Lateral Interbody Fusion Research Articles

Oblique lateral interbody fusion with internal fixations in the treatment for cross-segment degenerative lumbar spine disease (L2-3 and L4-5) finite element analysis

Multi-segmental lumbar degenerative disease, including intersegmental disc degeneration, is found in clinical practice. Controversy still exists regarding the treatment for cross-segment degeneration. Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) with several internal fixations was used to treat cross-segment lumbar degenerative disease. A whole lumbar spine model was extracted from CT images of the whole lumbar spine of patients with lumbar degeneration. The L2-3 and L4-5 intervertebral spaces were fused with OLIF using modeling software, the Pedicle screws were performed on L2-3 and L4-5, and different internal fixations were performed on L3-4 in Finite Element (FE) software. Among the six 10 Nm moments of different directions, the L3-4 no surgery (NS) group had the relatively largest Range of Motion (ROM) in the whole lumbar spine, while the L2-5 Long segmental fixation (LSF)group had the smallest ROM and the other groups had similar ROM. The ROM in the L1-2 and L5-S1 was relatively close in the six group models, and the articular cartilage stress and disc stress on the L1-2 and L5-S1 were relatively close. In contrast, the L3-4 ROM differed relatively greatly, with the LSF ROM the smallest and the NS ROM the largest, and the L3-4 Coflex (Coflex) group more active than the L3-4 Bacfuse (Bacfuse) group and the L3-4 translaminar facet screw fixation (TFSF) group. The stress on the articular cartilage and disc at L3-4 was relatively greater in the NS disc and articular cartilage, and greater in the Coflex group than in the Bacfuse and TFSF groups, with the greatest stress on the internal fixation in the TFSF group, followed by the Coflex group, and relatively similar stress in the Bacfuse, LSF, and NS groups. In the TFSF group, the stress on the internal fixation was greater than the yield strength among different directional moments of 10 Nm, which means it is unsuitable to be an internal fixation. The LSF group had the greatest overall ROM, which may lead to postoperative low back discomfort. The NS group has the greatest overall ROM, but its increased stress on the L3-4 disc and articular cartilage may lead to accelerated degeneration of the L3-4 disc and articular cartilage. The Coflex and Bacfuse groups had a reduced L3-4 ROM but a greater stress on disc compared to the LSF group, which may lead to disc degeneration in the long term. However, their stress on the articular cartilage was relatively low. Coflex and Bacfuse can still be considered better surgical options.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion – clinical outcomes, fusion rates and complications with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2

Background The authors report an Australian experience of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with respect to clinical outcomes, fusion rates, and complications, with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) and other graft materials. Methods Retrospective cohort study of LLIF patients 2011–2021. LLIFs performed lateral decubitus by four experienced surgeons past their learning curve. Graft materials classified rhBMP-2 or non-rhBMP-2. Patient-reported outcomes assessed by VAS, ODI, and SF-12 preoperatively and postoperatively. Fusion rates assessed by CT postoperatively at 6 and 12 months. Complications classified minor or major. Clinical outcomes and complications analysed and compared between rhBMP-2 and non-rhBMP-2 groups. Results A cohort of 343 patients underwent 437 levels of LLIF. Mean age 67 ± 11 years (range 29–89) with a female preponderance (65%). Mean BMI 29kg/m2 (18–56). Most common operated levels L3/4 (36%) and L4/5 (35%). VAS, ODI and SF-12 improved significantly from baseline. Total complication rate 15% (53/343) with minor 11% (39/343) and major 4% (14/343). Ten patients returned to OR (2-wound infection, 8-further instrumentation and decompression). Most patients (264, 77%) received rhBMP-2, the remainder a non-rhBMP-2 graft material. No significant differences between groups at baseline. No increase in minor or major complications in the rhBMP-2 group compared to the non-rhBMP-2 group respectively; (10.6% vs 13.9% [p = 0.42], 2.7% vs 8.9% [p < 0.01]). Fusion rates significantly higher in the rhBMP-2 group at 6 and 12 months (63% vs 40%, [p < 0.01], 92% vs 80%, [p < 0.02]). Conclusion LLIF is a safe and efficacious procedure. rhBMP-2 in LLIF produced earlier and higher fusion rates compared to available non-rhBMP-2 graft substitutes.

