Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Research Articles

Short-Term Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Patients Treated With Expandable and Static Interbody Spacers Following Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion

ObjectiveThe goal of this study was to evaluate, using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), patients who underwent oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) using either expandable or static interbody spacers. MethodsThirty-five patients with degenerative disc disease were surgically treated with one-level OLIF and were followed up for more than six months. The Static group consisted of 22 patients, and 13 patients were in the Expandable group. Intraoperative findings included operative time (min), blood loss (ml), and cage size.Low back pain, leg pain, and leg numbness were measured using the Japanese Orthopedic Association score, visual analogue score, and the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire. Radiological evaluation using CT and MRI allowed measurement of cage subsidence, cross-sectional area (CSA) of the dural sac, disc height, segmental lordosis, foraminal height, and foraminal CSA preoperatively and six months postoperatively. ResultsThe Expandable group had significantly larger cage height and lordosis than the Static group (p < 0.05). The Expandable group also had greater dural sac area expansion and enlargement of the intervertebral foramen, as well as better correction of vertebral body slip (p < 0.05). Cage subsidence was significantly lower in the Expandable group (p < 0.05). JOA score and VAS for leg numbness were significantly better in the Expandable group (p < 0.05). ConclusionsCompared with static spacers, expandable spacers significantly enlarged the dural sac area, corrected vertebral body slippage, expanded the intervertebral foramen, and achieved good indirect decompression while reducing cage subsidence, resulting in improvement in clinical symptoms.

Oblique anterior column realignment with a mini-open posterior column osteotomy for minimally invasive adult spinal deformity correction: illustrative case.

Adult spinal deformity (ASD) occurs from progressive anterior column collapse due to disc space desiccation, compression fractures, and autofusion across disc spaces. Anterior column realignment (ACR) is increasingly recognized as a powerful tool to address ASD by progressively lengthening the anterior column through the release of the anterior longitudinal ligament during lateral interbody approaches. Here, we describe the application of minimally invasive ACR through an oblique antepsoas corridor for deformity correction in a patient with adult degenerative scoliosis and significant sagittal imbalance. A 65-year-old female with a prior history of L4-5 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and morbid obesity presented with refractory, severe low-back and lower-extremity pain. Preoperative radiographs showed significant sagittal imbalance. Computed tomography showed a healed L4-5 fusion and a vacuum disc at L3-4 and L5-S1, whereas magnetic resonance imaging was notable for central canal stenosis at L3-4. The patient was treated with a first-stage L5-S1 lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion with oblique L2-4 ACR. The second-stage posterior approach consisted of a robot-guided minimally invasive T10-ilium posterior instrumented fusion with a mini-open L2-4 posterior column osteotomy (PCO). Postoperative radiographs showed the restoration of her sagittal balance. There were no complications. Oblique ACR is a powerful minimally invasive tool for sagittal plane correction. When combined with a mini-open PCO, substantial segmental lordosis can be achieved while eliminating the need for multilevel PCO or invasive three-column osteotomies.

Are there differences in the reoperation rates for operative adjacent-segment disease between ALIF+PS, PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, and LLIF+PS? An analysis of a cohort of 5291 patients.

Biomechanical factors in lumbar fusions accelerate the development of adjacent-segment disease (ASD). Stiffness in the fused segment increases motion in the adjacent levels, resulting in ASD. The objective of this study was to determine if there are differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (ALIF+PS), posterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (PLIF+PS), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (TLIF+PS), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (LLIF+PS). A retrospective study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry identified an adult cohort (≥ 18 years old) with degenerative disc disease who underwent primary lumbar interbody fusions with pedicle screws between L3 to S1. Demographic and operative data were obtained from the registry, and chart review was used to document operative ASD. Patients were followed until operative ASD, membership termination, the end of study (March 31, 2022), or death. Operative ASD was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. The final study population included 5291 patients with a mean ± SD age of 60.1 ± 12.1 years and a follow-up of 6.3 ± 3.8 years. There was a total of 443 operative ASD cases, with an overall incidence rate of reoperation for ASD of 8.37% (95% CI 7.6-9.2). The crude incidence of operative ASD at 5 years was the lowest in the ALIF+PS cohort (7.7%, 95% CI 6.3-9.4). In the adjusted models, the authors failed to detect a statistical difference in operative ASD between ALIF+PS (reference) versus PLIF+PS (HR 1.06 [0.79-1.44], p = 0.69) versus TLIF+PS (HR 1.03 [0.81-1.31], p = 0.83) versus LLIF+PS (HR 1.38 [0.77-2.46], p = 0.28). In a large cohort of over 5000 patients with an average follow-up of > 6 years, the authors found no differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between ALIF+PS and PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, or LLIF+PS.

