Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Research Articles

Abdominal lymphocele following multi-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) managed with a laparoscopic peritoneal window: case report and review of the literature

PurposeLymphocele formation following anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is not common, but it can pose diagnostic and treatment challenges. The purpose of this case is to report for the first time the treatment of a postoperative lymphocele following a multi-level ALIF using a peritoneal window made through a minimally invasive laparoscopic approach.MethodsCase report.ResultsA 74-year-old male with a history of prostatectomy and pelvic radiation underwent a staged L3–S1 ALIF (left paramedian approach) and T10-pelvis posterior instrumented with L1–5 decompression/posterior column osteotomies for degenerative scoliosis and neurogenic claudication. Three weeks after surgery, swelling of the left abdomen and entire left leg was reported. Computed tomography of the abdomen/pelvis demonstrated a large (19.2 × 12.0 × 15.4 cm) retroperitoneal fluid collection with compression of the left ureter and left common iliac vein. Fluid analysis (80% lymphocytes) was consistent with a lymphocele. Percutaneous drainage for 4 days was ineffective at clearing the lymphocele. For more definitive management, the patient underwent an uncomplicated laparoscopic creation of a peritoneal window to allow passive drainage of lymphatic fluid into the abdomen. Three years after surgery, he had no back or leg pain, had achieved spinal union, and had no abdominal swelling or left leg swelling. Advanced imaging also confirmed resolution of the lymphocele.ConclusionsIn this case report, creation of a peritoneal window minimally invasively via a laparoscope allowing passive drainage of lymphatic fluid into the abdomen was safe and effective for management of an abdominal lymphocele following a multi-level ALIF.

Anterior column realignment via a minimally invasive hybrid approach in adult spinal deformity surgery: a short-term retrospective study

BackgroundAnterior column realignment (ACR) is a novel surgical method for correcting spinal sagittal balance. meanwhile, oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) are considered minimally invasive surgical methods through natural anatomical space. This study aimed to explore the corrective effects and clinical outcomes of OLIF or ALIF combined with ACR technology in patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD).MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with sagittal imbalance who received OLIF and/or ALIF and ACR treatment from 2018 to 2021. Surgical time and intraoperative bleeding volume are recorded, the corrective effect is determined by the intervertebral space angle (IVA), lumbar lordosis (LL), the sagittal vertical axis (SVA), clinical outcome is evaluated by preoperative and final follow-up visual analog pain score (VAS), Japanese orthopedic association scores (JOA) and complications.ResultsSixty-four patients were enrolled in the study, average age of 65.1(range, 47–82) years. All patients completed 173 fusion segments, for 150 segments of ACR surgery. The operation time of ALIF-ACR was 50.4 ± 22.1 min; The intraoperative bleeding volume was 50.2 ± 23.6 ml. The operation time and intraoperative bleeding volume of single-segment OLIF-ACR was 66.2 ± 19.4 min and 70.2 ± 31.6 ml. At the follow-up of 6 months after surgery, the intervertebral space angle correction for OLIF-ACR and ALIF-ACR is 9.2° and 12.2°, the preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis were 16.7° ± 6.4°and 47.1° ± 3.6° (p < 0.001), VAS and JOA scores were improved from 6.8 to 1.8 and 7.8 to 22.1 respectively, statistically significant differences were observed in these parameters. The incidence of surgical related complications is 29.69%, but without serious complications.ConclusionACR via a minimally invasive hybrid approach for ASD has significant advantages in restoring local intervertebral space angulation and correcting the overall sagittal balance. Simultaneously, it can achieve good clinical outcomes and fewer surgical complications.

Endoscopic Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion (L-ALIF), which employs laparoscopic cameras to facilitate a less invasive approach, originally gained traction during the 1990s but has subsequently fallen out of favor. As the envelope for endoscopic approaches continues to be pushed, a recurrence of interest in laparoscopic and/or endoscopic anterior approaches seems possible. Therefore, evaluating the current evidence base in regard to this approach is of much clinical relevance. To this end, a systematic literature search was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the following keywords: "(laparoscopic OR endoscopic) AND (anterior AND lumbar)." Out of the 441 articles retrieved, 22 were selected for quantitative analysis. The primary outcome of interest was the radiographic fusion rate. The secondary outcome was the incidence of perioperative complications. Meta-analysis was performed using RStudio's "metafor" package. Of the 1,079 included patients (mean age, 41.8±2.9 years), 481 were males (44.6%). The most common indication for L-ALIF surgery was degenerative disk disease (reported by 18 studies, 81.8%). The mean follow-up duration was 18.8±11.2 months (range, 6-43 months). The pooled fusion rate was 78.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 68.9-90.4). Complications occurred in 19.2% (95% CI, 13.4-27.4) of L-ALIF cases. Additionally, 7.2% (95% CI, 4.6-11.4) of patients required conversion from L-ALIF to open surgery. Although L-ALIF does not appear to be supported by studies available in the literature, it is important to consider the context from which these results have been obtained. Even if these results are taken at face value, the failure of endoscopy to have a role in the ALIF approach does not mean that it should not be incorporated in posterior approaches.