Effect of platelet-rich plasma on the acceleration of graft bone catabolism in lateral lumbar interbody fusion in a short-term assessment.

This study aimed to demonstrate whether impregnating the graft bone with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) accelerates graft bone catabolism in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Consecutive patients who underwent LLIF were assessed. Of the two spaces for bone grafts in the intervertebral cage, one space was filled with graft bone impregnated with PRP, and the other was filled with graft bone without PRP, which divided the graft bones into PRP and non-PRP groups. The mean Hounsfield units (HU) of the graft bone at the center of the cage space in the coronal and axial slices were measured using computed tomography (CT) images 1week and 6months after surgery. The delta value of HU from 1week to 6months after surgery was calculated for the PRP and non-PRP groups. We compared the delta values of the HU between the two groups. The PRP and non-PRP groups comprised 16 bone grafts. In the coronal slices, the HU value in the PRP group (delta value: 526.1 ± 352.2) tended to have a greater decrease at 6months after surgery compared with that in the non-PRP group (delta value: 217.6 ± 240.4) (p = 0.065). In the axial slices, the HU value in the PRP group (delta value: 501.3 ± 319.6) was significantly decreased at 6months after surgery compared with that in the non-PRP group (delta value: 159.2 ± 215.3) (p = 0.028). Impregnating the graft-bone with PRP accelerated graft bone catabolism in LLIF within 6months after surgery.

Design and Biomechanical Evaluation of a Bidirectional Expandable Cage for Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) surgery is a minimally invasive spinal surgery technique that has become increasingly popular in recent years. The primary objective of the current study was to design a minimally invasive expandable fusion device that can reduce iatrogenic nerve damage and minimize endplate damage during OLIF surgery, while restoring intervertebral height and alignment. The second objective was to use finite element analysis to evaluate the biomechanical stability of the newly designed expandable fusion device after implantation into the intervertebral space. A new bidirectional expandable cage was designed in this study. A finite element model (FEM) of L3-L5 lumbar segment was modified to simulate decompression and fusion. The modified FEMs were constructed in the following cases: intact model, bidirectional expandable cage (alone, with unilateral pedicle screws [UPSs], and with bilateral pedicle screws [BPSs]) model, conventional OLIF cage (alone, with UPSs, and with BPSs) model. To simulate physiological loadings, the models were subjected to a follower compressive pre-load of 400 N, in addition to 8.0 Nm of flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation moments. All modified FEMs exhibited a significant reduction in motion at L3-L5 compared to the intact model. Among the fusion models, the bidirectional expandable cage (BEC) with BPS model displayed the highest stiffness and demonstrated a reduced range of motion (48.5%-75.7%). Additionally, the peak stress on the endplate in the conventional OLIF cage (Conv-OLIF) model was generally lower than that in the BEC models. The cage in the BEC ALONE model exhibited the highest stress (93.87-176.3 MPa) on the endplate in most motion modes, while the cage in the Conv-OLIF+BPS model had the lowest stress (16.67-30.58 MPa) on the endplate in most motion modes. The maximum stress on the fixation in the BEC fusion models was generally lower than that in the Conv-OLIF fusion group under the same loading conditions. The OLIF ALONE model had the lowest stress on the adjacent disc, while the stress level in the BEC ALONE model was very close to it. The BEC implanted models had higher stiffness, and more proper stress distribution on the posterior fixation was comparable to that of the Conv-OLIF models. However, the endplate stress peaks and cage stress peaks of the BEC models were slightly higher than those of the Conv-OLIF models, though still within a clinically acceptable range. Taking into account both biomechanical and clinical perspectives, BEC-assisted unilateral pedicle screw fixation meet clinical demand and may serve as a viable alternative to Conv-OLIF fusion.

Risk factors of postoperative coronal malalignment following long-segment spinal fusion surgery in which multilevel lateral lumbar interbody fusion was used for degenerative lumbar kyphoscoliosis.

