What is the early fate of adjacent segmental lordosis compensation at L3-4 and L5-S1 following a lateral versus transforaminal lumbar Interbody Fusion at L4-5?

INTRODUCTION: Degenerative spondylolisthesis causes translational and angular malalignment, resulting in a loss of segmental lordosis. This leads to compensatory adjustments in adjacent levels to maintain balance. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are common techniques at L4-5. This study compares compensatory changes at adjacent L3-4 and L5-S1 levels six months post LLIF versus TLIF for grade 1 degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4-5. METHODS: A retrospective study included patients undergoing L4-5 LLIF or TLIF with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation (no posterior osteotomy) for grade 1 spondylolisthesis. Pre-op and 6-month post-op radiographs measured segmental lordosis (L3-L4, L4-L5, L5-S1), lumbar lordosis (LL), and pelvic incidence (PI), along with PI-LL mismatch. Multiple regressions were used for hypothesis testing. RESULTS: 113 patients (61 LLIF, 52 TLIF) were studied. TLIF showed less change in L4-5 lordosis (mean = 1.04°, SD = 4.34) compared to LLIF (mean = 4.99°, SD = 5.53) (p = 0.003). L4-5 angle changes didn't correlate with L3-4 changes, and no disparity between LLIF and TLIF was found (all p > 0.16). In LLIF, greater L4-5 lordosis change predicted reduced compensatory L5-S1 lordosis (p = 0.04), while no significant relationship was observed in TLIF patients (p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: LLIF at L4-5 increases lordosis at the operated level, with compensatory decrease at L5-S1 but not L3-4. This reciprocal loss at adjacent L5-S1 may explain inconsistent improvement in lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) post L4-5 fusion.

Influence of the preoperative L5S1 disc state on lateral L2 to L5 fusion's outcomes at an average follow-up of 3,5 years (minimum 2 years).

INTRODUCTION: The impact of pre-existing degeneration of a disc underlying a lumbar arthrodesis via lateral approach on long-term clinical outcome has, to our knowledge, not been studied. When performing arthrodesis between L2 and L5, its extension to L5S1 is challenging because it imposes a different surgical approach. Therefore, surgeon's temptation is to not include L5S1 in the fusion even in case of discopathy. Our objective was to study the influence of the preoperative L5S1 status on the clinical outcome of lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) using a pre-psoatic approach between L2 and L5 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who underwent LLIF from L2 to L5 between 2015 and 2020 were included in our study. We studied VAS, ODI, and global clinical outcome before surgery and at last follow-up. The L5-S1 disc was radiologically studied in preoperative imaging. Patients were included in two groups (A "with" and B :without" L5-S1 disc degeneration) to compare the clinical outcomes at last follow-up. Our primary objective was to evaluate the rate of L5-S1 disc revision surgery at last follow-up. RESULTS: 102 patients were included. 2 required L5-S1 disc surgery following overlying arthrodesis. Our results showed a significant improvement in the patients' clinical outcomes at the last follow-up (p < 0.0001). We did not find any significant difference on clinical criteria between groups A & B. CONCLUSION: A preop L5S1 disc degeneration does not seem to impact the final clinical outcomes after lumbar lateral interbody fusion at a minimal two years F.U. It should not be systematically involved in an overlying fusion.

