Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transpsoas approach-related morbidity.

OBJECT: Recently, the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal, transpsoas approach to the thoracolumbar spinal column has been described by various authors. This is known as the minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion. The purpose of this study is to elucidate the approach-related morbidity associated with the minimally invasive transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. To date, there have been only a couple of reports regarding the morbidity of the transpsoas muscle approach. METHODS: A nonrandomized, prospective study utilizing a self-reported patient questionnaire was conducted between January 2006 and June 2008 at Northwestern University. Data were collected in 53 patients with a follow-up period ranging from 6 months to 3.5 years. Only 2 patients were lost to follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent (19 of 53) of patients reported subjective hip flexor weakness, 25% (13 of 53) anterior thigh numbness, and 23% (12 of 53) anterior thigh pain. However, 84% of the 19 patients reported complete resolution of their subjective hip flexor weakness by 6 months, and most experienced improved strength by 8 weeks. Of those reporting anterior thigh numbness and pain, 69% and 75% improved to their baseline function by the 6-month follow-up evaluations, respectively. All patients with self-reported subjective hip flexor weakness underwent examinations during subsequent clinic visits after surgery; however, these examinations did not confirm a motor deficit less than Grade 5. Subset analysis showed that the L3-4 and L4-5 levels were most often affected. CONCLUSIONS: The minimally invasive, transpsoas muscle approach to the lumbar spine has a number of advantages. The data show that a percentage of the patients undergoing the transpsoas approach will have temporary sensory and motor symptoms related to this approach. The majority of the symptoms are thought to be related to psoas muscle inflammation and/or stretch injury to the genitofemoral nerve due to the surgical corridor traversed during the operation. No major injuries to the lumbar plexus were encountered. It is important to educate patients prior to surgery of the possibility of these largely transient symptoms.

Operative Nonunion Rates in Posterolateral Lumbar Fusions: Analysis of a Cohort of 2591 Patients from a National Spine Registry.

OBJECTIVE: Radiographic nonunion rates in the literature for posterolateral lumbar fusions with pedicle screws (PLFs) range from 8.1% to 43.3% but may not represent nonunion rates. A few small studies have reported reoperations for symptomatic nonunions (operative nonunions) to range from 3.2% to 13.9%. The objective of this study is to determine operative nonunion rates for 1-level, 2-level, 3-level, and ≥4-level PLFs and to determine the risks for these nonunions. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, using data from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry, identified adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent PLFs for degenerative disc disease. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates using the log-rank statistic were used to evaluate operative nonunion rates. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 2591 patients with single-level and multilevel PLFs with mean follow-up of 4.6 years, time to operative nonunion of 1.52 years, and 2-year operative nonunion rate of 1.08%. Compared with single-level fusions, patients with 3-level and ≥4-level fusion had 2.8 and 3.7 times higher risk of operative nonunions. Patients with PLFs involving L5-S1 had 2.5 times the risk of an operative nonunion compared with those without. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reports results from one of the largest cohort of patients for the first time with single-level and multilevel instrumented PLFs and found a 2-year operative nonunion rate of 1.08% with increased risk of nonunion for constructs that included L5-S1 and ≥3-level fusions. Operative nonunion combines clinical and radiographic data and provides an alternative measure of fusion rates.

PLF+PS or ALIF+PS: which has a lower operative nonunion rate? Analysis of a cohort of 2,061 patients from a National Spine Registry.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar fusions with pedicle screws (PLF+PS) and anterior lumbar interbody fusions with pedicle screws (ALIF+PS) have been reported, there has been no consensus on superiority with respect to clinical outcome and nonunion rates. Most studies determine nonunion rates based on radiographic studies; however, many of these nonunions are asymptomatic and may not require reoperations. Hence, a potentially more clinically useful measure is the reoperation rate for symptomatic nonunions, which we term the operative nonunion rate. PURPOSE: To determine if there is a difference in operative nonunion rates between PLF+PS versus ALIF+PS. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients (≥18 years old) with the diagnosis of lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent primary elective PLF+PS and ALIF+PS for 1-level and 2-level fusions (L4-S1) between 2009 and 2018. OUTCOME MEASURES: Reoperation rates for symptomatic nonunions (ie, operative nonunion rates). METHODS: Patients were followed until validated operative nonunions, membership termination, death, or 03/31/2019. Descriptive statistics and 2-year incidence rates for operative nonunions were calculated by fusion-level, fusion type, and levels fused. Time-dependent multivariable Cox-Proportional Hazards regression was used to evaluate operative nonunion rates with adjustment for covariates or risk change estimates more than 10%. RESULTS: We identified 2,061 patients (PLF+PS:1,491, ALIF+PS:570) with average follow-up time of 4.8 (±3.1) years and average time to operative nonunion of 1.3 (±1.2) yrs. Comparatively, unadjusted 1-level and 2-level incidence rates for operative nonunions were higher in PLF+PS versus ALIF+PS. For 1-level procedures these were 0.9% (95% CI=0.4-1.6) versus 0.6% (95% CI=0.1-2.1); 2-level, 2.0% (95% CI=0.8-4.0) versus 0.9% (95% CI=0.1-3.3). However, there were no observed significant differences in risks for operative nonunions in multivariable models comparing PLF+PS versus ALIF+PS (HR=0.3, 95% CI=0.1-1.1), 1-level versus 2-level fusions (HR=1.8, 95% CI=0.8-4.3), or by fusion level (L4-L5: HR=1.0, 95% CI=0.4-2.7; L5-S1: HR=2.0, 95% CI=0.7-5.4). CONCLUSIONS: A large cohort of patients with lumbar fusions between L4 to S1 and an average follow-up of >4 years found that although there was a trend for higher operative nonunions in PLF+PS compared with ALIF+PS, this was not statistically significant. The role of spinal alignment was not investigated.