In patients with adult spinal deformity, especially degenerative lumbar kyphoscoliosis (DLKS), preoperative sagittal malalignment and coronal malalignment (CM) often coexist. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has recently been widely chosen for DLKS treatment due to its minimal invasiveness and excellent sagittal alignment correction. However, postoperative CM may remain or occur due to an oblique takeoff phenomenon following multilevel LLIF, resulting in poor clinical outcomes. The authors investigated the risk factors for postoperative CM after long-segment fusion corrective surgery in which multilevel LLIF was used in patients with DLKS. Fifty-four consecutive patients with DLKS, main Cobb angle ≥ 20°, and lumbar lordosis ≤ 20° who underwent corrective spinal fusion surgery, including extreme lateral interbody fusion at ≥ 3 segments, were included at the authors' institute between April 2014 and October 2019. Patients who underwent suitable 3-column osteotomy, classified as grade 3-6 per the Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab criteria, were excluded. Patients were divided into CM and non-CM groups based on postoperative CM evaluated using standard standing-position radiographs obtained 2 years postoperatively. CM was defined as an absolute C7-CSVL (deviation of C7 plumb line off central sacral vertical line; calculated by defining the convex side of the CSVL as positive numerical values) value of ≥ 3.0 cm. Patient demographics and preoperative sagittal alignment parameters were evaluated. The following variables were measured to assess coronal alignment: main Cobb angle; preoperative C7-CSVL; amount of lateral listhesis; L4, L5, and sacral coronal tilt angles; coronal vertebral deformity angles; and coronal spine rigidity. Regarding risk factors for postoperative CM, patient characteristics, preoperative sagittal parameters, and coronal parameters did not significantly differ between the 2 groups, except for preoperative C7-CSVL (p = 0.016). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that preoperative C7-CSVL (+1 cm; OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.05-1.50; p = 0.007) was a significant predictor of postoperative CM. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the cutoff value for preoperative C7-CSVL was +0.3 cm, the sensitivity was 85.7%, the specificity was 60.6%, and the area under the curve was 0.70. In corrective fusion surgery for DLKS in which multilevel LLIF was used, the occurrence of postoperative CM was associated with preoperative C7-CSVL. According to the C7-CSVL, which was evaluated by defining the convex side of the CSVL as positive numerical values and the concave side as negative numerical values, the CM group had a significantly higher value of preoperative C7-CSVL than did the non-CM group. Alternative corrective fusion methods, other than multiple LLIFs, may be considered in DLKS cases with a C7-CSVL of +0.3 cm or greater.

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.

Surgical video demonstrating minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique to the L3-L4 disc space.

Surgical video demonstrating minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique to the L3-L4 disc space.

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.

Simultaneous Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery and Unilateral Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation for Spondylolisthesis.

To evaluate the clinical and radiological efficacy of a combine of lateral single screw-rod and unilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (LSUP) for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the treatment of spondylolisthesis. Sixty-two consecutive patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive (MIS)-TLIF with bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) or LLIF-LSUP were retrospectively studied. Segmental lordosis angle (SLA), lumbar lordosis angle (LLA), disc height (DH), slipping percentage, the cross-sectional areas (CSA) of the thecal sac, screw placement accuracy, fusion rate and foraminal height (FH) were used to evaluate radiographic changes postoperatively. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were used to evaluate the clinical efficacy. Patients who underwent LLIF-LSUP showed shorter operating time, less length of hospital stay and lower blood loss than MIS-TLIF. No statistical difference was found between the 2 groups in screw placement accuracy, overall complications, VAS, and ODI. Compared with MIS-TLIF-BPS, LLIF-LSUP had a significant improvement in sagittal parameters including DH, FH, LLA, and SLA. The CSA of MIS-TLIF-BPS was significantly increased than that of LLIF-LSUP. The fusion rate of LLIF-LSUP was significantly higher than that of MIS-TLIF-BPS at the follow-up of 3 months postoperatively, but there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups at the follow-up of 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months. The overall clinical outcomes and complications of LLIF-LSUP were comparable to that of MIS-TLIF-BPS in this series. Compared with MIS-TLIF-BPS, LLIF-LSUP for lumbar spondylolisthesis represents a significantly shorter operating time, hospital stay and lower blood loss, and demonstrates better radiological outcomes to maintain lumbar lordosis, and reveal an overwhelming superiority in the early fusion rate.

Comparing Bone Fusion Rates Between Novel Unidirectional Porous Tricalcium Beta-Phosphate and Autologous Bone in Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Two-Year Radiographic Outcome Study.