Trends in lumbar interbody fusion: A study of American Board of Orthopedic Surgery (ABOS) candidate data

Background: There has been an increase in posterior-based interbody fusions over the past two decades. Our objective was to evaluate trends in interbody fusion use among the American Board of Orthopedic Surgery (ABOS) Part II candidates. Methods: The ABOS database from 2003 to 2012 was queried for common procedural terminology (CPT) codes indicating lumbar interbody fusion (22,558 anterior lumbar interbody fusion [ALIF] and 22,630 and 22,633 posterior lumbar interbody fusion [PLIF] or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [TLIF]). Trends in the use of interbody fusion technique, associated complications, and geographical variation were evaluated. We also queried utilization of the anterior and posterior interbody fusions by the International Classification of Diseases-9 code. Results: 6841 interbody fusion cases were identified (2329 ALIF and 4512 PLIF/TLIF). There was a significantly higher use of PLIF/TLIF than ALIF over the study period (P &lt; 0.001). As compared to patients in the Midwest, those in the Northwest had significantly higher odds of undergoing PLIF/TLIF (odds ratio [OR]: 4.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.61–6.35, P &lt;0.001), and those in the Southwest had significantly lower odds of PLIF/TLIF (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.69–0.95, P = 0.01). The overall complication rate was 22.2% (n = 1,519). Vascular-related complications were significantly higher among patients undergoing ALIF (31 vs. 1, P &lt;0.001), while those undergoing TLIF/PLIF were more likely to experience unspecified medical complications. On multivariate analysis, patients undergoing PLIF/TLIF had lower odds of experiencing a complication (P = 0.03, OR 0.87, CI 95%). Conclusion: Over the 10-year study period, there has been a significantly increased rate of posterior interbody fusion among candidates taking part II ABOS examination.

Single-Level Anterolateral and Posterior Interbody Fusion Techniques are Associated With Equivalent Long-Term Lumbar Reoperations.

Retrospective cohort study. This study compares reoperation rates and complications following single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)/lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)/posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). ALIF, LLIF, TLIF, and PLIF are widely used for degenerative disc disease. Lumbar interbody fusions have high rates of reoperation, primarily related to adjacent segment pathology and pseudarthrosis. The PearlDiver database was queried for patients (2010-2021) who had single-level ALIF/LLIF or TLIF/PLIF with same-day, single-level posterior instrumentation. ALIF/LLIF were combined, and similarly, TLIF/PLIF were combined, given how these operations are indistinguishable from Current Procedural Terminology coding. All patients were followed for ≥2 years and excluded if they had spinal traumas, fractures, infections, or neoplasms before surgery. The two cohorts, ALIF/LLIF and TLIF/PLIF, were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, Elixhauser-comorbidity index, smoking status, and diabetes. The primary outcome was the incidence of all-cause subsequent lumbar operations. Secondary outcomes included 90-day surgical complications. After 1:1 matching, each cohort contained 14,070 patients. All-cause subsequent lumbar operations were nearly identical at five-year follow-up (9.4% ALIF/LLIF vs. 9.5% TLIF/PLIF, P =0.91). Survival analysis using all-cause subsequent lumbar operations as the endpoint showed an equivalent 10-year survival rate of 86.0% (95%CI: 85.2-86.8). Within 90 days, TLIF/PLIF had more infections (1.3% vs. 1.7%, P =0.007) and dural injuries (0.2% vs. 0.4%, P =0.001). There was no difference in wound dehiscence, hardware complications, or medical complications. As utilized in real-world clinical practice, single-level anterolateral versus posterior approaches for interbody fusion have no effect on long-term reoperation rates.

