Defining cage subsidence in anterior, oblique, and lateral lumbar spine fusion approaches: a systematic review of the literature.

One of the most common complications of lumbar fusions is cage subsidence, which leads to collapse of disc height and reappearance of the presenting symptomology. However, definitions of cage subsidence are inconsistent, leading to a variety of subsidence calculation methodologies and thresholds. To review previously published literature on cage subsidence in order to present the most common methods for calculating and defining subsidence in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) approaches. A search was completed in PubMed and Embase with inclusion criteria focused on identifying any study that provided descriptions of the method, imaging modality, or subsidence threshold used to calculate the presence of cage subsidence. A total of 69 articles were included in the final analysis, of which 18 (26.1%) reported on the ALIF approach, 22 (31.9%) on the OLIF approach, and 31 (44.9%) on the LLIF approach, 2 of which reported on more than one approach. ALIF articles most commonly calculated the loss of disc height over time with a subsidence threshold of > 2 mm. Most OLIF articles calculated the total amount of cage migration into the vertebral bodies, with a threshold of > 2 mm. LLIF was the only approach in which most articles applied the same method for calculation, namely, a grading scale for classifying the loss of disc height over time. We recommend future articles adhere to the most common methodologies presented here to ensure accuracy and generalizability in reporting cage subsidence.

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.

Survey of major complications after prone transpsoas surgery: an analysis of early adopters' practice.

INTRODUCTION: The prone transpsoas technique (PTP) is a modification of the traditional lateral lumbar interbody fusion approach, which was first published in the literature in 2020. The technique provides several advantages, such as lordosis correction and redistribution, single-position surgery framework, and ease of performing posterior techniques when needed. However, the prone position also leads to the movement of some retroperitoneal, vascular, and neurological structures, which could impact the complication profile. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the occurrence of major complications in the practice of early adopters of the PTP approach. METHODS: A questionnaire containing 8 questions was sent to 50 participants and events involving early adopters of the prone transpsoas technique. Of the 50 surgeons, 32 completed the questionnaire, which totaled 1963 cases of PTP surgeries. RESULTS: Nine of the 32 surgeons experienced a major complication (28%), with persistent neurological deficit being the most frequent (7/9). Of the total number of cases, the occurrence of permanent neurological deficits was approximately 0,6%, and the rate of vascular and visceral injuries were both 0,05% (1/1963 for each case). CONCLUSION: Based on the analysis of the questionnaire responses, it can be concluded that PTP is a safe technique with a very low rate of serious complications. However, future studies with a more heterogeneous group of surgeons and a more rigorous linkage between answers and patient data are needed to support the findings of this study.

Can We Rely on Prophylactic Two-Level Vertebral Cement Augmentation in Long-Segment Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery to Reduce the Incidence of Proximal Junctional Complications?

Background and Objectives: Proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) and failure (PJF), the most prevalent complications following long-segment thoracolumbar fusions for adult spinal deformity (ASD), remain lacking in defined preventive measures. We studied whether one of the previously reported strategies with successful results-a prophylactic augmentation of the uppermost instrumented vertebra (UIV) and supra-adjacent vertebra to the UIV (UIV + 1) with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)-could also serve as a preventive measure of PJK/PJF in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Materials and Methods: The study included 29 ASD patients who underwent a combination of minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-LLIF) at L1-2 through L4-5, all-pedicle-screw instrumentation from the lower thoracic spine to the sacrum, S2-alar-iliac fixation, and two-level balloon-assisted PMMA vertebroplasty at the UIV and UIV + 1. Results: With a minimum 3-year follow-up, non-PJK/PJF group accounted for fifteen patients (52%), PJK for eight patients (28%), and PJF requiring surgical revision for six patients (21%). We had a total of seven patients with proximal junctional fracture, even though no patients showed implant/bone interface failure with screw pullout, probably through the effect of PMMA. In contrast to the PJK cohort, six PJF patients all had varying degrees of neurologic deficits from modified Frankel grade C to D3, which recovered to grades D3 and to grade D2 in three patients each, after a revision operation of proximal extension of instrumented fusion with or without neural decompression. None of the possible demographic and radiologic risk factors showed statistical differences between the non-PJK/PJF, PJK, and PJF groups. Conclusions: Compared with the traditional open surgical approach used in the previous studies with a positive result for the prophylactic two-level cement augmentation, the MIS procedures with substantial benefits to patients in terms of less access-related morbidity and less blood loss also provide a greater segmental stability, which, however, may have a negative effect on the development of PJK/PJF.

