reported on more than one approach. ALIF articles most commonly calculated the loss of disc height over time with a subsidence threshold of > 2 mm. Most OLIF articles calculated the total amount of cage migration into the vertebral bodies, with a threshold of > 2 mm. LLIF was the only approach in which most articles applied the same method for calculation, namely, a grading scale for classifying the loss of disc height over time. We recommend future articles adhere to the most common methodologies presented here to ensure accuracy and generalizability in reporting cage subsidence.

Review of mechanisms of expandable spine surgery devices

INTRODUCTION

Expandable devices such as interbody cages, vertebral body reconstruction cages, and intravertebral body expansion devices are frequently utilized in spine surgery. Since the introduction of expandable implants in the early 2000s, the variety of mechanisms that drive expansion and implant materials have steadily increased. By examining expandable devices that have achieved commercial success and exploring emerging innovations, we aim to offer an in-depth evaluation of the different types of expandable cages used in spine surgery and the underlying mechanisms that drive their functionality.

AREAS COVERED

We performed a review of expandable spinal implants and devices by querying the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE database and Google Patents database from 1933 to 2024. Five major types of mechanical jacks that drive expansion were identified: scissor, pneumatic, screw, ratchet, and insertion-expansion.

EXPERT OPINION

We identified a trend of screw jack mechanism being the predominant machinery in vertebral body reconstruction cages and scissor jack mechanism predominating in interbody cages. Pneumatic jacks were most commonly found in kyphoplasty devices. Critically reviewing the mechanisms of expansion and identifying trends among effective and successful cages allows both surgeons and medical device companies to properly identify future areas of development.

Expandable Cage Technology-Transforaminal, Anterior, and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

This review of the literature will focus on the indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes for expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) operations. The expandable TLIF cage has become a workhorse for common degenerative pathology, whereas expandable ALIF cages carry the promise of greater lordotic correction while evading the diseased posterior elements. Expandable LLIF cages call upon minimally invasive techniques for a retroperitoneal, transpsoas approach to the disc space, obviating the need for an access surgeon and decreasing risk of injury to the critical neurovascular structures. Nuances between expandable and static cages for all 3 TLIF, ALIF, and LLIF operations are discussed in this review.

ALIF in the correction of spinal sagittal misalignment. A systematic review of literature

PURPOSE

We aim at analysing the impact of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in restoring the main spinopelvic parameters, along with its potentials and limitations in correcting sagittal imbalance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The 2009 PRISMA flow chart was used to systematically review the literature; 27 papers were eventually selected. The following spinopelvic parameters were observed: pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lumbar lordosis (LLseg) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Papers reporting on hyperlordotic cages (HLC) were analysed separately. The indirect decompression potential of ALIF was also assessed. The clinical outcome was obtained by collecting visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Global fusion rate and main complications were collected.

RESULTS

PT, SS, LL, LLseg and SVA spinopelvic parameters all improved postoperatively by - 4.3 ± 5.2°, 3.9 ± 4.5°, 10.6 ± 12.5°, 6.7 ± 3.5° and 51.1 ± 44.8 mm, respectively. HLC were statistically more effective in restoring LL and LLseg (p < 0.05). Postoperative disc height, anterior disc height, posterior disc height and foraminal height, respectively, increased by 58.5%, 87.2%, 80.9% and 18.1%. Postoperative improvements were observed in VAS back and leg and ODI scores (p < 0.05). The global fusion rate was 94.5 ± 5.5%; the overall complication rate was 13%.

CONCLUSION

When managing sagittal imbalance, ALIF can be considered as a valid technique to achieve the correct spinopelvic parameters based on preoperative planning. This technique permits to obtain an optimal LL distribution and a solid anterior column support, with lower complications and higher fusion rates when compared to posterior osteotomies.

Anterior Lumbar Fusion: Differences in Patient Selection and Surgical Outcomes Between Neurosurgeons and Orthopaedic Surgeons

OBJECTIVE

Anterior lumbar fusion (ALF) is performed by both neurosurgeons and orthopaedic surgeons. The aim of this study was to determine differences between the 2 surgical subspecialties in terms of patient selection and postoperative outcomes after ALF.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing ALF in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2010 to 2014 was performed. Univariate analyses were performed to identify differences in baseline patient demographics, comorbidities, operative characteristics, and 30-day postoperative outcomes between neurosurgery and orthopaedic surgery patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine whether surgical subspecialty was an independent risk factor for postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The study included 3182 patients, with 1629 (51.2%) neurosurgery patients and 1553 (48.8%) orthopaedic surgery patients. A greater proportion of neurosurgery patients were >65 years old, were being treated with preoperative steroids, had cardiac or pulmonary comorbidities, and had an American Society of Anesthesiologists classification III or higher. ALF procedures performed by neurosurgeons more frequently involved use of intervertebral devices and bone graft. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, ALF procedures performed by neurosurgeons were independently associated with a higher risk of reoperation (odds ratio = 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.56; P = 0.042) and urinary tract infection (odds ratio = 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-3.68; P = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to differences in baseline patient demographics and comorbidities and operative characteristics, ALF performed by neurosurgeons had a higher risk of 30-day reoperation and urinary tract infection compared with ALF performed by orthopaedic surgeons.