Face, content, and construct validity of a novel VR/AR surgical simulator of a minimally invasive spine operation.

Mixed-reality surgical simulators are seen more objective than conventional training. The simulators' utility in training must be established through validation studies. Establish face-, content-, and construct-validity of a novel mixed-reality surgical simulator developed by McGill University, CAE-Healthcare, and DePuy Synthes. This study, approved by a Research Ethics Board, examined a simulated L4-L5 oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLLIF) scenario. A 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was used. Chi-square test verified validity consensus. Construct validity investigated 276 surgical performance metrics across three groups, using ANOVA, Welch-ANOVA, or Kruskal-Wallis tests. A post-hoc Dunn's test with a Bonferroni correction was used for further analysis on significant metrics. Musculoskeletal Biomechanics Research Lab, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. DePuy Synthes, Johnson & Johnson Family of Companies, research lab. Thirty-four participants were recruited: spine surgeons, fellows, neurosurgical, and orthopedic residents. Only seven surgeons out of the 34 were recruited in a side-by-side cadaver trial, where participants completed an OLLIF surgery first on a cadaver and then immediately on the simulator. Participants were separated a priori into three groups: post-, senior-, and junior-residents. Post-residents rated validity, median > 3, for 13/20 face-validity and 9/25 content-validity statements. Seven face-validity and 12 content-validity statements were rated neutral. Chi-square test indicated agreeability between group responses. Construct validity found eight metrics with significant differences (p < 0.05) between the three groups. Validity was established. Most face-validity statements were positively rated, with few neutrally rated pertaining to the simulation's graphics. Although fewer content-validity statements were validated, most were rated neutral (only four were negatively rated). The findings underscored the importance of using realistic physics-based forces in surgical simulations. Construct validity demonstrated the simulator's capacity to differentiate surgical expertise.

The Evolution of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Journey from Past to Present.

Lumbar interbody fusion procedures have seen a significant evolution over the years, with various approaches being developed to address spinal pathologies and instability, including posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). LLIF, a pivotal technique in the field, initially emerged as extreme/direct lateral interbody fusion (XLIF/DLIF) before the development of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). To ensure comprehensive circumferential stability, LLIF procedures are often combined with posterior stabilization (PS) using pedicle screws. However, achieving this required repositioning of the patient during the surgical procedure. The advent of single-position surgery (SPS) has revolutionized the procedure by eliminating the need for patient repositioning. With SPS, LLIF along with PS can be performed either in the lateral or prone position, resulting in significantly reduced operative time. Ongoing research endeavors are dedicated to further enhancing LLIF procedures making them even safer and easier. Notably, the integration of robotic technology into SPS has emerged as a game-changer, simplifying surgical processes and positioning itself as a vital asset for the future of spinal fusion surgery. This literature review aims to provide a succinct summary of the evolutionary trajectory of lumbar interbody fusion techniques, with a specific emphasis on its recent advancements.

Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Technique Guide: Surgical Tips and Tricks.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a popular technique as it allows for the placement of a large interbody implant through a retroperitoneal, transpsoas working corridor. Historically, the interbody is placed with the patient in lateral decubitus and then repositioned to prone for the posterior instrumentation. While this has been an effective and successful technique, removing the interoperative flip would improve the efficiency of these cases. This has led to modified LLIF approaches including single-position prone LLIF (pLLIF). This modification has shown to be an efficient and powerful technique; however, learning to navigate the LLIF approach in the prone position has its own challenges. The purpose of this article is to provide a detailed description of our pLLIF technique while simultaneously introducing surgical tips to overcome the challenges of the approach and optimize the implantation of the interbody device.

Advancing Prone-Transpsoas Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review and Evolution of Indications with Representative Cases.