Biomechanical properties of lumbar vertebral ring apophysis cage under endplate injury: a finite element analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the biomechanical properties of lumbar interbody fusion involving two types of cages. The study evaluated the effectiveness of the cage spanning the ring apophysis, regardless of the endplate's integrity. METHODS: A finite element model of the normal spine was established and validated in this study. The validated model was then utilized to simulate Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) with posterior pedicle screw fixation without posterior osteotomy. Two models of interbody fusion cage were placed at the L4/5 level, and the destruction of the bony endplate caused by curetting the cartilaginous endplate during surgery was simulated. Four models were established, including Model 1 with an intact endplate and long cage spanning the ring apophysis, Model 2 with endplate decortication and long cage spanning the ring apophysis, Model 3 with an intact endplate and short cage, and Model 4 with endplate decortication and short cage. Analyzed were the ROM of the fixed and adjacent segments, screw rod system stress, interface stress between cage and L5 endplate, trabecular bone stress on the upper surface of L5, and intervertebral disc pressure (IDP) of adjacent segments. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in ROM and IDP between adjacent segments in each postoperative model. In the short cage model, the range of motion (ROM), contact pressure between the cage and endplate, stress in L5 cancellous bone, and stress in the screw-rod system all exhibited an increase ranging from 0.4% to 79.9%, 252.9% to 526.9%, 27.3% to 133.3%, and 11.4% to 107%, respectively. This trend was further amplified when the endplate was damaged, resulting in a maximum increase of 88.6%, 676.1%, 516.6%, and 109.3%, respectively. Regardless of the integrity of the endplate, the long cage provided greater support strength compared to the short cage. CONCLUSIONS: Caution should be exercised during endplate preparation and cage placement to maintain the endplate's integrity. Based on preoperative X-ray evaluation, the selection of a cage that exceeds the width of the pedicle by at least 5 mm (ensuring complete coverage of the vertebral ring) has demonstrated remarkable biomechanical performance in lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedures. By opting for such a cage, we expect a reduced occurrence of complications, including cage subsidence, internal fixation system failure, and rod fracture.

Ureter position and risk of ureteral injury during lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Ureteral injury during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is uncommon. However, it is a serious complication that may require additional surgery should it occur. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether there was any change in the position of the left ureter between preoperative biphasic contrast-enhanced CT scanned in the supine position and intraoperative scanning in the right lateral decubitus position after stent placement, to assess the risk of ureteral injury in the actual surgical position. METHODS: The position of the left ureter scanned with the O-arm navigation system with the patient in the right lateral decubitus position and its position on preoperative biphasic contrast-enhanced CT images scanned with the patient in the supine position were investigated comparing their positions at the L2/3, L3/4, and L4/5 levels. RESULTS: The ureter was located along the interbody cage insertion trajectory in 25 of 44 disc levels (56.8%) in the supine position, but in only 4 (9.5%) in the lateral decubitus position. The proportion of patients in whom the left ureter was located lateral to the vertebral body (along the LLIF cage insertion trajectory) at each level was 80% in the supine position and 15.4% in the lateral decubitus position at the L2/3 level, 53.3% in the supine position and 6.7% in the lateral decubitus position at the L3/4 level, and 33.3% in the supine position and 6.7% in the lateral decubitus position at the L4/5 level. CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients in whom the left ureter was located on the lateral surface of the vertebral body when the patient was in the actual surgical position (lateral decubitus position) was 15.4% at the L2/3 level, 6.7% at the L3/4 level, and 6.7% at the L4/5 level, suggesting that caution is required during LLIF surgery.

Incidence of major and minor vascular injuries during lateral access lumbar interbody fusion procedures: a retrospective comparative study and systematic literature review.

