Lateral Interbody Fusion Research Articles

Position of lumbar plexus nerves in the psoas major: Application to transpsoas approaches to the lumbar spine.

Far lateral interbody fusion is a minimally invasive operating technique. However, the incidence of postoperative neurological complications is high, and some scholars question its safety. This study describes the neuroanatomical features and spatial orientation within the psoas major. Ten embalmed male cadavers were selected and the left psoas major was dissected. Subsequently, the area between the anterior and the posterior edges of the vertebral body was divided into three equal zones. The nerves' distribution, number, and spatial orientation of the L1/2 to L4/5 intervertebral discs were examined. A caliper was used to measure the diameter of the nerve. The safety zone of the L1/2 intervertebral disc level is located in zone I and II, the relative safe zones of the L2/3 and L4/5 intervertebral discs are located in zone II, and the safety zone of the L3/4 intervertebral disc level is located in the caudal side of zone II. The genitofemoral nerve exits the psoas major in a co-trunk or two-branch pattern, and its exit point was distributed between the L3 and L4 vertebral bodies, mainly at the L3/4 intervertebral disc level. The sympathetic ganglia in the psoas major appeared only in zone I at the L2/3 intervertebral disc level. This is a systematic anatomical study that describes the nerves of the psoas major. Spine surgeons can use this study-which consists of important clinical implications-for preoperative planning, and thus, reduce the risk of nerve injury during surgery.

Minimally invasive lateral single-position surgery for multilevel degenerative lumbar spine disease: feasibility and perioperative results in a single Latin-American spine center.

Within advances in minimally invasive spine surgery, the implementation of lateral single position (LSP) increases efficiency while limiting complications, avoiding intraoperative repositioning and diminishing surgical time. Most literature describes one-level instrumentation of the lumbar spine; this study includes the use of LSP for multilevel degenerative disease. The objective of the article is to analyze initial clinical results and complications in the use of LSP for multiple level instrumentation in adults with lumbar degenerative disease. A retrospective early clinical series was performed for patients who had multiple level instrumentation in LSP between August 2019 and September 2022 at the Hospital Universitario San Ignacio in Bogota, Colombia. Inclusion criteria were patients older than 18years with symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease, undergoing any combination of multilevel anterior lumbar interbody fusion, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and pedicle screw fixation. Forty patients with an average age of 61.3years were included, with diagnosis of multilevel degenerative spondylotic changes. Four-, three- and two-level interventions were performed in 52.5, 35 and 12.5%, respectively. Average time per level was 68.9min, and length of hospital stay had an average of 2.4days, with all patients starting ambulation within the first postoperative day. Procedural time and blood loss were similar to those reported in literature. No severe lesions, postoperative infections or reinterventions took place. Although it was a small number of patients and further clinical trials are needed, LSP for multiple levels is apparently safe with adequate outcomes which may improve efficiency in the operating room.

Postoperative Radiological Improvement after Staged Surgery Using Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Preoperative Coronal Malalignment in Patients with Adult Spinal Deformity

This retrospective observational study evaluated improvement in coronal malalignment (CM) after anteroposterior staged surgery using lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in patients with coronal lumbar curve adult spinal deformity (ASD). Sixty patients with ASD underwent surgery; 34 had SRS-Schwab type L lumbar curve. Patients with a coronal balance distance (CBD) ≥20 mm were diagnosed with CM. Using the Obeid CM classification, we classified the preoperative coronal pattern as concave CM (type 1) or convex CM (type 2). Demographic, surgical, and radiological parameters were compared. Whole-spine standing radiographs were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively. Twenty-three patients had type 1A, six had type 2A, five had no CM, and none had type 1B or 2B according to the Obeid CM classification. Compared with patients with Obeid type 1A, those with Obeid type 2A had significantly higher preoperative and postoperative coronal L4 tilts and a smaller change in corrected CBD (Δ|CBD|) (76.6 mm vs. 24.1 mm, p < 0.001). At the final follow-up, 58.6% (17/29 patients) of patients with SRS-Schwab type L CM showed improvement after corrective fusion using LLIF. Although the difference was not statistically significant, CM improved in 69.6% (16/23 patients) of patients with Obeid type 1A type but only 16.7% (1/6 patients) of those with Obeid type 2A type (p = 0.056). CM was more likely to remain after anteroposterior staged surgery using LLIF in patients with preoperative Obeid type 2A ASD.