This retrospective cohortstudy aims to examine the potential differences in bone fusion between autologous bone and artificial bone in the lumbar lateral interbody fusion at 2two years post-surgery. The bone fusions performed in 15 cases and at 34 intervertebral levels were compared to assess the differences between the artificial bone, Affinos® (Kuraray Co., Tokyo, Japan), and autogenous bone. Two years post-surgery, we evaluated computed tomography (CT) multi-planar reconstruction images in the coronal and sagittal planes. One year after surgery, out of the 24 windows,17 (70.8%) windows transplanted with autologous bones showed bone fusion. Additionally, out of the 38 windows,18 (47.4%) windows transplanted with Affinos® showed bone fusion. Two years post-surgery, out of the 24 windows,19 (79.2%) windows transplanted with autologous bones showed bone fusion. Additionally, out of the 38 windows,30 (79.0%)windows transplanted with Affinos® showed bone fusion, and no difference was observed in the fusion rate at two years post-surgery (P= 0.238). In cases using Affinos® for transplanted bone, the bone fusion rate increased between one and two years. The rate of bony fusion using Affinos® in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) cages is at par with that of autologous bone grafts at two years post-surgery. Affinos® is a promising candidate for graft material in LLIF surgery.

Unique Characteristics of New Bone Formation Induced by Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedure.

Despite the absence of bone grafting in the area outside the cage, lateral bridging callus outside cages (LBC) formation is often observed here following extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) conversely to conventional methods of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. The LBC, which may increase stabilization and decrease nonunion rate in treated segments, has rarely been described. This study aimed to identify the incidence and associated factors of LBC following XLIF. We enrolled 136 consecutive patients [56 males, 80 females; mean age 69.6 (42-85) years] who underwent lumbar fusion surgery using XLIF, including L4/5 level with posterior fixation at a single institution between February 2013 and February 2018. One year postoperatively, the treated L4/5 segments were divided into the LBC formation and non-formation groups. Potential influential factors, such as age, sex, body mass index, bone density, height of cages, cage material (titanium or polyetheretherketone [PEEK]), presence or absence of diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH), and radiological parameters, were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed for factors significantly different from the univariate analysis. The incidence of LBC formation was 58.8%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the length of osteophytes [+1 mm; odds ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.45; p<0.0001] was significant LBC formation predictive factors. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that the cut-off value for osteophyte length was 14 mm, the sensitivity was 58.8%, the specificity was 84.4%, and the area under the ROC curve for this model was 0.79. The incidence of LBC formation was 58.8% in L4/5 levels one year after the XLIF procedure. We demonstrated that the length of the osteophyte was significantly associated with LBC formation.

Comprehensive Assessment of Indirect Decompression Through Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire-Based Analysis.

A retrospective study. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the clinical outcomes of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) as an indirect decompression technique for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) and concomitant degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) patients. We utilized the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) to assess treatment success and its impact on patient's quality of life (QOL). We included 124 patients who underwent LLIF. Pre- and postoperative JOABPEQ evaluations indicated treatment success. Subgroup analysis categorized patients' perceptions of surgery as beneficial or non-beneficial. 89% of patients (110/124) reported satisfaction with LLIF. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion achieved successful indirect decompression, increasing canal diameter and central canal area. Significant improvements occurred across all JOABPEQ domains, notably for low back pain, lumbar function, walking ability, social life function, and mental health. Patients who perceived the surgery as beneficial experienced fewer postoperative complications, lower numeric rating scale scores for pain relief, and greater functional outcome improvements compared to non-beneficial patients. Our findings highlight the utility of JOABPEQ as a valuable and sensitive tool for assessing treatment effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes in DS and concomitant DLSS patients. Patients undergoing LLIF. The results affirm the favorable outcomes of LLIF as a surgical option for DLSS patients and emphasize the importance of considering patient perspectives when evaluating overall treatment success. The study provides valuable insights into the impact of indirect decompression on patients' QOL, supporting the effectiveness of LLIF as a minimally invasive technique for DLSS and DS management.

Biomechanical stability of oblique lateral interbody fusion combined with four types of internal fixations: finite element analysis.