The Prone Transpsoas (PTP) approach to lumbar spine surgery, emerging as an evolution of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), offers significant advantages over traditional methods. PTP has demonstrated increased lumbar lordosis gains compared to LLIF, owing to the natural increase in lordosis afforded by prone positioning. Additionally, the prone position offers anatomical advantages, with shifts in the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus, reducing the likelihood of postoperative femoral plexopathy and moving critical peritoneal contents away from the approach. Furthermore, operative efficiency is a notable benefit of PTP. By eliminating the need for intraoperative position changes, PTP reduces surgical time, which in turn decreases the risk of complications and operative costs. Finally, its versatility extends to various lumbar pathologies, including degeneration, adjacent segment disease, and deformities. The growing body of evidence indicates that PTP is at least as safe as traditional approaches, with a potentially better complication profile. In this narrative review, we review the historical evolution of lateral interbody fusion, culminating in the prone transpsoas approach. We also describe several adjuncts of PTP, including robotics and radiation-reduction methods. Finally, we illustrate the versatility of PTP and its uses, ranging from 'simple' degenerative cases to complex deformity surgeries.

Clinical Outcomes of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Percutaneous Pedicle Screw for Dialysis-Related Spondyloarthropathy.

Background: The usefulness and problems with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with a percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) for dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy are not clear. Therefore, we investigated the usefulness and problems with LLIF with PPS in dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy. Methods: In total, 77 patients who underwent LLIF with PPS were divided into two groups: the dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy group ("Group D") consisted of 15 patients (10 males and 5 females) with a mean age of 70.4 years and a mean duration of hemodialysis of 10.8 years; and the lumbar degenerative disease group ("Group L") included 62 patients (31 males and 31 females) with a mean age of 71.0 years. The mean follow-up period was 4 years in Group D and 3 years 9 months in Group L. We compared surgical invasiveness (operative time, blood loss), perioperative complications, clinical outcomes (Improvement ratio of the JOA score), bone fusion rate, reoperation, sagittal alignment, and coronal imbalance between the two groups. Results: There were no significant differences in operative time, blood loss, or the improvement ratio of the JOA score, but dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy was observed in one patient with superficial infection, three patients with endplate failure, and one patient with restenosis due to cage subsidence. Conclusions: We consider LLIF with PPS for dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy to be an effective treatment option because its surgical invasiveness and clinical outcomes were comparable to those for cases of lumbar degenerative disease. However, as endplate failure due to bone fragility and a reduced bone fusion rate were observed in dialysis spondylolisthesis cases, we advise a careful selection of indications for indirect decompression as well as the application of suitable pre- and postoperative adjuvant therapies.

Minimally Invasive L4-5 Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Robot-Assisted Single-Position Posterior Fixation: 2-Dimensional Operative Video.

We present here a 58-year-old female patient with L4-5 spondylolisthesis, who underwent a minimally invasive L4-5 oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) with robot-assisted bilateral posterior instrumented fixation in a single lateral position (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic). There has been interest in detailed video-based descriptions of single-position surgery with lateral approach interbody fusions, either in the prone or lateral decubitus position.1-6 Particularly, the addition of robotics has been shown to help increase overall operating efficiency in the lateral position with reduced case times even with the increased up-front robot setup time.7,8 The OLIF, also known as an anterior-to-psoas approach, allows for single-position posterior fixation and can be very effective at L4-5 where the anatomy of the iliac crest or lumbar plexus does not preclude this surgical corridor the way it could in the transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Clinical outcomes between these 2 lateral approaches have been shown to be very good,9 and OLIF has reduced blood loss while still restoring alignment parameters compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion, with better fusion and reduced subsidence compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.10,11 To our knowledge, this is the first video demonstrating a view of the OLIF approach through a high-definition retractor-based camera (MaxView Camera, Viseon Inc). There is no identifying patient information in this video. The participants and any identifiable individuals consented to publication of his/her image, and the patient consented to the procedure.

