Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of postoperative outcomes.

PURPOSE: To determine of the impact of ALIF with minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) on perioperative outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and the rates of fusion, subsidence, and adjacent segment stenosis. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent one-level ALIF with UPSF or BPSF at an academic institution between 2015 and 2022 were retrospectively identified. Postoperative outcomes including length of hospital stay (LOS), wound complications, readmissions, and revisions were determined. The rates of fusion, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and subsidence were assessed on one-year postoperative CT. Lumbar alignment including lumbar lordosis, L4-S1 lordosis, regional lordosis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and sacral slope were assessed on standing x-rays at preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final postoperative follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analysis compared outcomes across posterior fixation groups. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included (27 UPSF, 33 BPSF). Patients with UPSF were significantly younger (p = 0.011). Operative time was significantly greater in the BPSF group in univariate (p < 0.001) and multivariate analysis (ß=104.1, p < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss, LOS, lordosis, pelvic parameters, fusion rate, subsidence, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and revision rate did not differ significantly between fixation groups. Though sacral slope (p = 0.037) was significantly greater in the BPSF group, fixation type was not a significant predictor on regression. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF with UPSF relative to BPSF predicted decreased operative time but was not a significant predictor of postoperative outcomes. ALIF with UPSF can be considered to increase operative efficiency without compromising construct stability.

Impact of Supine versus Prone Positioning on Segmental Lumbar Lordosis in Patients Undergoing ALIF Followed by PSF: A Comparative Study.

Background: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior spinal fusion (PSF) play pivotal roles in restoring lumbar lordosis in spinal surgery. There is an ongoing debate between combined single-position surgery and traditional prone-position PSF for optimizing segmental lumbar lordosis. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 59 patients who underwent ALIF in the supine position followed by PSF in the prone position at a single institution. Cobb angles were measured preoperatively, post-ALIF, and post-PSF using X-ray imaging. One-way repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc analyses with Bonferroni adjustment were employed to compare mean Cobb angles at different time points. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated to assess the magnitude of changes. Sample size calculations were performed to ensure statistical power. Results: The mean segmental Cobb angle significantly increased from preoperative (32.2 ± 13.8 degrees) to post-ALIF (42.2 ± 14.3 degrees, Cohen's d: -0.71, p < 0.0001) and post-PSF (43.6 ± 14.6 degrees, Cohen's d: -0.80, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between Cobb angles after ALIF and after PSF (Cohen's d: -0.10, p = 0.14). The findings remained consistent when Cobb angles were analyzed separately for single-screw and double-screw ALIF constructs. Conclusions: Both supine ALIF and prone PSF significantly increased segmental lumbar lordosis compared to preoperative measurements. The negligible difference between post-ALIF and post-PSF lordosis suggests that supine ALIF followed by prone PSF can be an effective approach, providing flexibility in surgical positioning without compromising lordosis improvement.

Impact of bone density and integrated screw configuration on standalone anterior lumbar interbody construct strength.

Background: In anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), the use of integrated screws is attractive to surgeons because of the ease of implantation and no additional profile. However, the number and length of screws necessary for safe and stable implantation in various bone densities is not yet fully understood. The current study aims to determine how important both length and number of screws are for stability of ALIFs. Methods: Three bone models with densities of 10, 15, and 20 pounds per cubic foot (PCF) were chosen as surrogates. These were instrumented using the Z-Link lumbar interbody system with either 2, 3, or 4 integrated 4.5 × 20 mm screws or 4.5 × 25 mm screws (Zavation, LLC, Flowood, MS). The bone surrogates were tested with loading conditions resulting in spine extension to measure construct stiffness and peak force. Results: The failure load of the construct was influenced by the length of screws (p=.01) and density of the bone surrogate (p<.01). There was no difference in failure load between using 2 screws and 3 screws (p=.32) or when using four 20 mm screws versus three 25 mm screws (p=.295). Conclusion: In our study, both bone density and length of screws significantly affected the construct's load to failure. In certain cases where a greater number of screws are unable to be implanted, the same stability can potentially be conferred with use of longer screws. Future clinical studies should be performed to test these biomechanical results.

Perspective: How can risks to patients be limited during spine surgeons' learning curves?