Characteristics of &lt;i&gt;m. Psoas minor&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;m. Sacrocaudalis (coccygeus)&lt;/i&gt; dorsalis lateralis in simultaneous modeling of lateral interbodial spinnylodesis and posterior sacro-iliac joint arthodesis

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous surgical interventions on the spine with the use of high-tech instruments and minimally invasive access techniques allow to eliminate several problems all at once, to activate patients at an early date and to reduce the number of complications. AIM: To evaluate morphological changes to evaluate morphological changes in the m. Psoas minor and m. Sacrocaudalis dorsalis lateralis during simultaneous modeling of lateral interbody fusion and posterior sacroiliac joint arthrodesis MATERIALS AND METHODS: Experiments were carried out on 14 outbred dogs; 3 animals formed a control group. The animals underwent consecutive lateral interbody fusion of the lumbar spine and posterior arthrodesis of the sacroiliac joint. The lumbar spine and sacroiliac joint were stabilized with external fixation device. Paraffin sections of muscles were stained with hematoxylin-eosin, according to Van Gieson, and Masson. Biochemical analysis of blood serum was performed during the experiment. RESULTS: The morphological study of the muscles revealed pathohistological features such as an increase in the variety of myosymplast diameters, loss of their profiles polygonality, massive fibers fatty degeneration, endo- and perimysial fibrosis, sclerotization of vessel membranes, obliteration of their lumens. At the end of the experiment, the degree of the small lumbar muscle fibrosis was 161% and of the sacrocaudal dorsal lateral muscle fibrosis was 240% of the control parameters (p 0.05); the rate of the muscle fatty infiltration was 339 and 310% of the normal value, respectively. The sacroiliac-caudal dorsal lateral muscle underwent more marked changes, especially in the early stages of the experiment. A significant increase in the enzymes activity, skeletal muscle damage markers was detected on the 14th day after surgery. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous surgical interventions on the spine should minimize mechanical effects on the paravertebral muscles and use techniques to stimulate their function in the postoperative period, which will reduce the processes of fibrogenesis and fat involution as well as provide an overall shorter rehabilitation period for the target patients.

Comparison of segmental lordosis gain of prone transpsoas (PTP) vs. lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Lumbar interbody fusion is a standard method to treat certain degenerative conditions that are refractory to conservative treatments. LLIF reduces posterior muscle damage, can relieve neurological symptoms through indirect decompression, provides increased stability with its wider cages, and promotes more significant segmental lordosis than standard posterior techniques. However, the technique possesses its issues, such as unusual positioning, possible plexus-related symptoms, and median segmental lordosis correction. Trying to ease those issues, the idea of a prone transpsoas technique occurred. Retrospective, single-centric, comparative, and non-randomized study. The authors paired patients receiving lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) or prone transpsoas (PTP) to evaluate the technique's impact on the segmental lordosis correction. A correlation test selected the covariates for the matching. p-Values inferior to 0.05 were deemed significant. Seventy-one patients were included in the analysis, 53 in the LLIF group and 18 in the PTP group. The significant covariates to the segmental lordosis correction were technique, preoperative segmental lordosis, cage position, and preoperative pelvic tilt. After the paring model, PTP showed significant segmental lordosis correction potential regarding the LLIF. The prone transpsoas approach can significantly enhance the correction of segmental lordosis proportionated to the traditional LLIF approach.

The one-stop-shop approach: Navigating lumbar 360-degree instrumentation in a single position.