Anatomical Reduction of Spondylolisthesis Through Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation: An Intraoperative Technical Note.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of lumbar spondylolisthesis requires neural decompression, stabilization, and alignment restoration. Minimally invasive spine approaches offer a wide variety of advantages for spondylolisthesis management. This intraoperative note describes the treatment of L4-L5 lumbar spondylolisthesis with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PSF). METHODS: The surgical technique for treating L4-L5 lumbar spondylolisthesis using a minimally invasive approach with LLIF and percutaneous PSF is described. This operative technique is illustrated with figures, and an intraoperative case example of its application is described. RESULTS: LLIF with percutaneous PSF can be a safe, effective, and reliable option for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis when applied with appropriate surgical technique in a selected patient population. This technique is a valuable addition to the range of available spine surgical options. CONCLUSIONS: LLIF with percutaneous PSF can be an effective technique for treating lumbar L4-L5 spondylolisthesis.

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.

Preoperative motor weakness and the impact on patient reported outcomes in lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

This study measures the impact of preoperative motor weakness (MW) on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) patients. Retrospectively-sourced data from a prospectively-maintained, single-surgeon database created two cohorts of LLIF patients: patients with/without documented MW. Demographics/perioperative characteristics/PROMs were collected preoperatively and at six-weeks/final follow-up (FF). Studied outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) Physical/Mental Component Score (PCS/MCS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), Visual Analog Scale Back/Leg Pain (VAS-BP/LP), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Multivariable linear/logistic regression calculated/compared intercohort minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Mean postoperative follow-up time was 11.5 ± 7.52 months. In total, 214 LLIF patients from December 2010 to May 2023 were included, with 149 having documented MW. In Table 1, self-reported gender was significant between cohorts (p < 0.025). Other significant demographic characteristics were smoker status (p < 0.002), diabetes (p < 0.016), and CCI score (p < 0.011). Table 2 shows notably significant perioperative characteristics: spinal pathology (degenerative spondylolisthesis/foraminal stenosis/herniated nucleus pulposus) (p < 0.005, all), estimated blood loss/length of stay/postoperative day (POD)-zero narcotic consumption (p < 0.001, all). Table 3 outcomes/MCID achievement percentages demonstrated insignificant intercohort differences besides a weakly significant FF ODI score (p < 0.036). MW, a frequently reported symptom in spine surgery, is poorly studied in LLIF patients. Thus, this study evaluates MW impact on PROMs and notes no significant differences. However, one exception regarding FF disability scores was recorded. MW did not affect MCID achievement for our patient population. Therefore, the preliminary findings suggest preoperative MW imparts minimal influence on PROMs/MCID in LLIF patients.

Impact of Osteoporosis on Short-Term Surgical Outcomes in Lumbar Degenerative Disease Patients Undergoing Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study assesses the influence of osteoporosis on the short-term clinical outcomes of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases (LDDs), focusing on complications, pain intensity, and quality of life (QOL) improvements. The primary aim of this study is to investigate the impact of osteoporosis on the short-term clinical outcomes following LLIF surgery in LDD patients, with a particular focus on the incidence of cage subsidence (CS) and overall patient well-being postoperatively. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 73 patients who underwent LLIF for LDD. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on osteoporosis status determined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans: those with osteoporosis (n = 20) and those without osteoporosis (n = 53). Data collection included demographics, surgical details, complications, magnetic resonance imaging analysis, pain intensity, and QOL (Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire). RESULTS: The groups had no significant differences regarding operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospital stay duration. However, the incidence of CS was 40% in patients with osteoporosis, compared to 17% in nonosteoporotic patients. Despite this, significant improvements in spinal canal dimensions were observed in both groups. Both groups experienced significant reductions in pain intensity, with notable improvements in functional outcomes assessed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire, indicating the overall effectiveness of LLIF in enhancing patient well-being and functionality, irrespective of osteoporosis status. CONCLUSIONS: Osteoporosis increases the risk of CS in LLIF surgery for LDD patients but does not affect short-term pain relief and QOL improvements.