Background: Learning curves (LC) are typically defined by the number of different spinal procedures surgeons must perform before becoming "proficient," as demonstrated by reductions in operative times, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), adverse events (AE), fewer conversions to open procedures, along with improved outcomes. Reviewing 12 studies revealed LC varied widely from 10-44 cases for open vs. minimally invasive (MI) lumbar diskectomy, laminectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and oblique/extreme lateral interbody fusions (OLIF/XLIF). We asked whether the risks of harm occurring during these LC could be limited if surgeons routinely utilized in-person/intraoperative mentoring (i.e., via industry, academia, or well-trained colleagues). Methods: We evaluated LC for multiple lumbar operations in 12 studies. Results: These studies revealed no LC for open vs. MI lumbar diskectomy. LC required 29 cases for MI laminectomy, 10-44 cases for MI TLIF, 24-30 cases for MI OLIF, and 30 cases for XLIF. Additionally, the LC for MI ALIF was 30 cases; one study showed that 32% of major vascular injuries occurred in the first 25 vs. 0% for the next 25 cases. Shouldn't the risks of harm to patients occurring during these LC be limited if surgeons routinely utilized in-person/intraoperative mentoring? Conclusions: Twelve studies showed that the LC for at different MI lumbar spine operations varied markedly (i.e., 10-44 cases). Wouldn't and shouldn't spine surgeons avail themselves of routine in-person/intraoperative mentoring to limit patients' risks of injury during their respective LC for these varied spine procedures ?

Retrospective analysis of medium-term outcomes following anterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery performed in a tertiary spinal surgical centre.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) can treat spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease and pseudoarthrosis. This approach facilitates complete discectomy, disc space distraction, indirect decompression of neural foramina and placement of large interbody devices. Several intra- and postoperative complications can be attributed to the anterior approach: vascular/visceral injury, hypogastric plexus injury and urogenital consequences. Spine-specific complications include implant migration, graft failure, pseudoarthrosis and persistent symptomology. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed patient demographics, medium-term outcomes and complication rates following ALIF surgery performed over a 5-year period. A total of 110 consecutive patients had undergone ALIF surgery at a single tertiary spinal centre. The database was reviewed with a primary outcome of identifying postoperative 90-day complications and whether a revision anterior operation was required after primary ALIF. RESULTS: No patients required revision anterior operation after their primary ALIF surgery by final follow-up. Out of 110 patients, 11 (10%) recorded a complication attributed to the anterior stage of their operation within 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our 90-day complication rate of 10% lies within the 2.6% acute complication and 40% overall complications rates described in previous literature. The risk of vascular/visceral injury is significant (3%) and we recommend that ALIF be performed as a dual surgeon procedure with a vascular-trained access surgeon accompanying the spinal surgeon. ALIF is a valid revision surgical option for failed posterior approaches leading to complications such as pseudoarthrosis. In our sample, 89% of patients were managed with posterior fixation to augment the anterior fusion as, biomechanically, this is a proven construct.

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.

OBJECTIVE: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. OBSERVATIONS: 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. LESSONS: 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.

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for correction of lumbosacral fractional curves in adult (thoraco)lumbar scoliosis: A systematic review.

Background: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may be used to correct the lumbosacral fractional curve (LsFC) in de novo adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis. Yet, the relative benefits of ALIF and TLIF for LsFC correction remain largely undetermined. Purpose: To compare the currently available data comparing radiographic correction of the LsFC provided by ALIF and TLIF of LsFC in adult (thoraco)lumbar scoliosis. Methods: A systematic review was performed on original articles discussing fractional curve correction of lumbosacral spinal deformity (using search criteria: "lumbar" and "fractional curve"). Articles which discussed TLIF or ALIF for LsFC correction were presented and radiographic results for TLIF and ALIF were compared. Results: Thirty-one articles were returned in the original search criteria, with 7 articles included in the systematic review criteria. All 7 articles presented radiographic results using TLIF for LsFC correction. Three of these articles also discussed results for patients whose LsFC were treated with ALIFs; 2 articles directly compared TLIF and ALIF for LsFC correction. Level III and level IV evidence indicated ALIF as advantageous for reducing the coronal Cobb angle of the LsFC. There were mixed results on relative efficacy of ALIF and TLIF in the LsFC for restoration of adequate global coronal alignment. Conclusions: Limited level III and IV evidence suggests ALIF as advantageous for reducing the coronal Cobb angle of the LsFC in de novo adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis. Relative efficacy of ALIF and TLIF in the LsFC for restoration of global coronal alignment may be dictated by several factors, including directionality and magnitude of preoperative coronal deformity. Given the limited and low-quality evidence, additional research is warranted to determine the ideal interbody support strategies to address the LsFC in adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis.