Treatment strategies of patients suffering from pyogenic spondylodiscitis are a controverse topic. Percutaneous dorsal instrumentation followed by surgical debridement and fusion of the infectious vertebral disc spaces is a common approach for surgical treatment. Technical advances enable spinal navigation for dorsal and lateral instrumentation. This report investigates combined navigated dorsal and lateral instrumentation in a single surgery and positioning for lumbar spondylodiscitis in a pilot series. Patients diagnosed with 1- or 2-level discitis were prospectively enrolled. To enable posterior navigated pedicle screw placement and lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) patients were positioned semi-prone in 45-degree fashion. For spinal referencing, a registration array was attached to the pelvic or spinal process. 3D scans were acquired intraoperatively for registration and implant control. 27 patients suffering from 1- or 2-level spondylodiscitis with a median ASA of 3 (1-4) and a mean BMI of 27.9 ± 4.9 kg/m2 were included. Mean duration of surgery was 146 ± 49 min. Mean blood loss was 367 ± 307 ml. A median of 4 (4-8) pedicle screws were placed for dorsal percutaneous instrumentation with an intraoperative revision rate of 4.0%. LLIF was performed on 31 levels with an intraoperative cage revision rate of 9.7%. Navigated lumbar dorsal and lateral instrumentation in a single operation and positioning is feasible and safe. It enables rapid 360-degree instrumentation in these critically ill patients and potentially reduces overall intraoperative radiation exposure for patient and staff. Compared to purely dorsal approaches it allows for optimal discectomy and fusion while overall incisions and wound size are minimized. Compared to prone LLIF procedures, semi-prone in 45-degree positioning allows for a steep learning curve due to minor changes of familiar anatomy.

Lateral versus posterior approaches to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies-systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature.

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion arose as a revolutionary approach to treating several spinal pathologies because the techniques were able to promote indirect decompression and lordosis restoration through a minimally invasive approach allowing for reduced blood loss and early recovery for patients. However, it is still not clear how the technique compares to other established approaches for treating spinal degenerative diseases, such as TLIF, PLIF, and PLF. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published in the last 10years comparing lateral approaches to posterior techniques. The authors included articles that compared the LLIF technique to one or more posterior approaches, treating only degenerative pathologies, and containing at least one of the key outcomes of the study. Exclusion articles that were not original and the ones that the authors could not obtain the full text; also articles without the possibility to calculate the standard deviation or mean were excluded. For count variables, the odds ratio was used, and for continuous variables, the standard means difference (SMD) was used, and the choice between random or fixed-effects model was made depending on the presence or not of significant (p < 0.05) heterogeneity in the sample. Twenty-four articles were included in the quantitative review. As for the intra-/perioperative variables, the lateral approaches showed a significant reduction in blood loss (SMD-1.56, p < 0.001) and similar operative time (SMD = - 0.33, p = 0.24). Moreover, the use of the lateral approaches showed a tendency to lead to reduced hospitalization days (SMD = - 0.15, p = 0.09), with significantly reduced odds ratios of complications (0.53, p = 0.01). As for the clinical outcomes, both approaches showed similar improvement both at improvement as for the last follow-up value, either in ODI or in VAS-BP. Finally, when analyzing the changes in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis, the lateral technique promoted significantly higher correction in both outcomes (p < 0.05). Lateral approaches can promote significant radiological correction and similar clinical improvement while reducing surgical blood loss and postoperative complications.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable vs Static Titanium Interbody Cages: A Prospective Cohort Study of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.

Expandable cages are a recent development employed to reduce subsidence and improve fusion compared with static cages as they alleviate the need for repeated trialing or overdistraction of the disc space. This study aimed to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with either an expandable or static titanium cage. This was a prospective study of 98 consecutive patients undergoing LLIF performed over a 2-year period, with the first 50 patients receiving static cages and the following 48 receiving expandable cages. Radiographic evaluation included interbody fusion status, cage subsidence, and change in segmental lordosis and disc height. Clinical evaluation assessed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and short form-12 physical and mental health survey scores collected at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The 98 patients had 169 cages impacted (84 expandable vs 85 static). Mean age was 69.2 years, and 53.1% were women. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, or smoking status. The expandable cage group had higher rates of interbody fusion (94.0% vs 82.9%, P = 0.039) at 12 months as well as significantly reduced implant subsidence rates at all follow-up timepoints (4% vs 18% at 3 months; 4% vs 20% at 6 and 12 months). Patients from the expandable cage group showed a mean 1.9 more points of reduction in VAS back pain (P = 0.006) and 2.49 points greater reduction in VAS leg pain (P = 0.023) at 12-month follow-up. Expandable lateral interbody spacers resulted in significantly improved fusion rates with reduced subsidence risks and statistically significant improvement in PROMs up to 12 months postoperatively compared with impacted lateral static cages. The data provide clinical relevance in favoring expandable cages over static cages for enhanced fusion outcomes in lumbar fusions.