Long-term comparison of anterior (ALIF) versus transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion: a propensity score-matched register-based study.

Anterior (ALIF) and transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion have shown similar clinical outcomes at short- and medium-term follow-ups. Possible advantages of ALIF in the long run could be better disc height and lumbar lordosis and reduced risk of adjacent segment disease. We aimed to study if ALIF could be associated with superior clinical outcomes than TLIF at long-term follow-up. We analysed 535 patients treated with ALIF or TLIF of the L5-S1 spinal segment between 2007 and 2017 who completed long-term follow-up in a national spine registry database (NORspine). We defined treatment success after surgery as at least 30% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at long-term follow-up. Patients treated with ALIF and TLIF and who responded at long term were balanced by propensity score matching. The proportions of successfully treated patients within each group were compared by numbers and percentages with corresponding relative risk. The mean (95%CI) age of the total study population was 50 (49-51) years, and 264 (49%) were females. The mean (95%CI) preoperative ODI score was 40 (39-42), and 174 (33%) had previous spine surgery. Propensity score matching left 120 patients in each treatment group. At a median (95%CI) of 92 (88-97) months after surgery, we found no difference in proportions successfully treated patients with ALIF versus TLIF (68 (58%) versus 77 (65%), RR (95%CI) = 0.88 (0.72 to1.08); p = 0.237). This propensity score-matched national spine register study of patients treated with ALIF versus TLIF of the lumbosacral junction found no differences in proportions of successfully treated patients at long-term follow-up. Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes After Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Symptomatic L5-S1 Retrolisthesis.

Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is associated with significant pain and disability. The literature on the treatment options and clinical outcomes for lumbar anterolisthesis is robust, but very few reports specifically evaluate lumbar retrolisthesis. This study investigated surgical outcomes for symptomatic L5-S1 retrolisthesis treated with stand-alone L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). All patients with symptomatic L5-S1 retrolisthesis treated with stand-alone L5-S1 ALIF at a single institution over a 7-year period were identified. Exhaustive nonoperative management had failed for all patients. Patients with previous lumbar fusion were excluded. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic images and patient-reported outcome measures for 20 patients (14 males and 6 females; mean [SD] age, 50.3 [13.7] years) were analyzed. The mean (SD) follow-up was 43.0 (23.7) months (range, 12.1-102.5 months). Patients experienced postoperative improvements in L5-S1 retrolisthesis (P = .048), L5-S1 disk height and angle (P < .001), L5 foraminal height (P < .001), L5-S1 lordosis (P < .001), and lumbar lordosis (P = .01). There were no significant changes in spinopelvic parameters. At the most recent follow-up, minimal clinically important differences in Oswestry Disability Index score, 36-Item Short-Form Survey (SF-36), and numerical rating scale score for leg pain were achieved in 11 of 20 (55%), 7 of 14 (50%), and 7 of 13 (54%) patients, respectively. All patients demonstrated fusion with no graft subsidence at up to 32 months. No patient experienced intraoperative complications, was readmitted, or required a subsequent posterior decompression or fusion because of refractory symptoms. In our cohort, stand-alone L5-S1 ALIF was associated with radiographic and clinical improvement in patients with symptomatic L5-S1 retrolisthesis.

Rapid (enhanced) recovery for fusion surgery in the degenerative spine: Clinical outcomes in 100 consecutive patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up

IntroductionSpinal surgical procedures became very frequent in the last decades with fusion techniques being widely used for several indications. Many of these surgeries imply a significant tissue disruption and muscle atrophy with subsequent pain and functional impairment. Research questionHow to prepare and manage patients according to a rapid/enhanced recovery (RR/ERAS) protocol in a private setting while improving patient’s peri-operative experience and minimizing surgical footprint? Material and methodsAll patients suffering from a thoracolumbar degenerative disease and with an indication for fusion between January 2018 and October 2021 were screened. Pain control, functional recovery, complication rate and patient’ satisfaction were recorded for at least one-year of follow-up (FU). Results100 patients were prospectively followed for at least one year after surgery. More than two thirds (n = 69, 69.0 %) had a trans-psoas extreme lateral interbody fusion (X-LIF) or anterior approach with posterior instrumentation and direct decompression when needed, 14 (14.0 %) had an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and 17 (17.0 %) patients had a posterior approach only (posterior LIF or transforaminal LIF). Most patients had multi-level surgery (n = 56, 56.0 %). All patients improved their quality of life and back and leg pain at one year FU with those having an antero-lateral approach improving significantly more. Overall satisfaction rate was higher than 90 %. Discussion and ConclusionThe application of RR/ERAS protocols to fusion surgery in degenerative spine proves to feasible and beneficial in a private care setting. Patients having anterolateral approaches tend to improve more than those with posterior only approaches.