Analysis of the Frequency of Intraoperative Complications in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the frequency of intraoperative complication rates related to access surgery, operating time, and intraoperative bleeding rates described in the literature for patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) to evaluate the adverse effects and, thus, help in therapeutic decision making and contribute to future clinical trials. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of MEDLINE and Embase databases in March 2023. The main inclusion criteria were adult patients aged >18 years, with no maximum age limit; the use of ALIF; the presence of quantitative data on intraoperative complications; and randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Vascular and peritoneal injuries were considered primary endpoints. The operative time and intraoperative bleeding rate were secondary endpoints. Reports and case series, case-control series, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded. RESULTS: Eight studies were included with a total of 2395 patients. We found important quantitative data for future randomized clinical studies involving ALIF surgery, including the rate of vascular lesions (2.79%) and peritoneal lesions (0.37%). In addition to these factors, only 4 of the 8 studies addressed the average surgery time, with a total average of 145.61 minutes. Furthermore, 6 of the 8 articles reported the mean rate of intraoperative bleeding, with a total mean blood loss of 272.75 mL. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF is a lumbar spine access technique with low intraoperative complications. Patients with contraindications have a higher risk of complications. Randomized clinical trials are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of the procedure.

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

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

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

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

Moderate sagittal plane deformity patients have similar radiographic and functional outcomes with either anterior or posterior surgery.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes of two surgical interventions for adult spinal deformity (ASD): anterior lumbar interbody fusion with anterior column realignment (ALIF-ACR) and posterior approach using Smith-Peterson osteotomy with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation (TLIF-Schwab2). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included 61 ASD patients treated surgically between 2019 and 2020 at a single tertiary orthopedic specialty hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (ALIF-ACR, 29 patients) and Group 2 (TLIF-Schwab2, 32 patients). Spinopelvic radiographic parameters and functional outcomes were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery. RESULTS: Perioperative outcomes favored the ALIF-ACR group, with significantly smaller blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and operative time. Radiographic and functional outcomes were similar for both groups; however, the ALIF-ACR group did have a greater degree of correction in lumbar lordosis at 12 months. Complication profiles varied, with the ALIF-ACR group experiencing mostly hardware-related complications, while the TLIF-Schwab2 group faced dural tears, wound dehiscence, and proximal junctional kyphosis. Both groups had similar revision rates. CONCLUSION: Both ALIF-ACR and TLIF-Schwab2 achieved similar radiographic and functional outcomes in ASD patients with moderate sagittal plane deformity at 1-year follow-up. However, the safety profiles of the two techniques differed. Further research is required to optimize patient selection for each surgical approach, aiming to minimize perioperative complications and reoperation rates in this challenging patient population.

Anterior spinal fusion (ALIF/OLIF/LLIF) with lumbosacral transitional vertebra: A systematic review and proposed treatment algorithm.

•Key anterior approaches differences in LSTV include vascular (aortic bifurcation/iliocaval confluence), muscular (psoas) and osseus anatomy (inter-crestal tangent/pubic symphysis), when compared to non-LSTV.•There are increased surgical deviations but not significantly greater complications for anterior approaches in LSTV.•Vascular awareness while accessing L45 will be in the presence of a more cephalad ABF and ICC with sacralized L5, and access to the deeper L56 level will be in the presence of a more caudal ABF and ICC in lumbarized S1.

Stand-alone ALIF versus TLIF in patients with low back pain - A propensity-matched cohort study with two-year follow-up.

Introduction: Instrumented lumbar fusion by either the anterior or transforaminal approach has different advantages and disadvantages. Few studies have compared PatientReported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) between stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (SA-ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Research question: This is a register-based dual-center study on patients with severe disc degeneration (DD) and low back pain (LBP) undergoing single-level SA-ALIF or TLIF. Comparing PROMs, including disability, quality of life, back- and leg-pain and patient satisfaction two years after SA-ALIF or TLIF, respectively. Material and methods: Data were collected preoperatively and at one and two-year follow-up. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, walking ability, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and quality of life (QoL) measured by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index score. To reduce baseline differences between groups, propensity-score matching was employed in a 1:1 fashion. Results: 92 patients were matched, 46 S A-ALIF and 46 TLIF. They were comparable preoperatively, with no significant difference in demographic data or PROMs (P > 0.10). Both groups obtained statistically significant improvement in the ODI, QoL and VAS-score (P < 0.01), but no significant difference was observed (P = 0.14). No statistically significant differences in EQ-5D index scores (P = 0.25), VAS score for leg pain (P = 0.88) and back pain (P = 0.37) at two years follow-up. Conclusion: Significant improvements in ODI, VAS-scores for back and leg pain, and EQ-5D index score were registered after two-year follow-up with both SA-ALIF and TLIF. No significant differences in improvement.