Comparison of instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundBoth instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been widely used to treat lumbar degenerative disease. However, it remains controversial as whether posterior internal fixation is required when LLIF is performed. This meta-analysis aims to compare the radiographic and clinical results between instrumented and stand-alone LLIF.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Collaboration Library up to March 2023 were searched for studies that compared instrumented and stand-alone LLIF in the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. The following outcomes were extracted for comparison: interbody fusion rate, cage subsidence rate, reoperation rate, restoration of disc height, segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, visual analog scale (VAS) scores of low-back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.Results13 studies involving 1063 patients were included. The pooled results showed that instrumented LLIF had higher fusion rate (OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.16–3.75; P = 0.01), lower cage subsidence (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.37–0.68; P < 0.001) and reoperation rate (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.10–0.79; P = 0.02), and more restoration of disc height (MD 0.85; 95% CI 0.18–1.53; P = 0.01) than stand-alone LLIF. The ODI and VAS scores were similar between instrumented and stand-alone LLIF at the last follow-up.ConclusionsBased on this meta-analysis, instrumented LLIF is associated with higher rate of fusion, lower rate of cage subsidence and reoperation, and more restoration of disc height than stand-alone LLIF. For patients with high risk factors of cage subsidence, instrumented LLIF should be applied to reduce postoperative complications.

Comparative analysis of changes in spinal dimensions following different correction methods in adult spinal deformity surgery.

Background: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery has gained popularity, with significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with multiple grade II osteotomies (PLIF + MOs) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been utilized to correct ASD; however, no studies have compared these methods with regard to the pre- and postoperative changes in length and volume of the spinal canal. This study aimed to investigate the 3-dimensional changes in the anterior vertical column length (AVCL), spinal canal length (SCL), and spinal canal volume (SCV) in patients with ASD after surgery, employing LLIF and PLIF + MOs. Methods: This retrospective study examined 44 patients with ASD who underwent surgery between 2010 and 2021 using two corrective surgical methods, LLIF and PLIF + MOs. Radiographic parameters and clinical outcomes were assessed, and three-dimensional models were created from computed tomography images to analyze changes in AVCL, SCL, and SCV. Results: We compared the effects of LLIF and PLIF + MOs on spinal canal dimensions during ASD surgery. LLIF demonstrated an increase in lumbar segment (L1-S1) AVCL and whole spine (T1-S1) SCL by 6.5 ± 8.0mm and 13.8 ± 7.6mm, respectively, compared with PLIF + MOs. However, PLIF + MOs exhibited a reduction in the lengths of the lumbar segment AVCL. Postoperative differences were significant for AVCL (L1-S1), SCL fusion level, and first-standing lumbar lordosis between the groups (p < 0.0001, 0.002, and 0.016, respectively). LLIF significantly increased the SCV at the fusion level and whole spine T1-S1 by 14.5% and 10.6%, respectively, outperforming PLIF + MOs. Despite changes in dimensions, the postoperative Oswestry disability index scores showed no significant difference between the two groups. Conclusions: Our study suggests that LLIF can increase spinal canal space, lumbar lordosis, and anterior column length in the lumbar spinal segment. Knowledge of these variations may be critical for enhancing surgical outcomes and preventing neurological complications.

Prognostic Value in Preoperative Veterans RAND-12 Mental Component Score on Clinical Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

To evaluate the effect of Veterans RAND 12-item health survey mental composite score (VR-12 MCS) on postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Retrospective data from a single-surgeon database created 2 cohorts: patients with VR-12 MCS ≥ 50 or VR-12 MCS < 50. Preoperative, 6-week, and final follow-up (FF)- PROMs including VR-12 MCS/physical composite score (PCS), 12-item Short Form health survey (SF-12) MCS/PCS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), visual analogue scale (VAS)-back/leg pain (VAS-BP/LP), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected. ∆6-week and ∆FF-PROMs were calculated. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rates were determined from established cutoffs from the literature. For intercohort comparison, chi-square analysis was used for categorical variables, and Student t-test for continuous variables. Seventy-nine patients were included; 25 were in VR-12 MCS < 50. Mean postoperative follow-up time was 17.12 ± 8.43 months. The VR-12 MCS < 50 cohort had worse VR-12 PCS, SF-12 MCS, PROMIS-PF, PHQ-9, VAS-BP, and ODI scores preoperatively (p ≤ 0.014, all), worse VR-12 MCS/PCS, SF-12 MCS, PROMIS-PF, PHQ-9, and ODI scores at 6-week postoperatively (p ≤ 0.039, all), and worse VR-12 MCS, SF-12 MCS, PROMIS-PF, PHQ-9, VAS-BP, VAS-LP, and ODI scores at FF (p ≤ 0.046, all). The VR-12 MCS < 50 cohort showed greater improvement in VR-12 MCS and SF-12 MCS scores at 6 weeks and FF (p ≤ 0.005, all). The VR-12 MCS < 50 cohort experienced greater MCID achievement for VR-12 MCS, SF-12 MCS, and PHQ-9 (p ≤ 0.006, all). VR-12 MCS < 50 yielded worse mental health, physical function, pain and disability postoperatively, yet reported greater improvements in magnitude and MCID achievement for mental health.