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With and Without an "Access Surgeon": A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of anterior lumber interbody fusion (ALIF) with and without an "access surgeon."

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Anterior approaches for spine operations have become increasingly popular but may often involve unfamiliar anatomy and territory for spine surgeons, potentially placing the patient at risk to a greater proportion of approach-related complications. Thus, many spine surgeons require or prefer the assistance of an "access surgeon" to perform the exposure. However, there has been much debate about the necessity of an "access surgeon."

METHODS

A systematic search of six databases from inception to April 2016 was performed by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was used to pool overall rates, and compare the outcomes of ALIF with an access surgeon and without.

RESULTS

A total of 58 (8028 patients) studies were included in this meta-analysis. The overall intraoperative complications were similar with and without an "access surgeon." The overall pooled rate of arterial injuries [no access 0.44% vs. access 1.16%, odds ratio (OR) 2.67, P < 0.001], retrograde ejaculation (0.41% vs. 0.96%, OR 2.34, P = 0.005), and ileus (1.93% vs. 2.26%, OR 2.45, P < 0.001) was higher with an "access surgeon." However, the overall pooled rates of peritoneal injury (0.44% vs. 0.16%, OR 0.36, P = 0.034) and neurological injury (0.99% vs. 0.11%, OR 0.11, P < 0.001) were lower with an "access surgeon." Total postoperative complications (5.95% vs. 4.08%, OR 0.67, P < 0.001) were lower with an "access surgeon" along with prosthesis complications (1.59% vs. 0.89%, OR 0.56, P < 0.001) and reoperation rates (2.28% vs. 1.31%, OR 0.57, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with no access surgeon, the use of an access surgeon was associated with similar intraoperative complication rates, higher arterial injuries, retrograde ejaculation, ileus, and lower prosthesis complications, reoperation rates, and postoperative complications. In cases wherein exposure may be difficult, support from an "access surgeon" should be available.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Three cases of L4-5 Baastrup's disease due to L5-S1 spondylolytic spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE

Baastrup's disease is characterized by degeneration of spinous processes and interspinous soft tissue, which may cause spinal stenosis. Purpose of this article is to report the possible new cause of Baastrup's disease and result of surgical treatments.

METHODS

Authors treated three cases of Baastrup's disease on L4-L5 with L5-S1 spondylolytic listhesis. Conservative treatment did not relieve the pain; therefore, surgical treatments were planned according to each specific disease condition.

RESULTS

In one case, anterior lumbar interbody fusion of L5-S1 was performed, and after surgery, the size of epidural cyst on L4-L5 was decreased. L4-L5 bilateral laminectomy was performed to directly decompress posterior epidural cyst in a case with stable L5-S1 spondylolytic listhesis. In last case, facet joints and spinous process were removed by L5-S1 posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery. After the surgery, patients' back and leg pain was improved and postoperative MRI revealed successful decompression of the spinal canal. Improvement in back and leg symptoms was noted at 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Baastrup's disease at the L4-L5 level may have developed from the instability caused by L5-S1 spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Viable treatment options include the fusion of L5-S1 or a laminectomy at the L4-L5 level.

Iatrogenic Baastrup's Syndrome: A Potential Complication Following Anterior Interbody Lumbar Spinal Surgery

BACKGROUND

Baastrup's Syndrome is a condition that occurs when there is abnormal contact between two adjacent spinous processes resulting in back pain. An alteration in lumbar spinal alignment and/or adjacent segment compensatory motion is thought to be potential causative factors. The objective of this study was to present a case series of what appears to be iatrogenic Baastrup's Syndrome as a mid-to-late term complication following anterior lumbar interbody surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of all patients undergoing anterior lumbar surgery for either fusion or disc replacement to determine the prevalence of Baastrup's Syndrome.

RESULTS

Over a 12-year period, 855 patients who had undergone an anterior approach for lumbar spine surgery were identified. Of them 8 patients with evidence of Baastrup's Syndrome were found; this demonstrated a prevalence of 0.9%. Diagnostic injection was a helpful clinical tool in confirming the diagnosis of iatrogenic Baastrup's Syndrome. The partial removal of the impinging spinous processes resulted in excellent clinical relief.

CONCLUSIONS

Iatrogenic Baastrup's Syndrome may be an iatrogenic result of anterior lumbar surgery in small group of patients. Spinous process excision is a suggested treatment option. Further studies are necessary to explore the above phenomenon. This study is a Level 3 retrospective case series.