The Anterior Versus Posterior Approach for Interbody Fusion in Patients Who Are Classified as Obese: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 9,021 Patients From a National Database.

Introduction Lumbar spine interbody fusions have been performed to relieve back pain and improve stability due to various underlying pathologies. Anterior interbody fusion and posterior interbody fusion approaches are two main approaches that are classically compared. In an attempt to compare these two approaches to the spine, large retrospective national database reviews have been performed to compare and predict 30-day postoperative outcomes; however, they have conflicting findings. Obesity, defined as having a body mass index (BMI) over 30 kg/m2, may also contribute to the extent of spine pathology and is associated with increased rates of postoperative complications. Complication rates in patients who are obese have yet to be thoroughly investigated using a large national database. Our present investigation aims to make this comparison using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. The goal of the present study is to utilize a nationwide prospective database to determine short-term differences in postoperative outcomes between posterior and anterior lumbar fusion in patients with obesity and relate these findings to previous studies in the general population. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 9,021 patient data from the ACS-NSQIP database from 2015 to 2019 who underwent an elective, single-level fusion via anterior or posterior surgical approach. This database captures over 150 clinical variables on individual patient cases, including demographic data, preoperative risk factors and laboratory values, intraoperative data, and significant events up to postoperative day 30. All outcome measures were included in this analysis with special attention to rates of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), prolonged length of stay (LOS), reoperation, and operation time. Results Multivariable analysis controlling for age, BMI, sex, race, functional status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and selected comorbidities with P < 0.05 demonstrated that the anterior approach was an independent predictor for all significant outcomes except prolonged length of stay. Compared to the posterior approach, the anterior approach had a shorter total operation time (B = -13.257, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-17.522, -8.992], P < 0.001), higher odds of deep vein thrombosis (odds ratio (OR) = 2.210, 95% CI [1.211, 4.033], P= 0.010), and higher odds of pulmonary embolism (OR = 2.679, 95% CI [1.311, 5.477], P = 0.007) and was protective against unplanned reoperation (OR = 0.702, 95% CI [0.548, 0.898], P = 0.005). Conclusions The obese population makes up a large and growing demographic of those undergoing spine surgery, and as such, it is pertinent to investigate the differences, advantages, and disadvantages of lumbar fusion approaches in this group. While anterior approaches may be protective of longer operation time and unplanned reoperation, this benefit may not be clinically significant when considering an increased risk of DVT and PE. Given the short-term nature of this dataset and the limitations inherent in large de-identified retrospective database studies, these findings are interpreted with caution. Longer-term follow-up studies accounting for confounding variables with spine-centered outcomes will be necessary to further elucidate these nuances.

Reduction of adolescent grade IV L5-S1 spondylolisthesis with anterior joystick manipulation during a combined anterior and posterior surgical approach: A case report.

Background: High-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis poses a clinical challenge in the pediatric and adolescent population. Current surgical management using posterior-based approaches may lead to incomplete reduction and restoration of listhesis, disc height, and lordosis. Combined anterior and posterior approach addresses these issues but has been infrequently reported, mainly in the treatment of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Neither offers good disc space visualization and control of spinal alignment during reduction. Case Description: A healthy 17-year-old female presented with 9 months of progressively worsening lower back pain radiating down the left lower extremity and 3 inches of height loss. Diagnosis of grade IV L5-S1 spondylolisthesis was made using plain radiographs, CT, and MRI. Management with combined anterior and posterior fusion, involving the manual manipulation of segments using an anterior pedicle screw joystick, was pursued. Outcome: Satisfactory alignment, solid arthrodesis, no complications, and improved patient reported outcomes. Conclusions: Combined anterior and posterior fusion with anterior joystick manipulation allowed for full reduction of grade IV spondylolisthesis and restoration of disc/foraminal height and L5-S1 segmental lordosis without neurological complication. Although less commonly performed in children and adolescents, this surgical approach can assist in restoring optimal alignment in isthmic spondylolisthesis.

How to manage a ureteral injury after anterior lumbar spine interbody fusion surgery.