During lateral lumbar fusion, the trajectory of implant insertion approaches the great vessels anteriorly and the segmental arteries posteriorly, which carries the risk of vascular complications. We aimed to analyze vascular injuries for potential differences between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedures at our institution. This was coupled with a systematic literature review of vascular complications associated with lateral lumbar fusions. A retrospective chart review was completed to identify consecutive patients who underwent lateral access fusions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for the systematic review with the search terms "vascular injury" and "lateral lumbar surgery." Of 260 procedures performed at our institution, 211 (81.2%) patients underwent an LLIF and 49 (18.8%) underwent an OLIF. There were no major vascular complications in either group in this comparative study, but there were four (1.5%) minor vascular injuries (2 LLIF, 0.95%; 2 OLIF, 4.1%). Patients who experienced vascular injury experienced a greater amount of blood loss than those who did not (227.5 ± 147.28 vs. 59.32 ± 68.30 ml) (p = 0.11). In our systematic review of 63 articles, major vascular injury occurred in 0-15.4% and minor vascular injury occurred in 0-6% of lateral lumbar fusions. The systematic review and comparative study demonstrate an increased rate of vascular injury in OLIF when compared to LLIF. However, vascular injuries in either procedure are rare, and this study aids previous literature to support the safety of both approaches.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion shows equivalent results to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at one-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: This study compares perioperative and 1-year outcomes of lateral decubitus single position circumferential fusion (L-SPS) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) for degenerative pathologies. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective chart review of patients undergoing AP fusion with L-SPS or MIS TLIF. Demographics and clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared using independent samples t tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 445 patients were included: 353 L-SPS, 92 MIS TLIF. The L-SPS cohort was significantly older with fewer diabetics and more levels fused. The L-SPS cohort had significantly shorter operative time, blood loss, radiation dosage, and length of stay compared to MIS TLIF. 1-year follow-up showed that the L-SPS cohort had higher rates of fusion (97.87% vs. 81.11%; p = 0.006) and lower rates of subsidence (6.38% vs. 38.46%; p < 0.001) compared with MIS TLIF. There were significantly fewer returns to the OR within 1 year for early mechanical failures with L-SPS (0.0% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.001). 1-year radiographic outcomes revealed that the L-SPS cohort had a greater LL (56.6 ± 12.5 vs. 51.1 ± 15.9; p = 0.004), smaller PI-LL mismatch (0.2 ± 13.0 vs. 5.5 ± 10.5; p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in amount of change in VAS scores between cohorts. Similar results were seen after propensity-matched analysis and sub-analysis of cases including L5-S1. CONCLUSIONS: L-SPS improves perioperative outcomes and does not compromise clinical or radiographic results at 1-year follow-up compared with MIS TLIF. There may be decreased rates of early mechanical failure with L-SPS.

Usefulness of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Indirect Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review.

Background and Objective: The aim of this review was to analyze the existing literature and investigate the outcomes or complications of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) combined with indirect decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DS). Materials and Methods: A database search algorithm was used to query MEDLINE, COCHRANE, and EMBASE to identify the literature reporting LLIF with indirect decompression for DS between January 2010 and December 2021. Improvements in outcome measures and complication rates were pooled and tested for significance. Results: A total of 412 publications were assessed, and 12 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria after full review. The pooled data available in the included studies showed that 438 patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis (mean age 65.2 years; mean body mass index (BMI) 38.1 kg/m2) underwent LLIF. A total of 546 disc spaces were operated on. The most frequently treated levels were L4-L5 and L3-L4. Clinically, the average improvement was 32.5% in ODI, 46.3 mm in low back pain, and 48.3 mm in leg pain estimated from the studies included. SF-36 PCS improved by 51.5% and MCS improved by 19.5%. For radiological outcomes, a reduction in slippage was seen in 6.3%. Disc height increased by 55%, foraminal height increased by 21.1%, the foraminal area on the approach side increased by 21.9%, and on the opposite side it increased by 26.1%. The cross-sectional spinal canal area increased by 20.6% after surgery. Post-operative complications occurred in 5-40% of patients with thigh symptoms, such as anterior thigh numbness, dysesthesia, discomfort, pain, and sensory deficits. Conclusions: Indirect decompression by LLIF for DS is an effective method for improving pain and dysfunction with less surgical invasion. In addition, it has the effect of significantly improving disc height, foraminal height and area, and segmental lordosis on radiological outcomes compared to the posterior approach.

Segmental coupling effects during correction of three-dimensional lumbar deformity using lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