Objective: Using finite element analysis to identify the optimal internal fixation method for oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), providing guidance for clinical practice. Methods: A finite element model of the L4 - L5 segment was created. Five types of internal fixations were simulated in the generated L4-L5 finite element (FE) model. Then, six loading scenarios, i.e., flexion, extension, left-leaning, right-leaning, rotate left, and rotate right, were simulated in the FE models with different types of fixations. The biomechanical stability of the spinal segment after different fixations was investigated. Results: Regarding the range of motion (ROM) of the fused segment, OLIF + Bilateral Pedicle Screws (BPS) has a maximum ROM of 1.82° during backward bending and the smallest ROM in all directions of motion compared with other models. In terms of the von Mises stress distribution on the cage, the average stress on every motion direction of OLIF + BPS is about 17.08MPa, and of OLIF + Unilateral Vertebral Screw - Pedicle Screw (UVS-PS) is about 19.29MPa. As for the von Mises stress distribution on the internal fixation, OLIF + BPS has the maximum internal fixator stress in left rotation (31.85MPa) and OLIF + Unilateral Pedicle Screw (UPS) has the maximum internal fixator stress in posterior extension (76.59MPa). The data of these two models were smaller than those of other models. Conclusion: OLIF + BPS provides the greatest biomechanical stability, OLIF + UPS has adequate biomechanical stability, OLIF + UVS-PS is inferior to OLIF + UPS synthetically, and OLIF + Double row vertical screw (DRVS) and Individual OLIF (IO) do not present significant obvious advantages.

Perspective; high frequency of intraoperative errors due to extreme, oblique, and lateral lumbar interbody fusions (XLIF, OLIF, LLIF): Are they "safe"?

Extreme Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusions (XLIF), Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF,) and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) were largely developed to provide indirect lumbar decompressions for spinal stenosis, deformity, and/or instability. Here, we have reviewed and updated the incidence of intraoperative errors attributed to XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF. Specifically, we focused on how often these procedures caused new neurological deficits, major vessel, visceral, and other injuries, including those warranting secondary surgery. Performing XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF can lead to significant intraoperative surgical errors that include varying rates of; new neurological injuries (i.e. iliopsoas motor deficits (4.3-19.7-33.6-40%), proximal hip/upper thigh sensory loss/dysesthesias (5.1% to 21.7% to 40%)), life-threatneing vascular injuries (i.e., XLIF (0% - 0.4%-1.8%), OLIF (3.2%), and LLIF (2%) involving the aorta, iliac artery, inferior vena cava, iliac vein, and segmental arteries), and bowel/viscarl injuries (0.03%-0.4%) leading to reoperations (i.e., XLIF (1.8%) vs. LLIF (3.8%) vs. XLIF/LLIF/OLIF 2.2%)). Varying reports documented that XLIF, OLIF and LLIF caused up to a 40% incidence of new sensory/motor deficits, up to a 3.2% incidence of major vascular insults, a 0.4% frequency of visceral/bowel perforations, and a 3.8% need for reoperations. These high frequencies of intraoperative surgical errors attributed to XLIF, OLIF, and LLIF should prompt reconsideration of whether these procedures are "safe."

Factors affecting successful immediate indirect decompression in oblique lateral interbody fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis patients

BackgroundOblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) offers indirect decompression of stenotic lesions of the spinal canal and foramen through immediate disc height restoration. Only a few studies have reported the effect of cage position and associated intraoperatively modifiable factors for successful immediate indirect decompression following OLIF surgery. This study aimed to investigate the intraoperatively modifiable factors for successful radiological outcomes of OLIF. MethodsThis study included 46 patients with 80 surgical levels who underwent OLIF without direct posterior decompression. Preoperative and postoperative radiological parameters were evaluated and intraoperatively modifiable radiologic parameters for successful immediate radiologic decompression on magnetic resonance image (MRI) were determined. Radiologic parameters were preoperative and postoperative radiological parameters including anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH) lumbar lordotic angle (LLA), segmental lordotic angle (SLA), foraminal height (FH), cage position, cross-sectional area (CSA) of the thecal sac, cross-sectional foraminal area (CSF), facet distance (FD) ResultsAll radiologic outcomes significantly improved. Comparing preoperative and postoperative values, mean CSA increased from 99.63±40.21 mm2 to 125.02±45.90 mm2 (p<.0001), and mean left CSF increased from 44.54±12.90 mm2 to 69.91±10.80 mm2 (p<.0001). FD also increased from 1.40±0.44 to 1.92±0.71 mm (p<.0001). FH increased from 16.31±3.3 to 18.84±3.47 mm (p<.0001). ADH and PDH also significantly increased (p<.0001). Immediate postoperative CSF and FH improvement rate (%) were significantly correlated with posterior disc height restoration rate (%) (p=.0443, and p=.0234, respectively). In addition, the patients with a cage positioned in the middle of the vertebral body experienced a greater FH improvement rate (%) compared to the patients with a cage positioned anteriorly. Finally, Visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg pain was improved immediately. ConclusionsOLIF provided satisfactory immediate indirect decompression in central and foraminal spinal stenosis. Moreover, intraoperative surgical technique for successful radiologic CSF and FH improvement included restoration of the PDH and placement of the cage in the middle.