Effectiveness of a two-stage posterior-anterior–posterior surgery using subcutaneously preserved autologous bone grafts for adult spinal deformity: a retrospective observational study

BackgroundTo achieve optimal correction of rigid kyphoscoliosis, we developed a novel two-stage posterior-anterior–posterior (PAP) surgery using subcutaneously preserved autologous bone grafts. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of two-stage PAP surgery versus single-stage anterior–posterior (AP) surgery.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing combined anterior–posterior long-level fusion for adult spinal deformity (ASD) with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The indications for two-stage PAP surgery were rigid thoracolumbar deformity associated with hypertrophic facet arthritis and/or a large pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch of > 25°. In the first stage of PAP surgery, pedicle screw insertion and multilevel Ponte osteotomies were performed. The resected local bone was embedded under sutured fascia. One week later, the embedded bone was retrieved in the right lateral position and used as an autograft for lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Final deformity correction was performed in the prone position.ResultsFrom January 2018 to April 2021, 12 and 16 patients with ASD underwent two-stage PAP surgery (PAP group) and single-stage AP surgery (AP group), respectively. Although PAP surgery was associated with a significantly longer operation time, the total blood loss volume was significantly less in the PAP group than the AP group. Compared with the AP group, the PAP group showed significantly larger postoperative changes in radiological parameters in the sagittal and coronal planes. The overall complication rate did not differ significantly between the two groups.ConclusionTwo-stage PAP surgery provided effective correction of rigid kyphoscoliosis without increasing blood loss and postoperative complication rates.

Analysis of the causes of cage subsidence after oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion

To observe the cage subsidence after oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for lumbar spondylosis, summarize the characteristics of the cage subsidence, analyze causes, and propose preventive measures. The data of 144 patients of lumbar spine lesions admitted to our hospital from October 2015 to December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 43 males and 101 females, and the age ranged from 20 to 81 years old, with an average of (60.90±10.06) years old. Disease types:17 patients of lumbar intervertebral disc degenerative disease, 12 patients of giant lumbar disc herniation, 5 patients of discogenic low back pain, 33 patients of lumbar spinal stenosis, 26 patients of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis, 28 patients of lumbar spondylolisthesis with spondylolisthesis, 11 patients of adjacent vertebral disease after lumbar internal fixation, 7 patients of primary spondylitis in the inflammatory outcome stage, and 5 patients of lumbar degenerative scoliosis. Preoperative dual-energy X-ray bone mineral density examination showed 57 patients of osteopenia or osteoporosis, and 87 patients of normal bone density. The number of fusion segments:124 patients of single-segment, 11 patients of two-segment, 8 patients of three-segment, four-segment 1 patient. There were 40 patients treated by stand-alone OLIF, and 104 patients by OLIF combined with posterior pedicle screw. Observed the occurrence of fusion cage settlement after operation, conducted monofactor analysis on possible risk factors, and observed the influence of fusion cage settlement on clinical results. All operations were successfully completed, the median operation time was 99 min, and the median intraoperative blood loss was 106 ml. Intraoperative endplate injury occurred in 30 patients and vertebral fracture occurred in 5 patients. The mean follow-up was (14.57±7.14) months from 6 to 30 months. During the follow-up, except for the patients of primary lumbar interstitial inflammation and some patients of lumbar spondylolisthesis with spondylolisthesis, the others all had different degrees of cage subsidence. Cage subsidence classification:119 patients were normal subsidence, and 25 patients were abnormal subsidence (23 patients were gradeⅠ, and 2 patients were gradeⅡ). There was no loosening or rupture of the pedicle screw system. The height of the intervertebral space recovered from the preoperative average (9.48±1.84) mm to the postoperative average (12.65±2.03) mm, and the average (10.51±1.81) mm at the last follow-up. There were statistical differences between postoperative and preoperative, and between the last follow-up and postoperative. The interbody fusion rate was 94.4%. The low back pain VAS decreased from the preoperative average (6.55±2.2 9) to the last follow-up (1.40±0.82), and there was statistically significant different. The leg pain VAS decreased from the preoperative average (4.72±1.49) to the final follow-up (0.60±0.03), and the difference was statistically significant (t=9.13, P<0.000 1). The ODI index recovered from the preoperative average (38.50±6.98)% to the latest follow-up (11.30±3.27)%, and there was statistically significant different. The complication rate was 31.3%(45/144), and the reoperation rate was 9.72%(14/144). Among them, 8 patients were reoperated due to fusion cage subsidence or displacement, accounting for 57.14%(8/14) of reoperation. The fusion cage subsidence in this group had obvious characteristics. The monofactor analysis showed that the number of abnormal subsidence patients in the osteopenia or osteoporosis group, Stand-alone OLIF group, 2 or more segments fusion group, and endplate injury group was higher than that in the normal bone mass group, OLIF combined with pedicle screw fixation group, single segment fusion group, and no endplate injury group, and the comparison had statistical differences. Cage subsidence is a common phenomenon after OLIF surgery. Preoperative osteopenia or osteoporosis, Stand-alone OLIF, 2 or more segments of fusion and intraoperative endplate injury may be important factors for postoperative fusion cage subsidence. Although there is no significant correlation between the degree of cage subsidence and clinical symptoms, there is a risk of cage migration, and prevention needs to be strengthened to reduce serious complications caused by fusion of cage subsidence, including reoperation.