PURPOSE: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has been performed to correct spinal deformity associated with lumbar degenerative disease. Although its usefulness has been studied, there are no reports of quantitative evaluation in three dimensions. Our purpose is to quantitate 3D deformity of the patients with lumbar degenerative disease and correction of the deformity by LLIF using patient-specific 3D CT models. METHODS: We measured the disc height and 3D alignment of the lumbar spine in 28 patients with degenerative disease undergoing LLIF using patient-specific 3D CT models created preoperatively and 3 months after surgery. The 3D alignment was calculated as wedge, lordosis and axial rotation angles at each motion segment. The disc height and the rotational angles were compared between before and after LLIF. RESULTS: A strong positive correlation was found between the wedge angle and the axial rotation angles (r = 0.718, P < 0.001) in the patients with lumbar degenerative disease preoperatively. The wedge and axial rotation angles decreased after surgery (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). A positive correlation was found between the corrected wedge angle and the corrected axial rotation angle (r = 0.46, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated positive correlations between the wedge deformity and the axial rotational deformity in the patients with lumbar degenerative disease. The axial rotational deformity was simultaneously corrected with LLIF only by leveling the intervertebral wedge deformity via cage insertion without additional correction procedure. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Comparison of radiological changes after single- position versus dual- position for lateral interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation.

BACKGROUND: There have been few comparisons between dual positions, which require a position change, and a single position, which does not require position change, and it is not clear whether there is a difference in indirect decompression achieved by the two procedures. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare perioperative and radiographic outcomes following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in two cohorts of patients who underwent surgery in a single position or dual position. METHODS: This study involved 45 patients who underwent indirect decompression at 68 levels, with LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) fixation for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal canal stenosis. Patient demographics and perioperative data were compared between two groups: patients who remained in the lateral decubitus position for pedicle screw fixation (SP group) and those turned to the prone position (DP group). RESULTS: A total of 26 DP and 19 SP patients were analyzed. The operation time was approximately 31 min longer for the DP group (129.7 ± 36.0 min) than for the SP group (98.4 ± 41.3 min, P < 0.01). We also evaluated the pre- and postoperative image measurements, there was no significant difference for lumbar lordosis, segmental disc angle, slipping length, and disc height between the groups. The CSA of the dural sac (DP group, from 55.3 to 78.4 mm2; SP group, from 54.7 to 77.2 mm2) and central canal diameter (DP group, from 5.9 to 7.9 mm; SP group, from 5.6 to 7.7 mm) was significantly larger after surgery in both groups. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.684). CONCLUSIONS: SP surgery could reduce the average surgery time by about 31 min. We found that the effect of indirect decompression by SP-PPS fixation following LLIF was considered to be a useful technique with no difference in dural sac enlargement or disc angle obtained compared with DP-PPS fixation.

Cost-Effectiveness and Clinical Outcomes of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Tricalcium Phosphate and Iliac Bone Graft Compared With Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Local Bone Graft in Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is used to treat degenerative lumbar spine disease. Many studies have proven that LLIF results in less soft tissue destruction and rapid recovery compared with open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Our recent cost-utility study demonstrated that LLIF was not cost-effective according to the Thai willingness-to-pay threshold, primarily due to the utilization of an expensive bone substitute: bone morphogenetic protein 2. Therefore, this study was designed to use less expensive tricalcium phosphate combined with iliac bone graft (TCP + IBG) as a bone substitute and compare cost-utility analysis and clinical outcomes of PLIF in Thailand. METHODS: All clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who underwent single-level LLIF using TCP + IBG and PLIF were retrospectively collected. Preoperative and 2-year follow-up quality of life from EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels and health care cost were reviewed. A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a Markov model with a lifetime horizon and a societal perspective. RESULTS: All enrolled patients were categorized into an LLIF group (n = 30) and a PLIF group (n = 50). All radiographic results (lumbar lordosis, foraminal height, and disc height) were improved at 2 years of follow-up in both groups (P < 0.001); however, the LLIF group had a dramatic significant improvement in all radiographic parameters compared with the PLIF group (P < 0.05). The fusion rate for LLIF (83.3%) and PLIF (84%) was similar and had no statistical significance. All health-related quality of life (Oswestry Disability Index, utility, and EuroQol Visual Analog Scale) significantly improved compared with preoperative scores (P < 0.001), but there were no significant differences between the LLIF and PLIF groups (P > 0.05). The total lifetime cost of LLIF was less than that of PLIF (15,355 vs 16,500 USD). Compared with PLIF, LLIF was cost-effective according to the Thai willingness-to-pay threshold, with a net monetary benefit of 539.76 USD. CONCLUSION: LLIF with TCP + IBG demonstrated excellent radiographic and comparable clinical health-related outcomes compared with PLIF. In economic evaluation, the total lifetime cost was lower in LLIF with TCP + IBG than in PLIF. Furthermore, LLIF with TCP + IBG was cost-effective compared with PLIF according to the context of Thailand. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: LLIF with less expensive TCP + IBG as bone graft results in better clinical and radiographic outcomes, less lifetime cost, and cost-effectiveness compared with PLIF. This suggests that LLIF with TCP + IBG could be utilized in lower- and middle-income countries for treating patients with degenerative disc disease.