Effect of baseline veterans RAND-12 physical composite score on postoperative patient-reported outcome measures following lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

To determine the prognostic value of preoperative Veterans RAND-12 (VR-12) Physical Composite Score (PCS) scores on postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). LLIF patients were separated into 2 cohorts based on preoperative VR-12 PCS scores: VR-12 PCS < 30 (lesser physical function) and VR-12 PCS ≥ 30 (greater physical function). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of VR-12 PCS, VR-12 Mental Composite Score (MCS), Short Form-12 (SF-12) PCS, SF-12 MCS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Back Pain (VAS-BP), VAS Leg Pain (VAS-LP), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected at preoperative and up to 2-year postoperative time points. Mean postoperative follow-up time was 16.69 ± 8.53months. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was determined by comparing ∆PROM to previously established thresholds. Seventy-eight patients were included, with 38 patients with lesser preoperative physical function scores. Patients with lesser physical function reported significantly inferior preoperative PROM scores in all domains, except for SF-12 MCS and VAS-LP. At the 6-week postoperative time point, patients with lesser physical function reported significantly inferior VR-12 PCS, VR-12 MCS, SF-12 PCS, PROMIS-PF, and PHQ-9. At the final postoperative time point, patients with lesser physical function reported significantly inferior VR-12 PCS, VR-12 MCS, PROMIS-PF, PHQ-9, and ODI. Magnitude of 6-week postoperative improvement was significantly higher in the lesser physical function cohort for VR-12 PCS. Patients undergoing LLIF with worse baseline VR-12 PCS scores reported inferior postoperative physical function, mental health, and disability outcomes. At the final postoperative follow-up, magnitude of postoperative improvement and MCID achievement did not significantly differ. Baseline VR-12 PCS scores may indicate inferior postoperative clinical outcomes in physical function, mental health, and disability in patients undergoing LLIF; however, baseline VR-12 PCS does not limit the magnitude of postoperative improvement.

Minimally Invasive Approach for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: Lateral Single-Position Surgery with Intraoperative Computed Tomography Navigation and Fluoroscopy: A Technical Note

Degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is a prevalent condition that leads to low back pain and neurological symptoms. This technical note presents a novel surgical strategy for treating DS using lateral single-position surgery (SPS) in combination with intraoperative computed tomography navigation and fluoroscopy. Fifteen patients (5 males and 10 females, mean age 70.2years) diagnosed with DS with a slip of 5mm or more underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation using this technique. The procedure involved slip reduction using an upside PPS and rod fixation, followed by LLIF performed in the same lateral position. The term "upside PPS" refers to a PPS that is inserted on the ceiling side of the patient's surgical field. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic assessments were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the lateral SPS. The results demonstrated significant improvements in various parameters, including spondylolisthesis reduction, segmental lordosis, disc height, and spinal canal dimensions. The lateral-SPS procedure exhibited several advantages over traditional flip LLIF approaches for slip reduction. Additionally, the technique provided accurate intraoperative navigation guidance through computed tomography imaging, ensuring precise implant placement and slip reduction. Combining LLIF and PPS fixation in a single procedure presents a precise, efficient approach for DS treatment, minimizing repositioning needs. This technique enables effective lumbar reconstruction, restoration of spinal stability, and improved patient outcomes. Although further investigation is warranted, lateral SPS surgery may hold promise as an innovative solution for managing DS by reducing surgical invasiveness and optimizing surgical efficiency.