BACKGROUND: Anterior lumbosacral interbody fusion (ALIF) surgery is a predominant approach used in various indications such as treating discogenic back pain, spondylolisthesis, degenerative lumbar scoliosis, intervertebral foraminal stenosis, or spondylolysis. In comparison with posterior conventional approach, ALIF surgery has several advantages: direct access to the spine without muscle dissection, reduced blood loss, decreased postoperative pain, and improved fusion rates. Rare complications following ALIF surgery need to be reported, therefore the authors present an uncommon case of a ureteral injury diagnosed early after surgery and its management. MANAGEMENT OF A URINOMA: Herein, we present a case of a 35-year-old man who presented with abnormal abdominal pains 4 days after ALIF surgery. He was diagnosed with a distal left iatrogenic ureteral fistula on a contrast enhanced CT. After the initial endoscopic approach with double J stent and urinary catheter drainage insertion had failed, the injury was finally treated with ureterovesical reimplantation. At the last follow-up, the patient did well without any clinical or biological urinary sequelae after this grade IIIb complication on the Clavien Dindo Scale. CONCLUSION: Although ureteral lesions during ALIF surgery are extremely uncommon, surgeons must be cautious when dissecting the retroperitoneal area. A methodical identification of the ureter might guarantee the security of each surgery, especially for patients who have undergone previous abdominal interventions.

Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Pyogenic Spondylodiscitis Treatment.

(1) Background: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages for the treatment of lumbar pyogenic spondylodiscitis. (2) Methods: Fifty-one patients with single-level lumbar pyogenic spondylodiscitis were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups: anterior lumbar interbody fusion with a tri-cortical iliac bone graft (ALIF+ tri-cortical iliac bone graft) (n = 28) and OLIF using PEEK cages with an autologous bone graft (OLIF+ PEEK cages) (n = 23). Perioperative radiographic parameters, complications, and clinical outcomes in both groups were analyzed and compared. (3) Results: The postoperative and final follow-up LL (lumbar lordosis) and RL (regional lordosis) were improved in both groups (p < 0.001). But, compared with the ALIF group, the OLIF group had more improvement of the RL. The operation time was 79 min for the OLIF group and 101 min for the ALIF group (p < 0.05). The intraoperative blood loss was 92 mL for the OLIF group and 114 mL for the ALIF group (p < 0.05). Significant clinical improvement was observed in visual analogue scale scores for the back and Oswestry Disability Index in both groups (p < 0.001). There was no recurrence of infection. (4) Conclusions: Compared with the ALIF group, the OLIF group had more improvement in radiographic and clinical outcomes. Thus, OLIF using PEEK cages with an autologous bone graft could be proposed for the surgical treatment of lumbar pyogenic spondylodiscitis.

A comparison of modern-era anterior lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the lumbosacral junction.

OBJECTIVE: Interbody fusion is the primary method for achieving arthrodesis across the lumbosacral junction in the setting of degenerative pathologies, such as spondylosis and spondylolisthesis. Two common techniques are anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). In recent years, interbody design and technology have advanced, and most earlier studies comparing ALIF and TLIF did not specifically assess the lumbosacral junction. This study compared changes in radiographic and clinical parameters between patients undergoing modern-era single-level ALIF and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) TLIF at L5-S1. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent single-segment L5-S1 ALIF or MIS TLIF performed by the senior authors over a 6-year interval (January 1, 2016-November 30, 2021) were retrospectively reviewed. Upright radiographs were used to determine pre- and postoperative lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, disc angle, and neuroforaminal height. Improvements in patient-reported outcome scores (Oswestry Disability Index and SF-36) were also compared. RESULTS: Overall, 108 patients (58 [54%] men, 50 [46%] women; mean [SD] age 57.6 [13.5] years) were included in the study. ALIF was performed in 49 patients, and TLIF was performed in 59 patients. The most common treatment indications were spondylolisthesis (50%, 54/108) and spondylosis (46%, 50/108). The cohorts did not differ in terms of intraoperative (p > 0.99) or postoperative (p = 0.73) complication rates. The mean (SD) hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for patients undergoing TLIF than ALIF (1.3 [0.6] days vs 2.0 [1.4] days, p < 0.001). Both techniques significantly improved L5-S1 segmental lordosis, disc angle, and neuroforaminal height (p ≤ 0.008). ALIF versus TLIF significantly increased mean [SD] segmental lordosis (12.5° [7.3°] vs 2.0° [5.7°], p < 0.001), disc angle (14.8° [5.5°] vs 3.0° [6.1°], p < 0.001), and neuroforaminal height (4.5 [4.6] mm vs 2.4 [3.0] mm, p = 0.008). Improvements in patient-reported outcome parameters and reoperation rates were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: When treating patients at a single segment across the lumbosacral junction, ALIF resulted in significantly greater increases in segmental lordosis, L5-S1 disc angle, and neuroforaminal height compared with MIS TLIF. Improvements in clinical parameters and reoperation rates were similar between the 2 techniques.