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.

Prone position lateral interbody fusion-a narrative review.

Background and Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Key Content and Findings: 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. Conclusions: 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.

Vascular injury risk stratification for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) at L4-L5: a morphometric study using magnetic resonance imaging.

Background: Proper vascular injury risk stratification (VIRS) methods for L4-L5 lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery have not been well-described. The objective of this study was to propose a novel VIRS method for L4-L5 LLIF surgery via the transpsoas approach. Methods: Axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of adult patients were obtained and analyzed. The VIRS scores were assessed using anterior disc line to posterior vessel wall distance, the disc vessel angle (DVA), and the disc edge to vessel distance at the level of L4-L5 disc space. Results: Ninety-one consecutive adult patients were included in the study. The right common iliac vein (CIV) had a high risk of injury with both right- and left-sided approaches. The left CIV had a moderate risk with a left-sided approach when the iliocaval confluence was above the L4-L5 disc space but had a high risk when the confluence was at the L4-L5 disc space. The left CIV had a high risk with a right-sided approach when the confluence was above the L4-L5 disc space but had a moderate risk when the confluence was at the L4-L5 disc space. The inferior vena cava (IVC) had a high risk with both right- and left-sided approaches. The aorta had a moderate risk regardless of the right or left-sided approaches. The left common iliac artery (CIA) had a moderate risk with a right-sided approach and a low risk with a left-sided approach. The right CIA had a low risk with both right- and left-sided approaches. Conclusions: There are significant vascular anatomic variations at the L4-L5 disc level and a proper VIRS can be performed utilizing a combination of anterior disc line to posterior vessel wall distance, DVA, and disc edge to vessel distance, on the axial MRI.

A comparative analysis of using cage acrossing the vertebral ring apophysis in normal and osteoporotic models under endplate injury: a finite element analysis.

Background: Lateral lumbar fusion is an advanced, minimally invasive treatment for degenerative lumbar diseases. It involves different cage designs, primarily varying in size. This study aims to investigate the biomechanics of the long cage spanning the ring apophysis in both normal and osteoporotic models, considering endplate damage, using finite element analysis. Methods: Model 1 was an intact endplate with a long cage spanning the ring apophysis. Model 2 was an endplate decortication with a long cage spanning the ring apophysis. Model 3 was an intact endplate with a short cage. Model 4 was an endplate decortication with a short cage. On the basis of the four original models, further osteoporosis models were created, yielding a total of eight finite element models. The provided passage delineates a study that elucidates the utilization of finite element analysis as a methodology to simulate and analyze the biomechanical repercussions ensuing from the adoption of two distinct types of intervertebral fusion devices (cages) within the physiological framework of a human body. Results: The investigation found no appreciable changes between Models 1 and 2 in the range of motion at the fixed and neighboring segments, the L3-4 IDP, screw-rod stress, endplate stress, or stress on the trabecular bone of the L5. Increases in these stresses were seen in models 3 and 4 in the ranges of 0.4%-676.1%, 252.9%-526.9%, 27.3%-516.6%, and 11.4%-109.3%, respectively. The osteoporotic models for scenarios 3 and 4 exhibit a similar trend to their respective normal bone density models, but these osteoporotic models consistently have higher numerical values. In particular, except for L3-4 IDP, the maximum values of these parameters in osteoporotic Models 3 and 4 were much higher than those in normal bone quality Models 1 and 2, rising by 385.3%, 116%, 435.1%, 758.3%, and 786.1%, respectively. Conclusion: Regardless of endplate injury or osteoporosis, it is advised to utilize a long cage that is 5 mm longer on each side than the bilateral pedicles because it has good biomechanical features and may lower the likelihood of problems after surgery. Additionally, using Long cages in individuals with osteoporosis may help avoid adjacent segment disease.