Prone position lateral interbody fusion-a narrative review.

Lateral access lumbar interbody fusion is an increasingly popular procedure that allows for anterior column support through discectomy, endplate preparation, and interbody insertion. This procedure was initially described and performed with the patient in the lateral decubitus position. This would typically be followed by repositioning the patient to the prone position for pedicle screw fixation. Increasingly common is the lateral access lumbar interbody fusion in the prone position. This narrative review seeks to summarize the available literature on advantages, disadvantages, and unique features of the prone position lateral access lumbar interbody fusion. We performed a narrative review of articles published up to 01 November 2022 through a PubMed search. The search terms "prone lateral spine surgery" and "lateral approach spine surgery" AND "prone position" were used. Articles not available in English were excluded. The search result abstracts were independently reviewed by 2 authors and 28 full text articles were reviewed. Both reviewing authors were orthopedic surgery chief residents. There are several unique advantages as well as disadvantages to the prone position lateral interbody fusion. Some advantages include ease of placing pedicle screws, simultaneous posterior and lateral access, greater ease in achieving segmental lumbar lordosis, and a relatively safer positioning of the psoas muscle, lumbar plexus, and abdominal structures. Disadvantages include more difficulties with exposure and retraction, as well as visualization, positioning and ergonomics of surgery. Prone position lateral interbody fusion is an increasingly prevalent and useful surgical technique with several advantages and disadvantages when compared to lateral interbody fusion in the lateral decubitus position. There are several surgical indications and goals for which prone lateral interbody fusion may provide significant benefit when compared to other interbody fusion techniques.

Lumbar lateral interbody fusion: step-by-step surgical technique and clinical experience.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive surgical approach used to treat a variety of degenerative and deformity conditions of the lumbar spine such as advanced degenerative disease, degenerative scoliosis, foraminal and central stenosis. It has emerged as an alternative to the traditional posterior and anterior lumbar approaches with some potential benefits such as lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. In this article, we provide our single institutional surgical experience including main indications and contraindications, a step-by-step surgical technique description, a detailed preoperative imaging assessment with a focus on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) psoas anatomy, operative room (OR) setup and patient positioning. A descriptive surgical technical note of the following steps is provided: positioning and fluoroscopic confirmation, incision and intraoperative level confirmation, discectomy and endplate preparation, implant size selection and insertion and final fluoroscopic control, hemostasis check and wound closure along with an instructional surgical video with tips and pearls, postoperative patient care recommendations, common approach-related complications, along with our historical clinical institutional group experience. Finally, we summarize our research experience in this surgical approach with a focus on LLIF as a standalone procedure. Based on our experience, LLIF can be considered an effective surgical technique to treat degenerative lumbar spine conditions. Proper patient selection is mandatory to achieve good outcomes. Our institutional experience shows higher fusion rates with good clinical outcomes and a relatively low rate of complications.

New Effective Intraoperative Techniques for the Prevention of Coronal Imbalance after Circumferential Minimally Invasive Correction Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity.

This study aimed to devise measures and investigate their effect on coronal imbalance (CI) after circumferential minimally invasive correction surgery (CMIS) with lateral lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw for adult spinal deformity (ASD). A total of 115 patients with ASD who underwent CMIS from the lower thoracic spine to the ilium were included. Patients were stratified based on the distance between the spinous process of the upper instrumented vertebra and central sacrum vertical line (UIV-CSVL) after the first intraoperative rod application into groups P (UIV-CSVL > 10 mm, n = 50) and G (UIV-CSVL < 10 mm, n = 65). Measures to correct postoperative CI introduced during surgery, preoperative and postoperative UIV-CSVL, and changes in UIV-CSVL after various measures (ΔUIV-CSVL) were investigated in group P. Rod rotation (RR), S2 alar-iliac screw distraction (SD), and kickstand-rod (KR) technique were performed in group P. Group P was further divided into group RR (n = 38), group SD (RR and SD) (n = 7), and group KR (RR and KR) (n = 5); the ΔUIV-CSVLs were 13.9 mm, 20.1 mm, and 24.4 mm in these three groups, respectively. Postoperative C7-CSVL < 10 mm was achieved in all three correction groups. In conclusion, our measures enabled sufficient correction of the UIV-CSVL and are useful for preventing CI after CMIS for ASD.