Changes in psoas and posterior paraspinal muscle morphology after standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a quantitative MRI-based analysis.

Standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF) without posterior instrumentation can be an alternative to 360° fusion in selected cases. This study aimed to investigate quantitative changes in psoas and paraspinal muscle morphology that occur on index levels after SA-LLIF. Patients undergoing single- or multi-level SA-LLIF at L2/3 to L4/5 who had preoperative and postoperative lumbar MRI scans, the latter performed between 3 and 18months after surgery for any reason, were retrospectively included. Muscle measurements were performed of the psoas and posterior paraspinal muscles (PPM; erector spinae and multifidus) on index levels using manual segmentation and an automated pixel intensity threshold method to differentiate muscle from fat signal. Changes in the total cross-sectional area (TCSA), the functional cross-sectional area (FCSA), and the percentage of fat infiltration (FI) of these muscles were assessed. A total of 67 patients (55.2% female, age 64.3 ± 10.6years, BMI 26.9 ± 5.0kg/m2) with 125 operated levels were included. Follow-up MRI scans were performed after an average of 8.7 ± 4.6months, primarily for low back pain. Psoas muscle parameters did not change significantly, irrespective of the approach side. Among PPM parameters, the mean TCSA at L4/5 (+ 4.8 ± 12.4%; p = 0.013), and mean FI at L3/4 (+ 3.1 ± 6.5%; p = 0.002) and L4/5 (+ 3.0 ± 7.0%; p = 0.002) significantly increased. Our study demonstrated that SA-LLIF did not alter psoas muscle morphology, underlining its minimally invasive nature. However, FI of PPM significantly increased over time despite the lack of direct tissue damage to posterior structures, suggesting a pain-mediated response and/or the result of segmental immobilization.

What is the fate of the adjacent segmental angles 6 months after single-level L3–4 or L4–5 lateral lumbar interbody fusion?

Background ContextLateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is an effective technique for fusion and sagittal alignment correction/maintenance. Studies have investigated the impact on the segmental angle and lumbar lordosis (and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch), however not much is documented regarding the immediate compensation of the adjacent angles. PurposeTo evaluate acute adjacent and segmental angle as well as lumbar lordosis changes in patients undergoing a L3–4 or L4–5 LLIF for degenerative pathology. Study Design/SettingRetrospective cohort study. Patient SamplePatients included in this study were analyzed pre- and post-LLIF performed by one of three fellowship-trained spine surgeons, 6 months following surgery. Outcome MeasuresPatient demographics (including body mass index, diabetes diagnosis, age, and sex) as well as VAS and ODI scores were measured. Lateral lumbar radiograph parameters: lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), infra and supra-adjacent segmental angle, and pelvic incidence (PI). MethodsMultiple regressions were applied for the main hypothesis tests. We examined any interactive effects at each operative level and used the 95% confidence intervals to determine significance: a confidence interval excluding zero indicates a significant effect. ResultsWe identified 84 patients who underwent a single level LLIF (61 at L4–5, 23 at L3–4). For both the overall sample and at each operative level, the operative segmental angle was significantly more lordotic postop compared to preop (all ps≤.01). Adjacent segmental angles were significantly less lordotic postop compared to pre-op overall (p=.001). For the overall sample, greater lordotic change at the operative segment led to more compensatory reduction of lordosis at the supra-adjacent segment. At L4–5, more lordotic change at the operative segment led to more compensatory lordosis reduction at the infra-adjacent segment. ConclusionThe present study demonstrated that LLIF resulted in significant increase in operative level lordosis and a compensatory decrease in supra- and infra-adjacent level lordosis, and subsequently no significant impact on spinopelvic mismatch.