The Analysis of Preoperative Roussouly Classification on Pain Scores and Radiological Data in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Patients with Lumbar Degenerative Disease.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: The type of sagittal profile defined by Roussouly has affected spinal degeneration and surgical outcome. This study aimed to investigate the effect of preoperative Roussouly classification on pain intensity and radiological data of patients with lumbar degenerative disease who underwent indirect decompression with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). METHODS: We retrospectively investigated 102 patients who underwent LLIF without direct decompression. Patients were subdivided into 4 groups according to the Roussouly classification determined from preoperative full-length and lateral spine X-rays, and classified according to Roussouly types I, II, and IV in the nonstandard group and Roussouly type III in the standard group. RESULTS: The nonstandard group showed improved sagittal vertical axis and lumbar lordosis after LLIF surgery, but the midsagittal canal diameter and axial central canal area of the thecal sac using T2-weighted sagittal and axial magnetic resonance imaging were smaller than those in the standard group. On the other hand, each numeric rating scale score 1 year after surgery improved in all patients. Changes in numeric rating scale scores in low back pain, leg pain, and numbness were not statistically significant between Roussouly classification types. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the nonstandard group may have less indirect decompression effect from LLIF than the standard group. In the short term, we show for the first time after LLIF surgery that preoperative sagittal spinal alignment and the pelvic position may not significantly impact pain improvement.

The Feasibility of 3D Intraoperative Navigation in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Perioperative Outcomes, Accuracy of Cage Placement and Radiation Exposure.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) using 3D intraoperative navigation (ION), compared to conventional 2D fluoroscopy only. METHODS: The perioperative outcomes and accuracy of cage placement were examined in all patients who underwent LLIF using ION (ION group) or fluoroscopy only (non-ION group) by a single surgeon. The radiation exposure was examined in patients who underwent stand-alone LLIF. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients with 154 levels (ION 49 patients with 79 levels/ non-ION 38 patients with 75 levels) were included. There were no significant differences in operative time (ION 143.5 min vs. non-ION 126.0 min, P = .406), time from induction end to surgery start (ION 31.0 min vs. non-ION 31.0 min, P = .761), estimated blood loss (ION 37.5 ml vs. non-ION 50.0 ml, P = .351), perioperative complications (ION 16.3% vs. non-ION 7.9%, P = .335) and length of stay (ION 50.6 hours vs. non-ION 41.7 hours, P = .841). No significant difference was found in the accuracy of cage placement (P = .279). ION did not significantly increase total radiation dose (ION 51.0 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .237) and tended to reduce radiation dose during the procedure (ION 32.2 mGy vs. non-ION 47.4 mGy, P = .932). CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative outcomes, accuracy of cage placement and radiation exposure in LLIF using ION were comparable to those using fluoroscopy only. The use of ION in LLIF was feasible, safe and accurate and may reduce radiation dose to the surgeon and surgical team.

An Analysis of Whether a New Formula Can Predict Proximal Junctional Failure in Adult Spinal Deformity Patients with Global Kyphosis.