Anterior Column Realignment Through Open Pre-posterior Release-Anterior-Posterior Fusion Versus Hybrid Minimally Invasive-Anterior-Posterior Fusion for Dynamic Sagittal Imbalance of the Spine.

Retrospective comparative study. To investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes after anterior column realignment (ACR) through pre-posterior release-anterior-posterior surgery (PAP) and minimally invasive surgery -lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-LLIF) using hybrid anterior-posterior surgery (AP). A total of 91 patients who underwent ACR with long fusions from T10 vertebra to the sacropelvis with a follow-up period of at least 2years after corrective surgery for adult spinal deformity were included and divided into two groups by surgical method: AP and PAP. AP was performed in 26 and PAP in 65 patients. Clinical outcomes and radiological parameters were investigated and compared. A further comparison was conducted after propensity score matching between the groups. The more increase of LL and decrease of PI-LL mismatch were observed in the PAP group than in the AP group postoperatively. After propensity score matching, total operation time and intraoperative bleeding were greater, and intensive care unit care and rod fracture were more frequent in the PAP group than in the AP group with statistical significance. Reoperation rate was higher in PAP (29.2%) than in AP (16.7%) without statistical significance. PAP provides a more powerful correction for severe sagittal malalignment than AP procedures. AP results in less intraoperative bleeding, operation time, and postoperative complications. Therefore, this study does not suggest that one treatment is superior to the other. III.