Surgical Management of Lumbar Spine Fractures and Dislocations

Background: Lumbar spine fractures and dislocations, which are part of the thoracolumbar region, are critical injuries with significant morbidity. The epidemiological shift in the median age of injury and the high prevalence of these injuries, particularly in the T10-L2 region, highlight the necessity for effective therapeutic interventions. With advancements in spine biomechanics, imaging technologies, and surgical techniques, there has been a paradigm shift from conservative to surgical management, though high-quality comparative studies remain limited. Objective: To synthesize recent data on the epidemiology, evaluation, and management of lumbar spine fractures and dislocations, and to elucidate the comparative efficacy of surgical interventions and conservative approaches in optimizing patient outcomes. Method: This paper conducts a comprehensive review of epidemiological data on thoracolumbar traumatic injuries, diagnostic techniques, and management strategies, especially focusing on surgical interventions. The review also details specific surgical techniques utilized for lumbar spine fractures and their underlying rationale. Findings and Conclusion: Thoracolumbar injuries primarily affect the transitional zone (T11-L2) and show a higher incidence in males aged between 20 and 40. Imaging, especially CT scans, offers a definitive diagnostic approach, with MRI providing insights on soft tissue interactions. While historically, conservative methods dominated therapeutic interventions, surgical techniques, including Posterior Instrumentation, Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF), Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF), and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF), are increasingly being utilized. Some specific fractures even warrant a combined posterior-anterior surgical approach. Notably, certain case studies highlight the potential for superior outcomes with surgical intervention, even in the absence of neurological deficits. Selecting the appropriate management strategy should be tailored to individual patient factors, nature of the injury, and available expertise and resources.

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) for Lumbar Hemivertebra in an Adult Using Three-Dimensional-Printed Patient-Specific Implants and Virtual Surgery Planning: A Technical Report

Introduction: Hemivertebrae are a common defect of vertebral formation, potentially resulting in debilitating congenital scoliosis and necessitating highly traumatic surgery. Virtual surgical planning (VSP) and 3D-printed patient-specific implants (PSIs) have increasingly been applied to complex spinal surgery, and offer a range of potential benefits. Research Question: We report the use of 3D-printed PSIs and VSP as part of a two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for the management of lateral hemivertebra and congenital scoliosis. Material and Methods: A 53-year-old male with chronic low-back pain, due to L4 hemivertebra and mild congenital scoliosis, presented with new-onset leg pain. CT revealed L4/5 and L5/S1 degeneration and foraminal stenosis. Given the complex anatomy and extensive multi-level osteophytosis, 3D-printed PSIs were designed, manufactured, and implanted as part of a two-level ALIF. Results: Excellent implant fit was achieved intraoperatively, confirmed via postoperative imaging. VSP assisted with navigating challenging bony and vascular anatomy. Three-month postoperative imaging demonstrated construct stability, early signs of bony fusion, with implant placement, spinal curvature, and disc height corrections closely matching the VSP. Clinically, the patient’s pain and functional impairment had effectively resolved by nine-month follow up, as demonstrated through subjective and objective measures. Discussion and Conclusions: Virtual surgical planning and 3D-printed PSIs can be useful surgical aids in the management of the often-complex cases involving hemivertebrae and congenital scoliosis. This case of congenital pathology adds to the growing reports of PSI application to a variety of complex spinal pathologies, with analyses showing a close match of the postoperative construct to the preoperative VSP.