Surgical Management of Thoracolumbar Adjacent Segment Disease: Techniques and Outcomes in 107 Patients Undergoing Surgical Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a known sequela of thoracolumbar instrumented fusions. Various surgical options are available to address ASD in patients with intractable symptoms who have failed conservative measures. However, the optimal treatment strategy for symptomatic ASD has not been established. We examined several clinical outcomes utilizing different surgical interventions for symptomatic ASD. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for a consecutive series of patients undergoing revision surgery for thoracolumbar ASD between October 2011 and February 2022. Patients were treated with endoscopic decompression (N = 17), microdiscectomy (N = 9), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF; N = 26), or open laminectomy and fusion (LF; N = 55). The primary outcomes compared between groups were re-operation rates and numeric pain scores for leg and back at 2 weeks, 10 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months postoperation. Secondary outcomes included time to re-operation, estimated blood loss, and length of stay. RESULTS: Of the 257 patients who underwent revision surgery for symptomatic ASD, 107 patients met inclusion criteria with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. The mean age of all patients was 67.90 ± 10.51 years. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in age, gender, preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists scoring, number of previously fused levels, or preoperative numeric leg and back pain scores. The re-operation rates were significantly lower in LF (12.7%) and LLIF cohorts (19.2%) compared with microdiscectomy (33%) and endoscopic decompression (52.9%; P = 0.005). Only LF and LLIF cohorts experienced significantly decreased pain scores at all 4 follow-up visits (2 weeks, 10 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months; P < 0.001 and P < 0.05, respectively) relative to preoperative scores. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic ASD often requires treatment with revision surgery. Fusion surgeries (either stand-alone lateral interbody or posterolateral with instrumentation) were most effective and durable with respect to alleviating pain and avoiding additional revisions within the first 12 months following revision surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study emphasizes the importance of risk-stratifying patients to identify the least invasive approach that treats their symptoms and reduces the risk of future surgeries.

Quantifying Satisfaction of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Patients in Post-lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: Establishing Critical JOABPEQ Cutoff Scores.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study aimed to determine the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) cutoff scores for assessing patient satisfaction postlateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS) patients. METHODS: Analyzing 136 DLSS patients (83 males, 53 females), the study evaluated demographics, pain (Numeric Rating Scale), and JOABPEQ outcomes (low back pain, lumbar function, walking ability, social life, mental health). Patient satisfaction was surveyed, and based on their responses, patients were categorized into "Beneficial" and "Nonbeneficial" groups. Statistical analysis encompassed the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, t-tests, Mann-Whitney U test, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for JOABPEQ cutoff determination. RESULTS: Postoperative improvements in JOABPEQ scores, especially in walking ability, social life function, and mental health, were significant. Pain intensity, assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale, also showed notable reductions. The Δ walking ability cutoff was set at 25.00, indicating substantial mobility improvement. This domain's area under the curve (AUC) was 0.815 (95% CI: 0.726-0.903), demonstrating high effectiveness in assessing patient satisfaction postsurgery. The study also found no significant differences in complication rates between groups for conditions like transient motor weakness, thigh pain/numbness, and revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the value of patient-centered outcomes in evaluating LLIF surgery success for DLSS. The identified JOABPEQ cutoff values provide a quantitative tool for assessing patient satisfaction, emphasizing the necessity of comprehensive postoperative evaluations beyond traditional clinical metrics for improved patient care and life quality.

The Optimal Patient Position on the Surgical Table for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Spinal Deformity Using Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography: A Retrospective Study.

Introduction: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) techniques have been extensively used in adult spinal deformity surgery. Preoperative knowledge of the optimal position of the patient on the surgical table is essential for a safe procedure. Therefore, this study aims to determine the optimal angle for positioning the patient on the surgical table during LLIF using three-dimensional computed tomography (3DCT). Methods: Data from 59 patients (2 males, 57 females, mean age 66.3±8.6 years) with adult spinal deformities treated by performing corrective spinal surgery were included in this observational retrospective study. Simulated fluoroscopic images were obtained using 3DCT images rotated from the reference position with the spinous process of S1 as the midline to the position with the spinous process in the center of the bilateral pedicle of T12-L5. The rotation angle of each vertebra was measured and defined as the optimal rotation angle (ORA). The angle that bisected the angle between the maximum and minimum ORA was defined as the optimal mean angle of the maximum and minimum ORA (OMA) and considered the optimal angle for the patient's position on the surgical table, as this position could minimize the rotation angle of the surgical table during surgery. A multiple regression analysis was performed to predict OMA. Results: Multiple regression analysis revealed the following equation: OMA=1.959+(0.238×lumbar coronal Cobb angle)+(-0.208×sagittal vertical axis). Conclusions: When the patient is placed on the surgical table by rotating them at the OMA, the rotation of the surgical table can be reduced, ensuring a safe and efficient surgical procedure.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of OLIF and TLIF in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the difference in clinical efficacy between two surgical approaches, oblique lateral approach and intervertebral foraminal approach, in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS: English databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science, were systematically searched using keywords such as "oblique lumbar interbody fusion" and "transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion." Concurrently, Chinese databases, including CNKI, WanFang data, VIP, and CBM, were also queried using corresponding Chinese terms. The search spanned from January 2014 to February 2024, focusing on published studies in both Chinese and English that compared the clinical efficacy of OLIF and TLIF. The literature screening was conducted by reviewing titles, abstracts, and full texts. Literature meeting the inclusion criteria underwent quality assessment, and relevant data were extracted. Statistical analysis and a meta-analysis of the observational data for both surgical groups were performed using Excel and RevMan 5.4 software. Findings revealed a total of 14 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, encompassing 877 patients. Of these, 414 patients were in the OLIF group, while 463 were in the TLIF group. Meta-analysis of the statistical data revealed that compared to TLIF, OLIF had a shorter average surgical duration (P < 0.05), reduced intraoperative bleeding (P < 0.05), shorter average hospital stay (P < 0.05), better improvement in postoperative VAS scores (P < 0.05), superior enhancement in postoperative ODI scores (P < 0.05), more effective restoration of disc height (P < 0.05), and better correction of lumbar lordosis (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant differences between OLIF and TLIF in terms of the incidence of surgical complications (P > 0.05) and fusion rates (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: When treating degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis, OLIF demonstrates significant advantages over TLIF in terms of shorter surgical duration, reduced intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stay, superior improvement in postoperative VAS and ODI scores, better restoration of disc height, and more effective correction of lumbar lordosis.

