Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion Technique Research Articles

Anterolateral versus posterior minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion surgery for spondylolisthesis: comparison of outcomes from a global, multicenter study at 12-months follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXTSeveral minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion techniques may be used as a treatment for spondylolisthesis to alleviate back and leg pain, improve function and provide stability to the spine. Surgeons may choose an anterolateral or posterior approach for the surgery however, there remains a lack of real-world evidence from comparative, prospective studies on effectiveness and safety with relatively large, geographically diverse samples and involving multiple surgical approaches. PURPOSETo test the hypothesis that anterolateral and posterior minimally invasive approaches are equally effective in treating patients with spondylolisthesis affecting one or two segments at 3-months follow-up and to report and compare patient reported outcomes and safety profiles between patients at 12-months post-surgery. DESIGNProspective, multicenter, international, observational cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLEPatients with degenerative or isthmic spondylolisthesis who underwent 1- or 2-level minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion. OUTCOME MEASURESPatient reported outcomes assessing disability (ODI), back pain (VAS), leg pain (VAS) and quality of life (EuroQol 5D-3L) at 4-weeks, 3-months and 12-months follow-up; adverse events up to 12-months; and fusion status at 12-months post-surgery using X-ray and/or CT-scan. The primary study outcome is improvement in ODI score at 3-months. METHODSEligible patients from 26 sites across Europe, Latin America and Asia were consecutively enrolled. Surgeons with experience in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion procedures used, according to clinical judgement, either an anterolateral (ie, ALIF, DLIF, OLIF) or posterior (MIDLF, PLIF, TLIF) approach. Mean improvement in disability (ODI) was compared between groups using ANCOVA with baseline ODI score used as a covariate. Paired t-tests were used to examine change from baseline in PRO for both surgical approaches at each timepoint after surgery. A secondary ANCOVA using a propensity score as a covariate was used to test the robustness of conclusions drawn from the between group comparison. RESULTSParticipants receiving an anterolateral approach (n=114) compared to those receiving a posterior approach (n=112) were younger (56.9 vs 62.0 years, p <.001), more likely to be employed (49.1% vs 25.0%, p<.001), have isthmic spondylolisthesis (38.6% vs 16.1%, p<.001) and less likely to only have central or lateral recess stenosis (44.9% vs 68.4%, p=.004). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for gender, BMI, tobacco use, duration of conservative care, grade of spondylolisthesis, or the presence of stenosis. At 3-months follow-up there was no difference in the amount of improvement in ODI between the anterolateral and posterior groups (23.2 ± 21.3 vs 25.8 ± 19.5, p=.521). There were no clinically meaningful differences between the groups on mean improvement for back- and leg-pain, disability, or quality of life until the 12-months follow-up. Fusion rates of those assessed (n=158; 70% of the sample), were equivalent between groups (anterolateral, 72/88 [81.8%] fused vs posterior, 61/70 [87.1%] fused; p=.390). CONCLUSIONSPatients with degenerative lumbar disease and spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion presented statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline up to 12-months follow-up. There were no clinically relevant differences between patients operated on using an anterolateral or posterior approach.

Lateral and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Current Concepts and a Review of Recent Literature.

To review the relevant recent literature regarding minimally invasive, lateral, and oblique approaches to the anterior lumbar spine, with a particular focus on the operative and postoperative complications. A literature search was performed on Pubmed and Web of Science using combinations of the following keywords and their acronyms: lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), anterior-to-psoas approach (ATP), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), and minimally invasive surgery (MIS). All results from January 2016 through January 2019 were evaluated and all studies evaluating complications and/or outcomes were included in the review. Transient neurological deficit, particularly sensorimotor symptoms of the ipsilateral thigh, remains the most common complication seen in LLIF. Best available current literature demonstrates that approximately 30-40% of patients have postoperative deficits, primarily of the proximal leg. Permanent symptoms are less common, affecting 4-5% of cases. Newer techniques to reduce this rate include different retractors, direct visualization of the nerves, and intraoperative neuromonitoring. OLIF may have lower deficit rates, but the available literature is limited. Subsidence rates in both LLIF and OLIF are comparable to ALIF (anterior lumbar interbody fusion), but further study is required. Supplemental posterior fixation is an active area of investigation that shows favorable biomechanical results, but additional clinical studies are needed. Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion techniques continue to advance rapidly. As these techniques continue to mature, evidence-based risk-stratification systems are required to better guide both the patient and clinician in the joint decision-making process for the optimal surgical approach.