Primary anterior lumbar interbody fusion, with and without posterior instrumentation: a 1,377-patient cohort from a multicenter spine registry

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLumbar interbody instrumentation techniques are common and effective surgical options for a variety of lumbar degenerative pathologies. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has become a versatile and powerful means of decompression, stabilization, and reconstruction. As an anterior only technique, the integrity of the posterior muscle and ligaments remain intact. Adding posterior instrumentation to ALIF is common and may confer benefits in terms of higher fusion rate but could contribute to adjacent segment degeneration due to additional rigidity. Large clinical studies comparing stand-alone ALIF with and without posterior supplementary fixation (ALIF+PSF) are lacking. PURPOSETo compare rates of operative nonunion and adjacent segment disease (ASD) in ALIF with or without posterior instrumentation. STUDY DESIGNRetrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLEAdult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent primary ALIF for lumbar degenerative pathology between levels L4 to S1 over a 12-year period. Exclusion criteria included trauma, cancer, infection, supplemental decompression, noncontiguous fusions, prior lumbar fusions, and other interbody devices. OUTCOME MEASURESReoperation for nonunion and ASD compared between ALIF only and ALIF+PSF. METHODSReoperations were modeled as time-to-events where the follow-up time was defined as the difference between the primary ALIF procedure and the date of the outcome of interest. Crude cumulative reoperation probabilities were reported at 5-years follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate risk of operative nonunion and for ASD adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTSThe study consisted of 1,377 cases; 307 ALIF only and 1070 ALIF+PSF. Mean follow-up time was 5.6 years. The 5-year crude nonunion incidence was 2.4% for ALIF only and 0.5% for ALIF+PSF; after adjustment for covariates, a lower operative nonunion risk was observed for ALIF+PSF (HR=0.22, 95% CI=0.06–0.76). Of the patients who are deemed potentially suitable for ALIF alone, one would need to add posterior instrumentation in 53 patients to prevent one case of operative nonunion at a 5-year follow-up (number needed to treat). Five-year operative ASD incidence was 4.3% for ALIF only and 6.2% for ALIF+PSF; with adjustments, no difference was observed between the cohorts (HR=0.96, 95% CI=0.54–1.71). CONCLUSIONSWhile the addition of posterior instrumentation in ALIFs is associated with lower risk of operative nonunion compared with ALIF alone, operative nonunion is rare in both techniques (<5%). Accordingly, surgeons should evaluate the added risks associated with the addition of posterior instrumentation and reserve the supplemental posterior fixation for patients that might be at higher risk for operative nonunion. Rates of operative ASD were not statistically higher with the addition of posterior instrumentation suggesting concern regarding future risk of ASD perhaps should not play a role in considering supplemental posterior instrumentation in ALIF.

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF): a review of the procedure and associated complications

Degenerative disc disease and facet joint disease involving the lumbar spine are common in the aging population and are the most frequent causes of disability. Surgical interbody fusion of degenerative levels is the most common management technique. This is an effective treatment option to stabilize the spine and reduce mechanical pain and provides indirect decompression of the neural elements while restoring lordosis and correcting the deformity. Depending on the direction of the approach to the vertebral column, various techniques have been described. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) offers clear and wide visualization of the disc allowing the use of large interbody grafts, which provide a significant biomechanical advantage over other types of fusion. The transperitoneal approach is a much older technique and it is not commonly performed unless in isolated cases with extensive retroperitoneal scaring following multiple abdominal surgeries. The transperitoneal approach has been associated with higher rates of bowel injury, ileus, and retrograde ejaculation, and is limited at the L5–S1 segment, hence many spine surgeons favor a retroperitoneal approach. The major setback of ALIF is the need for great vessel mobilization. This manipulation of the vessels may lead to deep vein thrombosis and a direct vascular injury. This makes vascular anatomy studies in the preoperative stage invaluable in avoiding vascular injury. Other complications include possible injury to intraperitoneal and retroperitoneal organs, especially in patients with previous surgery and adhesions. Manipulation of the intestines causes postoperative ileus which lasts a few days. Sexual dysfunction in form of retrograde ejaculation is another complication seen in patients following ALIF and this has been attributed to injury to the superior hypogastric sympathetic nerves in the lower lumbar region.This article reviews the ALIF procedure i. e., transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches, and the associated intraoperative, early, and late complications.

Intraoperative Complications of the Anterior Retroperitoneal Approach to the Lumbosacral Spine in the Supine Position: A Proposal for an Algorithm to Predict the Degree of Difficulty of the Surgical Procedure

The main concern in anterior exposure of the lumbosacral spine is the risk of vascular injury during mobilization and retraction of the blood vessels. Preoperative planning is considered essential to reducing the incidence of vascular injury, although no consensus has been reached on the preferred methodology for such planning. This is a retrospective study, including all patients operated on by a single surgeon, who received anterior lumbar-spine surgery in the supine position as a primary procedure before undergoing an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or an artificial disc replacement (ADR). The aim of this study was to list the intraoperative complications observed. We included 156 patients (87 women; mean age, 48 years) who met the inclusion criteria. The overall complication rate was 6.4% (10/156). The most frequent complications were an incidental peritoneal opening (seven patients, 4.4%); two left–iliac-vein injuries (1.28%) that were sutured; and one dural tear during a decompression maneuver of the canal. No neurological, arterial, or ureteral injury or retrograde ejaculation was reported. The use of a sound protocol that includes planning, assessment of approach difficulty, and step-by-step surgical technique can reduce the rate of vascular injury in anterior lumbosacral-spine surgery.