Improved intervertebral fusion in LLIF rabbit model with a novel titanium cage

BACKGROUND CONTEXTThere is no established small animal approach model for the strict simulation of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery. PURPOSEThis study aims to establish a reliable LLIF rabbit model that strictly simulates the procedure and to preliminarily evaluate the differences in fusion outcomes with different graft materials. STUDY DESIGNA controlled laboratory. METHODSFifty-four 4-month-old white New Zealand female and male rabbits were selected and divided into five groups: Group A (dissection group) consisted of 9 rabbits, Group B (normal approach group) consisted of 9 rabbits, Group C (autogenous iliac bone group) consisted of 12 rabbits, Group D (BMP-2 carrier material group) consisted of 12 rabbits, and Group E (allograft bone group) consisted of 12 rabbits. Based on data from Group A, a novel titanium metal fusion device was designed. Postoperatively, at the 12-week mark, manual palpation was employed to compare the interbody fusion status among Groups B, C, D, and E. Specimens from Groups C, D, and E were subjected to Micro-CT scanning to compare various parameters such as trabecular bone volume (BV), bone volume fraction (BV/TV, BVF), and bone surface area (BS). Furthermore, a tissue histopathological examination was performed to observe the structure and morphology of newly formed bone within the fusion mass as well as the remodeling of the graft in each group. RESULTSBased on the measurements obtained from the dissection group, we designed a U-shaped interbody fusion device with dimensions of 10 mm in length, 2.5 mm in width, and 1.3 mm in height. In Group B, 9 cases exhibited intervertebral mobility. In Group C, 1 case showed nonfusion. In Group D, all cases achieved fusion. In Group E, 4 cases did not achieve fusion. Additionally, the Micro-CT results showed that the interbody fusion index scores were 4.64±0.50 in Group C, 4.33±0.65 in Group D, and 3.36±0.81 in Group E. There was no statistically significant difference in fusion index scores between Groups C and D (p=.853). Notably, Groups C and D had higher scores than Group E (p<.001). The trabecular bone volume (BV) in Groups C and D also showed no significant difference but was significantly higher than in Group E (p<.001). Furthermore, the histopathological results revealed that the specimens from Group E had less newly formed cartilage and bone compared to Groups C and D. CONCLUSIONSThis study successfully established a strict simulation of the clinical LLIF procedure in a rabbit model. Moreso, we conducted a preliminary validation indicating that the BMP-2 carrier material achieved interbody fusion outcomes similar to autogenous iliac bone. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCEThe findings of this investigation from animal models provide a theoretical basis for the clinical use of BMP-2 to promote early spinal fusion in LLIF procedures. Importantly, the study provides a small animal model foundation for research related to LLIF surgery.

Radiographic Robustness of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques.

Retrospective chart review. Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) can be achieved with various techniques. Evidence supporting the long-term clinical advantages of one technique over another are inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the changes in sagittal parameters in the preoperative, intraoperative, and post-operative phase, (2) evaluate the radiographic maintenance of these parameters over time, and (3) compare the demographics and patient reported outcomes of patients undergoing various LIF techniques. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with degenerative spine disease undergoing single level anterior (ALIF), lateral (LLIF), posterior (PLIF), or transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion. Data collected included patient demographics and diagnosis at time of surgery. Upright lumbar radiographs taken pre-operatively, intra-operatively, and post-operatively were measured for lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), posterior disc height (PDH), and foraminal height (FH). 194 patients in a single center were included. PDH and FH increased intra-operatively following ALIF (P < .0001), PLIF (P < .0001), LLIF (P < .0001), and TLIF (P < .0001). SL also increased intra-operatively for ALIF (P = .002) and LLIF (P = .0007). Compared to intra-operative radiographs, PDH and FH decreased at latest post-operative phase for ALIF (P < .03), LLIF (P < .003), TLIF (P < .001), and PLIF (P < .005). SL decreased for ALIF (P = .0008), and TLIF (P = .02). LL did not change postoperatively across techniques. Patient reported outcomes improved post-surgically and disability index decreased, but neither differed between techniques. LIF, regardless of technique, was shown to provide significant radiographic changes in PDH and FH. Techniques utilizing larger intervertebral cage sizes (ALIF/LLIF) improved SL. Single level LIF did not affect overall LL. No single technique displayed superior radiographic robustness over time.

Effects of Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Accessory Rod Technique on Rod Fracture in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Analysis of 239 Patients.

A retrospective study. To analyze factors associated with rod fracture (RF) in adult spinal deformity (ASD), and to assess whether the accessory rod (AR) technique can reduce RF occurrence in deformity correction in the setting of minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Instrumentation failure is the most common reason for revision surgery in ASD. Several RF reduction methods have been introduced. However, there are insufficient studies on postoperative RF after deformity correction using minimally invasive LLIF. This study included 239 patients (average age 71.4y and a minimum 2-year follow-up) with ASD who underwent long-segment fusion from T10 to sacrum with sacropelvic fixation. Patients were classified into the non-RF group and the RF group. After logistic regression analysis of the risk factors for RF, subgroup analyses were performed: pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) with two-rod (P2 group) versus PSO with two-rod and AR (P4 group), and LLIF with two-rod (L2 group) versus LLIF with two-rod and AR (L4 group). RF occurred in 50 patients (21%) at an average of 25 months. RF occurred more frequently in patients who underwent PSO than in those who underwent LLIF ( P =0.002), and the use of the AR technique was significantly higher in the non-RF group ( P <0.05).Following logistic regression analysis, preoperative PI-LL mismatch, PSO, and the AR technique were associated with RF. In subgroup analyses, RF incidence was 65% (24/37 cases) of the P2 group, 8% (4/51 cases) of the P4 group, and 21% (22/105 cases) of the L2 group. In the L4 group, there was no RF. Minimally invasive multilevel LLIF with the AR technique is capable of as much LL correction as conventional PSO and appears to be an effective method for reducing RF.