The Impact of Cage and End plate-Related Factors on Cage Subsidence in Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion

To identify cage and end plate factors of cage subsidence (CS) in patients who underwent oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and their association with patient-reported outcomes. Sixty-one patients (43 women and 18 men), with a total of 69 segments (138 end plates) which underwent OLIF at a single academic institution between November 2018 and November 2020, were included. All the end plates were separated into CS and nonsubsidence groups. Cage-related parameters (cage height, cage width, cage insertion level, and cage position) and end plate-related parameters (position of end plate, Hounsfield unit value of the vertebra, end plate concave angle [ECA], end plate injury, and angular mismatch measured with cage/end plate angle [C/EA]) were compared and analyzed using logistic regression to predict CS. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the cutoff points of the parameters. Postoperative CS was identified in 50 of the 138 end plates (36.2%). The CS group had significantly lower mean Hounsfield unit values of the vertebra, higher rate of end plate injury, lower ECA, and higher C/EA than the nonsubsidence group. ECA and C/EA were identified as independent risk factors for developing CS. The optimal cutoff points for ECA and C/EA were 176.9° and 5.4°, respectively. An ECA greater than 176.9° and a cage/end plate angular mismatch greater than 5.4° were found to be independent risk factors of postoperative CS after the OLIF procedure. These findings aid in preoperative decision-making and intraoperative technical guidance.

Comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes between ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF over 2-year follow-up: a comparative study

BackgroundRegarding the increasing adoption of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for treating degenerative lumbar disorders, we aimed to evaluate whether OLIF, one of the options for anterolateral approach lumbar interbody fusion, demonstrate clinical superiority over anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or posterior approach, represented by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).MethodsPatients who received ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF for symptomatic degenerative lumbar disorders during the period 2017–2019 were identified. Radiographic, perioperative, and clinical outcomes were recorded and compared during 2-year follow-up.ResultsA total of 348 patients with 501 correction levels were enrolled in the study. Fundamental sagittal alignment profiles were substantially improved at 2-year follow-up, particularly in the anterolateral approach (A/OLIF) group. The Oswestry disability index (ODI) and EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ-5D) in the ALIF group were superior when compared to the OLIF and TLIF group 2-year following surgery. However, comparisons of VAS-Total, VAS-Back, and VAS-Leg revealed no statistically significance across all approaches. TLIF demonstrated highest subsidence rate of 16%, while OLIF had least blood loss and was suitable for high body mass index patients.ConclusionsRegarding treatment for degenerative lumbar disorders, ALIF of anterolateral approach demonstrated superb alignment correction and clinical outcome. Comparing to TLIF, OLIF possessed advantage in reducing blood loss, restoring sagittal profiles and the accessibility at all lumbar level while simultaneously achieving comparable clinical improvement. Patient selection in accordance with baseline conditions, and surgeon preference both remain crucial issues circumventing surgical approach strategy.

Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are two commonly used procedures for the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases, but the efficacy of the two procedures is not clear. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for controlled studies of OLIF and TLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases. Include all articles published before Oct 2022. Two researchers conducted quality evaluation and data extraction on the research respectively. Results: This meta-analysis finally included 27 studies. The VAS and ODI scores of the two groups decreased significantly after the operation. The decrease of the visual Analogue Score (VAS) and The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores in the OLIF group was greater than that in the TLIF group within 6 months after the operation, but no difference was found in the follow-up for more than 6 months. The OLIF group was better than TLIF in restoring the lumbar lordosis angle and intervertebral height. The operation time, blood loss and hospital stay of the OLIF group were less than those of the TLIF group, and there was no significant difference between the two in terms of surgical complications and fusion rate. Conclusions: Although there was no significant difference between the OLIF and TLIF groups in terms of long-term pain relief and functional improvement, the OLIF group experienced greater short-term efficacy than the TLIF group and the surgical safety of OLIF was better than that of TLIF.

Efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with different internal fixation methods in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases

Objective: To compare the efficacy among stand-alone oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF-SA), OLIF combined with lateral screw internal fixation (OLIF-AF) and OLIF combined with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw internal fixation (OLIF-PF) in the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases. Methods: The clinical data of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases who underwent OLIF-SA, OLIF-AF and OLIF-PF in the Department of Neurosurgery, Xuanwu Hospital, Capital Medical University from January 2017 to January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients' visual analogue score (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) at 1 week and 12 months postoperatively were recorded, and efficacy of OLIF surgery with different internal fixation methods was evaluated by comparing clinical scores and imaging examinations at preoperative, postoperative and follow-up, and bony fusion and postoperative complications were recorded. Results: A total of 71 patients were included in the study, with 23 males and 48 females, aged (65±11) (34-88) years. There were 25 patients in the OLIF-SA group, 19 patients in the OLIF-AF group, and 27 patients in the OLIF-PF group. Compared with those of OLIF-PF group [(196±46) min and 50 (50, 60) ml], OLIF-SA and OLIF-AF groups had shorter operative time [(97±38) min and (118±48) min] and less intraoperative blood loss [20 (10, 50) ml and 40 (20, 50) ml] (both P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the fusion rate among three groups (P>0.05). No statistically significant differences of VAS and ODI scores were observed among OLIF-SA, OLIF-AF and OLIF-PF groups during preoperative period [VAS: 5.0 (4.0, 6.0), 5.0 (4.0, 6.0) and 5.0 (4.0, 5.3); ODI: 44.0% (35.0%, 47.0%), 46.5% (43.3%, 46.5%) and 43.5% (35.8%, 46.0%)], and at one week postoperatively [VAS: 2.0 (2.0, 3.0), 3.0 (2.0, 3.0) and 2.0 (2.0, 3.0); ODI: 13.0% (12.0%, 18.0%), 21.0% (13.5%, 21.8%) and 16.5%(14.0%, 21.0%)] and final follow-up [VAS: 1.0 (0, 1.0), 1.0 (1.0, 2.0) and 1.0 (1.0, 2.0); ODI: 7.0% (5.0%, 11.0%), 10.0% (7.0%, 14.8%) and 8.0% (6.0%, 12.0%)], respectively (all P>0.05). Conclusion: Compared with OLIF-AF and OLIF-PF, OLIF-SA is a safe and effective surgical method with similar efficacy and fusion rates, decreases the cost of internal fixation, and reduces intraoperative time blood loss.

Effect of Interbody Implants on the Biomechanical Behavior of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Study

Porous titanium interbody scaffolds are growing in popularity due to their appealing advantages for bone ingrowth. This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effects of scaffold materials in both normal and osteoporotic lumbar spines using a finite element (FE) model. Four scaffold materials were compared: Ti6Al4V (Ti), PEEK, porous titanium of 65% porosity (P65), and porous titanium of 80% porosity (P80). In addition, the range of motion (ROM), endplate stress, scaffold stress, and pedicle screw stress were calculated and compared. The results showed that the ROM decreased by more than 96% after surgery, and the solid Ti scaffold provided the lowest ROM (1.2-3.4% of the intact case) at the surgical segment among all models. Compared to solid Ti, PEEK decreased the scaffold stress by 53-66 and the endplate stress by 0-33%, while porous Ti decreased the scaffold stress by 20-32% and the endplate stress by 0-32%. Further, compared with P65, P80 slightly increased the ROM (<0.03°) and pedicle screw stress (<4%) and decreased the endplate stress by 0-13% and scaffold stress by approximately 18%. Moreover, the osteoporotic lumbar spine provided higher ROMs, endplate stresses, scaffold stresses, and pedicle screw stresses in all motion modes. The porous Ti scaffolds may offer an alternative for lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) reduces total lifetime cost compared with posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for single-level lumbar spinal fusion surgery: a cost-utility analysis in Thailand