Comparison of Staged vs Same-Day Circumferential Spinal Fusions for Adult Spinal Deformity.

Patients often undergo circumferential (anterior and posterior) spinal fusions to maximize adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction and achieve adequate fusion. Currently, such procedures are performed in staged (ST) or same-day (SD) procedures with limited evidence to support either strategy. This study aims to compare perioperative outcomes and costs of ST vs SD circumferential ASD corrective surgeries. This is a retrospective review of patients undergoing circumferential ASD surgeries between 2013 and 2018 in a single institution. Patient characteristics, preoperative comorbidities, surgical details, perioperative complications, readmissions, total hospital admission costs, and 90-day postoperative care costs were identified. All variables were tested for differences between ST and SD groups unadjusted and after applying inverse probability weighting (IPW), and the results before and after IPW were compared. The entire cohort included a total of 211 (ST = 50, SD = 161) patients, 100 of whom (ST = 44, SD = 56) underwent more than 4 levels fused posteriorly and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Although patient characteristics and comorbidities were not dissimilar between the ST and SD groups, both the number of levels fused in ALIF and posterior spinal fusion (PSF) were significantly different. Thus, using IPW, we were able to minimize the cohort incongruities in the number of levels fused in ALIF and PSF while maintaining comparable patient characteristics. In both the whole cohort and the long segment fusions, postoperative pulmonary embolism was more common in ST procedures. After adjustment utilizing IPW, both groups were not significantly different in disposition, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations. However, within the whole cohort and the long segment fusion cohort, the ST group continued to show significantly increased rates of pulmonary embolism, longer length of stay, and higher hospital admission costs compared with the SD group. Adjusted comparisons between ST and SD groups showed staging associated with significantly increased length of stay, risk of pulmonary embolism, and admission costs.

Early Compensatory Segmental Angle Changes at L3-L4 and L4-L5 After a L5-S1 Interbody Fusion for a Grade 1 Spondylolisthesis.

The retrospective study included patients who underwent an L5-S1 anterior (ALIF) or transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation for grade 1 spondylolisthesis from 2018 to 2022. To compare early reciprocal changes at the L3-L4 and L4-L5 adjacent levels 6 months after ALIF or TLIF at L5-S1. Degenerative and chronic isthmic spondylolistheses often result in decreased segmental lordosis (SL) at L5-S1. This can lead to lordotic overcompensation at adjacent levels to maintain spinopelvic balance. However, the fate of adjacent angles after interbody fusion is not well understood. Preoperative and 6-month postoperative measurements of SL (L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1), lumbar lordosis, and pelvic incidence (PI) were obtained from sagittal standing radiographs. Preliminary t tests were performed for descriptive purposes, and multiple regression was used for hypothesis testing. Ninety-eight patients met the inclusion criteria (50 ALIF and 48 TLIF). A greater amount of lordosis achieved at L5-S1 was significantly associated with a greater reduction of SL at L4-L5 ( r = -0.65, P < 0.001) or L3-L4 ( r = -0.46, P < 0.001). A greater preoperative PI was associated with a greater reduction of SL at L4-L5 ( r = -0.42, P < 0.001) and at L3-L4 ( r = -0.44, P < 0.001). At 6 months after a lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1, greater compensatory changes with lordosis reduction are observed at the supra-adjacent L4-L5 and L3-L4 levels in patients achieving greater L5-S1 SL. In addition, preoperative PI played a role in influencing lordotic correction.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF): A Video Technique Guide.

Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) has been established as an excellent alternative to the traditional open approach for the treatment of degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine1-3. The procedure is performed with the patient under general anesthesia and on a radiolucent table in order to allow for intraoperative fluoroscopy. The procedure is performed through small incisions made over the vertebral levels of interest, typically utilizing either a fixed or expandable type of tubular dilator, which is eventually seated against the facet joint complex4. A laminectomy and/or facetectomy is performed in order to expose the disc space, and the ipsilateral neural elements are visualized5. The end plates are prepared, and an interbody device is placed after the disc is removed. Pedicle screws and rods are then placed for posterior fixation. Nonoperative alternatives include physical therapy and corticosteroid injections. Other operative techniques include open TLIF or other types of lumbar fusion approaches, such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral or extreme lateral interbody fusion, or oblique lumbar interbody fusion. Open TLIF was developed in order to obtain a more lateral approach to the lumbar disc space than was previously possible with PLIF. The goal of this was to minimize the amount of thecal-sac and nerve-root retraction required during PLIF4. Additionally, as the number of patients who required revision after PLIF increased, the need arose for an approach to the lumbar spine that circumvented the posterior midline scarring from previous PLIF surgical sites6. MI-TLIF was introduced to reduce the approach-related paraspinal muscle damage of open TLIF5. Indications for MI-TLIF include most degenerative pathology of the lumbar spine, including disc herniation, low-grade spondylolisthesis, and spinal and foraminal stenosis7. However, MI-TLIF allows for less robust correction of deformity than other minimally invasive approaches; therefore, MI-TLIF may not be as effective in cases of substantial spinal deformity or high-grade spondylolisthesis8. MI-TLIF results in significantly less blood loss, postoperative pain, and hospital length of stay compared with open TLIF1-3. Although some studies have suggested increased operative time for MI-TLIF9,10, meta-analyses have shown comparable operative times between the 2 techniques1-3. It is thought that the discrepancy in reported operative times is the result of a learning curve and that, once that is overcome, the difference in operative time between the 2 techniques becomes minimal11,12. One disadvantage of MI-TLIF that has remained constant in the literature is its increased intraoperative fluoroscopy time compared with open TLIF3,13. The complication rate has largely been found to be equivalent between open and MI-TLIF1-3 or slightly lower with MI-TLIF14, especially in the hands of an experienced surgeon15. Finally, the fusion rate and improvement in patient outcome scores have also been found to be largely equivalent1-3. We suggest placing the ipsilateral pedicle screw after the interbody cage has been inserted.Fully visualize the Kambin triangle16 prior to performing the facetectomy. Protect the exiting and traversing nerve roots by placing small cottonoids around them and retracting delicately.Bone removed during facetectomy can be utilized as autograft for the interbody cage.Avoid removing pedicle bone during decompression.If central stenosis is present, the neural decompression should be extended medial to the epidural fat so that the dura mater can be visualized all of the way to the contralateral pedicle.Perform an adequate end plate preparation prior to interbody insertion while being mindful to avoid injuring the end plate, to minimize the risk of future cage subsidence.Confirm correct placement of the interbody device on intraoperative fluoroscopy.If bone morphogenic protein is utilized, be careful not to pack too much posteriorly as this may cause nerve irritation. TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusionMI-TLIF = minimally invasive TLIFPLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusionALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusionLLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusionXLIF = extreme lateral interbody fusionOLIF = oblique lumbar interbody fusionDLIF = direct lateral interbody fusionMRI = magnetic resonance imagingA/P = anteroposteriorEMG = electromyographicBMP = bone morphogenic proteinXR = x-ray (radiograph)OTC = over the counterDVT = deep vein thrombosisPE = pulmonary embolismMI = myocardial infarctionMIS = minimally invasive surgeryOR = operating roomLOS = length of stayVAS = visual analog scaleODI = Oswestry Disability IndexM-H = Mantel-HaenszelRR = risk ratioCI = confidence intervalNSAIDs = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Robotic-Assisted Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes.

Robotic-Assisted Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes.

Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Anteriorly Placed Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Instrumentation.