Intra-abdominal Content Movement in Prone Versus Lateral Decubitus Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF).

A prospective, anatomical imaging study of healthy volunteer subjects in accurate surgical positions. To establish if there is a change in the position of the abdominal contents in the lateral decubitus (LD) versus prone position. Lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the LD position has been validated anatomically and for procedural safety, specifically in relation to visceral risks. Recently, LLIF with the patient in the prone position has been suggested as an alternative to LLIF in the LD position. Subjects underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbosacral region in the right LD position with the hips flexed and the prone position with the legs extended. Anatomical measurements were performed on axial magnetic resonance images at the L4-5 disc space. Thirty-four subjects were included. The distance from the skin to the lateral disc surface was 134.9mm in prone compared with 118.7mm in LD ( P <0.0001). The distance between the posterior aspect of the disc and the colon was 20.3mm in the prone compared with 41.1mm in LD ( P <0.0001). The colon migrated more posteriorly in relation to the anterior margin of the psoas in the prone compared with LD (21.7 vs . 5.5mm, respectively; P <0.0001). 100% of subjects had posterior migration of the colon in the prone compared with the LD position, as measured by the distance from the quadratum lumborum to the colon (44.4 vs . 20.5mm, respectively; P <0.001). There were profound changes in the position of visceral structures between the prone and LD patient positions in relation to the LLIF approach corridor. Compared with LD LLIF, the prone position results in a longer surgical corridor with a substantially smaller working window free of the colon, as evidenced by the significant and uniform posterior migration of the colon. Surgeons should be aware of the potential for increased visceral risks when performing LLIF in the prone position. Level II-prospective anatomical cohort study.

Minimally-invasive lateral thoracic and lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with expandable interbody cages – Considerations, complications & outcomes

IntroductionReports about lateral lumbar or thoracic interbody fusion (LLIF) using expandable interbody spacers are sparse. Research questionTo report our experience with the use of expandable spacers for LLIF. Material and methodsWe reviewed all consecutive LLIF patients with use of an expandable titanium interbody implant (ELSA® Expandable Integrated LLIF Spacer, Globus Medical Inc, PA (USA)) between September 2018 and January 2024. ResultsWe identified 503 patients, in which we performed LLIF at 732 levels. In 63 patients (12.5%) and 70 levels (9.6%) an expandable spacer was used. The mean age was 61.4 years, 57.1% were females. LLIF was performed between T11/12 – L4/5 in the setting of fusion procedures (mono-/bisegmental (20; 28.6%), 3–7 segments (29; 41.4%); >7 segments (21; 30.0%)), of which 21 (33.3%), 20 (31.8%) and 22 (34.9%) were for traumatic, deformity/revision and other diagnoses. Surgery included release of the anterior longitudinal ligament in 30 cases (42.9%). Intraoperative adverse events (AEs) were noted in 2 (3.2%), postoperative AEs in 27 (42.9%) at discharge, 17 (27.0%) at 3 months and 14 (22.2%) at 12 months. Segmental sagittal Cobb angle changed from 1.3° (preoperative) to 13.0° at discharge (p < 0.001), 12.7° at 3 months (p < 0.001) and 13.3° at 12 months (p < 0.001). Functional outcome was excellent/good in 43 (68.3%; 5 missing) at 3 months and in 37 (58.7%; 10 missing) at 12 months. Discussion and conclusionThe use of LLIF with an expandable spacer was safe, promoted solid fusion and enabled powerful correction of sagittal segmental Cobb angle, which was maintained during follow-up.