BackgroundLumbar interbody fusion techniques treat degenerative lumbar diseases effectively. Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) decreases soft tissue disruption and accelerates recovery better than standard open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). However, the material cost of LLIF is high, especially in Thailand. The cost-effectiveness of LLIF and PLIF in developing countries is unclear. This study compared the cost-utility and clinical outcomes of LLIF and PLIF in Thailand.MethodsData from patients with lumbar spondylosis who underwent single-level LLIF and PLIF between 2014 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative and 1-year follow-up EuroQol-5D-5L and healthcare costs were collected. A cost-utility analysis with a lifetime time horizon was performed using a societal perspective. Outcomes are reported as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of 5003 US dollars (USD) per QALY gained was used.ResultsThe 136 enrolled patients had a mean age of 62.26 ± 11.66 years. Fifty-nine patients underwent LLIF, while 77 underwent PLIF. The PLIF group experienced greater estimated blood loss (458.96 vs 167.03 ml; P < 0.001), but the LLIF group had a longer operative time (222.80 vs 194.62 min; P = 0.007). One year postoperatively, the groups’ Oswestry Disability Index and EuroQol-Visual Analog Scale scores were improved without statistical significance. The PLIF group had a significantly better utility score than the LLIF group (0.89 vs 0.84; P = 0.023). LLIF’s total lifetime cost was less than that of PLIF (30,124 and 33,003 USD). Relative to PLIF, LLIF was not cost-effective according to the Thai willingness-to-pay threshold, with an ICER of 19,359 USD per QALY gained.ConclusionsLLIF demonstrated lower total lifetime cost from a societal perspective. Regard to our data, at the 1-year follow-up, the improvement in patient quality of life was less with LLIF than with PLIF. Additionally, economic evaluation modeling based on the context of Thailand showed that LLIF was not cost-effective compared with PLIF. A strategy that facilitates the selection of patients for LLIF is required to optimize patient benefits.

Vertebral Endplate Concavity in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Tapered 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Cage versus Squared PEEK Cage

Background and Objectives: To prevent postoperative problems in extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), it is critical that the vertebral endplate not be injured. Unintentional endplate injuries may depend on the cage. A novel porous titanium cage for XLIF has improved geometry with a tapered tip and smooth surface. We hypothesized that this new cage should lead to fewer endplate injuries. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 32 patients (mean 74.1 ± 6.7 years, 22 females) who underwent anterior and posterior combined surgery with XLIF for lumbar degenerative disease or adult spinal deformity from January 2018 to June 2022. A tapered 3D porous titanium cage (3DTi; 11 patients) and a squared PEEK cage (sPEEK; 21 patients) were used. Spinal alignment values were measured on X-ray images. Vertebral endplate concavity (VEC) was defined as concavity ≥ 1 mm of the endplate on computed tomography (CT) images, which were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 week and 3 months postoperatively. Results: There were no significant differences in the patient demographic data and preoperative and 3-month postoperative spinal alignments between the groups. A 3DTi was used for 25 levels and an sPEEK was used for 38 levels. Preoperative local lordotic angles were 4.3° for 3DTi vs. 4.7° for sPEEK (p = 0.90), which were corrected to 12.3° and 9.1° (p = 0.029), respectively. At 3 months postoperatively, the angles were 11.6° for 3DTi and 8.2° for sPEEK (p = 0.013). VEC was present in 2 levels (8.0%) for 3DTi vs. 17 levels (45%) for sPEEK (p = 0.002). After 3 months postoperatively, none of the 3DTi had VEC progression; however, eight (21%) levels in sPEEK showed VEC progression (p = 0.019). Conclusions: The novel 3DTi cage reduced endplate injuries by reducing the endplate load during cage insertion.

Biomechanical Evaluation of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Various Fixation Options for Adjacent Segment Degeneration: A Finite Element Analysis

Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is a common phenomenon after lumbar fusion. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) may provide an alternative treatment method for ASD. This study used finite element analysis to evaluate the biomechanical effects of LLIF with various fixation options and identify an optimal surgical strategy for ASD. A validated L1-S1 finite element model was modified for simulation. Six finite element models of the lumbar spine were created and were divided into group 1 (L4-5 posterior lumbar interbody fusion [PLIF]+L3-4 LLIF) and group 2 (L5-S1 PLIF+L4-5 LLIF). Each group consisted of 1) cage-alone, 2) cage+lateral screw fixation (LSF), and 3) cage+bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) models. The range of motion, intradiscal pressure, and facet loads of adjacent segments as well as interbody cage stress were analyzed. The stress on the LLIF cage-superior endplate interface was highest in the cage-alone model followed by the cage+LSF model and cage+BPSF model. The increase in range of motion, intradiscal pressure, and facet loads at the adjacent segment was highest in the cage+BPSF model followed by the cage+LSF model and cage-alone model. However, the biomechanical effect on the adjacent segment seemed similar in the cage-alone and cage+LSF models. LLIF with BPSF is recommended when performing LLIF surgery for ASD after L4-5 and L5-S1 PLIF. Considering cage subsidence and biomechanical effects on the adjacent segment, LLIF with LSF may be a suboptimal option for ASD surgery.

A Comparative Clinical Study of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion between Patients with Multiply Operated Back and Patients with First-Time Surgery.

Background and Objectives: Patients with multiply operated back (MOB) may suffer from persistent lower-back pain associated with back muscle damage and epidural fibrosis following repeated back surgery (Failed Back Spinal Syndrome). Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is considered to be favorable for MOB patients. However, little scientific research has been carried out for this issue due to variety of the pathogenesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of MOB patients and first-time surgery patients who underwent LLIF for lumbar spinal stenosis with degenerative scoliosis and/or degenerative spondylolisthesis (spinal instability). Materials and Methods: LLIF was performed for lumbar spinal stenosis with spinal instability in 55 consecutive cases of single hospital (30 males, 25 females, average age: 69). Clinical outcomes were compared between the MOB patient group (MOB group) and the first surgical patient group (F group). We evaluated the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) before and 2 years after surgery. MOB patients were defined as those who have had one or more lumbar surgery on the same intervertebral or adjacent vertebrae in the past. Results: There were 20 cases (12 males, 8 females, average age: 71) in MOB group, and 35 cases (19 males, 16 females, average age: 68) in the F group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, sex, number of intervertebral fixations, modic change in fused intervertebral end plate, score of brief scale for evaluation of psychiatric problem, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal vertical axis before and after surgery. The preoperative JOA scores averaged 12.5 points in the MOB group and averaged 11.6 points in the F group. The postoperative JOA scores averaged 23.9 points in the MOB group and averaged 24.7 points in the F group. The preoperative JOABPEQ averaged 36.3 points in the MOB group and averaged 35.4 points in the F group. The postoperative average JOA score was 75.4 in the MOB group and 70.2 in the F group. Conclusions: Based on the results, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes of the two groups, and there was no new residual lower-back pain. Thus, we considered that LLIF one option for patients with MOB.

Long-Term Durability of Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

The long-term durability of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) remains unknown. To evaluate whether early patient-reported outcome measures after stand-alone LLIF are sustained on long-term follow-up. One hundred and twenty-six patients who underwent stand-alone LLIF between 2009 and 2017 were included in this study. Patient-reported outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), EuroQOL-5D (EQ-5D), and visual analog score (VAS) scores. Durable outcomes were defined as scores showing a significant improvement between preoperative and 6-week scores without demonstrating any significant decline at future time points. A repeated measures analysis was conducted using generalized estimating equations (model) to assess the outcome across different postoperative time points, including 6 weeks, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years. ODI scores showed durable improvement at 5-year follow-up, with scores improving from 46.9 to 38.5 ( P = .001). Improvements in EQ-5D showed similar durability up to 5 years, improving from 0.48 to 0.65 ( P = .03). VAS scores also demonstrated significant improvements postoperatively that were durable at 2-year follow-up, improving from 7.0 to 4.6 ( P < .0001). Patients undergoing stand-alone LLIF were found to have significant improvements in ODI and EQ-5D at 6-week follow-up that remained durable up to 5 years postoperatively. VAS scores were found to be significantly improved at 6 weeks and up to 2 years postoperatively but failed to reach significance at 5 years. These findings demonstrate that patients undergoing stand-alone LLIF show significant improvement in overall disability after surgery that remains durable at long-term follow-up.