Retrospective cohort study. To compare outcomes in anteriorly placed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs) and anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs). TLIF and ALIF are surgical techniques that have become more prevalent in recent years. Although studies have compared the two, none have considered TLIFs with anteriorly placed cages, which may serve as a better comparison to ALIFs. Patients undergoing TLIF or ALIF with posterior instrumentation from 2010 to 2020 at a tertiary care institution were retrospectively identified. TLIF cage position was assessed and those with anterior placement were included. Electronic medical records were reviewed to identify patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes. Radiographic outcomes included posterior disc height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), sacral slope, pelvic incidence, and pelvic tilt. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the two groups. Of the 351 patients, 108 had ALIF with posterior instrumentation and 207 had a TLIF. Preoperatively, patients undergoing TLIF had less LL (53.7° vs . 60.6°, P < 0.001), sacral slope (38.3° vs . 43.7°, P < 0.001), and pelvic incidence (60.1° vs . 66.1°, P < 0.001), all of which remained significant at 1-year and long-term follow-up ( P < 0.001). The TLIF group had less ∆DH (1.51° vs . 5.43°, P < 0.001), ∆LL (1.8° vs . 2.97°, P = 0.038), and ∆segmental lordosis (0.18° vs . 4.40°, P < 0.001) at 1 year postoperatively. At 2 to 3 years, ∆DH ( P < 0.001) and ∆segmental lordosis ( P = 0.001) remained significant, but ∆LL ( P = 0.695) did not. Patients in the TLIF group had higher Visual Analog Scale-Back scores 1 year postoperatively (3.68 vs . 2.16, P = 0.008) and experienced less improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (-17.1 vs . -28.6, P = 0.012) and Visual Analog Scale-Back (-2.67 vs . -4.50, P = 0.008) compared with patients undergoing ALIF. Our findings suggest that ALIF with posterior instrumentation performed superiorly in radiographic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes compared with anteriorly placed TLIFs. Anteriorly placed TLIF cages may not achieve the same results as those of ALIF cages.

Da Vinci Meets Globus Excelsius GPS: A Totally Robotic Minimally Invasive Anterior and Posterior Lumbar Fusion

Minimally invasive approaches to the spine via anterior and posterior approaches have been increasing in popularity, culminating in the development of robot-assisted spinal fusions. The da Vinci surgical robot has been used for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), with promising results. Similarly, multiple spinal robots have been developed to assist placement of posterior pedicle screws. However, no previous cases have reported on using robots for both anterior and posterior fixation in a single surgery. We present a technical note on the first reported case of a totally robotic minimally invasive anterior and posterior lumbar fusion and instrumentation. A 65-year-old man with chronic low back pain and left greater than right lower extremity radiculopathy was found to have grade 1 spondylolisthesis at L5/S1 that worsened on standing upright. He underwent ALIF using a da Vinci robotic approach, followed by percutaneous posterior instrumented fusion with the Globus Excelsius GPS robot. The patient did well postoperatively, with improvement of back and leg pain at 3 months follow-up. Radiography confirmed appropriate placement of the interbody cage and pedicle screws. All-robotic placement of both ALIF and posterior lumbar pedicle fixation may be safe, feasible, and efficacious.

Erector Spinae Plane Blocks for Circumferential Lumbar Spinal Fusion: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Circumferential lumbar spine fusions are extensive procedures that involve accessing the lumbar spine from multiple approaches. These surgeries often make postoperative pain control challenging, and efforts have been made to find alternative methods of analgesia that do not rely solely on opioids. The use of erector spinae plane (ESP) blocks has been found to be effective in controlling pain while decreasing narcotic requirements in patients undergoing thoracolumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of ESP blocks for postoperative pain control and its effect on opioid consumption in patients undergoing circumferential lumbar spinal fusion. A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing 1- or 2-level elective anterior lumbar interbody fusion with open posterior decompression and posterolateral fusion. An analysis was performed to determine the effect of ESP blocks on hospital length of stay (LOS), pain scores using the visual analog scale, and opioid consumption using morphine milligram equivalents. 144 patients were included in the cohort analysis, of whom 36 patients received a preoperative ESP block and 108 did not. Demographic data, comorbidities, and number of levels fused were equally distributed between groups. Patients who received an ESP block had shorter LOS (3.0 vs 4.0 days, P = 0.005) and lower cumulative morphine milligram equivalent in the first 48 hours after surgery (123.7 vs 141.2, P = 0.05). Visual analog scale scores did not significantly differ between patients group except for on postoperative day 4 and at 12-month follow-up. The use of ESP blocks for patients undergoing 1- or 2-level circumferential fusion via an anterior lumbar interbody fusion with concomitant posterior open procedures was associated with decreased postoperative inpatient opioid requirements and LOS. This cohort study supports the growing body of evidence that ESP blocks are a useful adjunct for multimodal pain control. 3 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The data and results of this study provide clinical evidence supporting the use of ESP blocks in patients undergoing circumferential lumbar spine fusion procedures.