OBJECTIVE: A new formula containing terms for age and sagittal curvature reported by the International Spine Study Group is ideal lumbar lordosis (iLL) = pelvic incidence - 0.3 thoracic kyphosis - 0.5Age + 10. However, there are no reports of whether proximal junctional failure (PJF) can be predicted using this formula. We assessed the utility of this formula in PJF in patients with adult spinal deformity with global kyphosis using the Roussouly classification. METHODS: Forty-four patients with adult spinal deformity global kyphosis (mean age 70.0 years) who underwent multiple levels of lateral lumbar interbody fusion combined with posterior instrumentation were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups: PJF and non-PJF. Demographic, surgical, and radiological parameters were compared. The iLL was calculated according to the new formula, and spinal parameters were compared preoperatively, immediately after, and at the final follow-up. RESULTS: PJF occurred in 11 of 44 (25.0%) patients. Patients with PJF had a large preoperative and postoperative TK, but there was no statistically significant difference in iLL between PJF and non-PJF patients (33.4° vs. 30.2°, P = 0.357). In addition, there was no statistically significant difference in LL and iLL changes (ΔiLL) immediately after surgery (19.0° vs. 23.4°, P = 0.379). Furthermore, there was no correlation between ΔiLL immediately after surgery and at the final follow-up and the proximal junctional angle at the final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results of ΔiLL suggest that overcorrection needs to be addressed but that this new formula, including age adjustment, may not predict PJF.

Characterizing and Improving Nomenclature for Reporting Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques.

OBJECTIVE: Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques have seen impressive innovation in recent years, leading to an expansion of the LIF lexicon. This study systematically analyzes LIF nomenclature in contemporary literature and proposes a standardized classification system for reporting LIF terminology. METHODS: A search query was conducted through the PubMed database using "lumbar fusion OR lumbar interbody fusion." A total of 1455 articles were identified, and 605 references to LIF were recorded. Following a systematic review of the terminology, we developed a LIF reporting guidelines that capture the existing LIF nomenclature while avoiding redundant or ambiguous terminology. RESULTS: The most referenced anatomical approaches were transforaminal (43.0%), followed by posterior (25.0%), lateral (19.7%), and anterior (10.9%). Overall, there were 72 unique ways to describe LIF. Unique prefixes were recorded by approach (posterior: 26; lateral: 13; anterior: 3). Forty unique prefixes/suffixes overlapped in their usage. "MI" (14.4%), "MIS" (38.1%), and "MISS" (0.6%) all referenced a minimally invasive approach. "O" (12.5%), "CO" (1.3%), and "TO" (1.3%) all described open techniques. "Endo" (0.6%), "Endoscopic-assisted" (1.3%), and "PE" (1.9%) all referenced endoscopic-assisted procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The current LIF nomenclature contains many unique LIF terms that were found to be inconsistently defined, redundant, or ambiguous. We propose the standardization of a 4-part naming system which highlights the crucial parts of LIF: (1) intraoperative repositioning, (2) patient position, (3) anatomical approach, and (4) orientation of the surgical corridor to the psoas muscles.

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

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

Fusion assessment in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages.

Background: Compare fusion at two independent timepoints (early and late) between 3D-printed titanium (Ti) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in patients undergoing standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF). We hypothesized that 3D-printed Ti cages show higher fusion rates at an early timepoint compared to PEEK. Methods: A retrospective study of patients undergoing SA-LLIF with 3D-printed Ti cages and PEEK cages between 11/2016 and 01/2020 at a single academic institution was done. Fusion was assessed for each treated level using multiplanar reconstructed computed tomography (CT) scans. Presence of fully bridged interbody trabecular bone or continuous bone centered in the cage was considered as fusion. Results: In total, 91 patients (136 levels) were included in the final analysis, 49 patients (72 levels) in the early group and 42 patients (64 levels) in the late group. CT scans were performed on average 8.2±1.8 months postoperatively for the early group and 18.9±7.7 months for the late group. In the early group, fusion was significantly higher for 3D-printed Ti cages compared to PEEK cages (95.8% versus 62.5%; P=0.002), whereas in the late group no significant difference was seen (94.7% versus 80.0%; P=0.258). Conclusions: In SA-LLIF, porous 3D-printed Ti cages showed significantly higher fusion rates at an early timepoint compared to PEEK. However, the difference in fusion rates between 3D-printed Ti cages and PEEK cages was found not to be significantly different at a later timepoint in another patient group. This might support the assumption that 3D-printed Ti cages with a porous architecture are more osteoconductive compared to PEEK and tend to fuse earlier.