P130. Lateral single position anterior posterior (AP) lumbar fusion outperforms conventional AP fusion with patient repositioning at 2-year minimum follow-up

Abstract

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> Previous literature has demonstrated the advantages of lateral single position surgery (L-SPS) in the perioperative period; however, 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively. <h3>PURPOSE</h3> Evaluate the feasibility and safety of L-SPS technique against the conventional FLIP. <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> Multi-center retrospective cohort study. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> Patients undergoing primary AP (ALIF or LLIF) fusions with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 with minimum 2-year followup at three institutions. <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> Outcome measures included levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch and segmental lumbar lordosis. <h3>METHODS</h3> Patients were grouped as L-SPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2 years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<0.05. <h3>RESULTS</h3> A total of 442 pts met inclusion, including 352 L-SPS and 90 FLIP pts. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs. 56.9; p=< 0.001) and smoking status (7% vs. 16%; p=0.023) between the L-SPS and FLIP groups. No differences between L-SPS and FLIP were noted in gender (57.4% female vs 57.8% female, p=1.000), BMI (30.0kg/m2 vs 29.3kg/m2; p=0.318). No differences were noted in number of levels fused between L-SPS and FLIP (1.45vs 1.50; p=0.533), proportion including ALIF (38% vs 39%; p=0.809), or the proportion of surgeries including L5-S1 (38%vs 31%; p=0.222). Perioperative outcomes: L-SPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p < 0.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p < 0.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p < 0.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs. 3.61 days; p < 0.001) compared to FLIP. L-SPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9% vs 34.4%; p=0.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in remaining surgical site, neurological, or medical complications between groups. Reoperation: N=no differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%L-SPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=0.125), 90-day (5.1%L-SPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=0.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%L-SPS vs 12.2%FLIP; p=0.441). The most common reason for return to OR was Adjacent Segment Disease, (L-SPS 3.1% vs. FLIP 7.8%; p=0.067). Pseudarthrosis rates were similar between groups (0.0%L-SPS vs. 1.1%FLIP; p=0.204). Radiological Outcomes: no significant differences were noted in rates of radiological fusion (94.3% L-SPS vs 97.8%FLIP; p=0.266) or subsidence (6.9%L-SPS vs 12.2%FLIP; p=0.260). There were no differences noted between L-SPS and FLIP in change in LL from Baseline to 1-year (3.5 vs 2.8; p=0.466) and post-op to 1yr (-0.18 vs -0.51; p=0.777), or in PI-LL from Baseline to 1-year (-3.5 vs -3.2; p=0.835) and from post-op to 1-year (0.71 vs 0.71; 0.998). <h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3> L-SPS improves safety, improves operative efficiency and reduces complications in the perioperative period while maintaining similar efficacy of AP fusion at 2-year followup in treating degenerative lumbar spinal conditions. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.