[Efficacy analysis of OLIF combined with posterior percutaneous internal fixation in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with or without redundant nerve roots].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion(OLIF) combined with posterior percutaneous internal fixation in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis with or without redundant nerve roots(RNRs). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 92 patients with lumbar spinal stenosis treated by oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion combined with posterior percutaneous internal fixation from June 2019 to June 2022 was performed. There were 32 males and 60 females, aged from 44 to 82 years old with an average of (63.67±9.93) years old. All patients were divided into RNRs positive group and RNRs negative group according to redundancy or not before operation. There were 38 patients in RNRs positive group, including 15 males and 23 females. The age ranged from 45 to 82 years old with an average of (65.45±10.37) years old. The disease duration was 24.00(12.00, 72.00) months. There were 54 patients in RNRs negative group, including 17 males and 37 females. The age ranged from 44 to 77 years old with an average of (62.42±9.51) years old. The disease duration was 13.50(9.00, 36.00) months. The general data of patients were recorded, including operation time, intraoperative blood loss and complications. The imaging parameters before and after operation were observed, including the number of stenosis segments, intervertebral space height, lumbar lordosis angle and dural sac area. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate the back and lower extremity pain, and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) was used to evaluate the activities of daily living. RESULTS: All patients were followed up for 8 to 18 months with an average of (11.04±3.61) months, and no complications were found during the follow-up period.The number of stenosis segments in RNRs positive group (1.71±0.46) was more than that in RNRs negative group(1.17±0.38). In RNRs positive group, intervertebral space height, dural sac area, low back pain VAS, lower extremity pain VAS, ODI score were (1.11±0.19) cm, (0.46±0.17) cm2, (5.39±1.00) scores, (5.05±1.01) points, (55.74±4.05) points, respectively. RNRs negative groups respectively (0.97±0.23) cm, (0.69±0.26) cm2, (4.50±0.77) scores, (4.00±0.58) scores, (47.33±3.43) %. In RNRs positive group, intervertebral space height, dural sac area, low back pain VAS, leg pain VAS, ODI score were (1.60±0.19) cm, (0.74±0.36) cm2, (3.39±0.72) scores, (3.05±1.01) scores, (46.74±4.82) scores, respectively. RNRs negative groups respectively (1.48±0.25) cm, (1.12±0.35) cm2, (3.00±0.82) scores, (3.00±0.82) scores, (37.67±3.58) %. The postoperative intervertebral space height, dural sac area, low back pain VAS score, lower extremity pain VAS and ODI score of the patients in the RNRs positive group and the negative group were significantly improved compared with those before operation, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). There were statistically significant differences in the number of stenosed segments, preoperative intervertebral space height, dural sac area, low back pain VAS, lower extremity pain VAS, and ODI between the two groups(P<0.05). There were significant differences in postoperative intervertebral space height and postoperative ODI between the two groups(P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in intervertebral space height before and after operation and ODI score before and after operation(P>0.05). There were significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative dural sac area, difference of dural sac area before and after operation, postoperative low back pain VAS, difference of low back pain VAS score before and after operation, difference of lower extremity pain VAS before and after operation between the two groups(P<0.05). CONCLUSION: OLIF combined with posterior percutaneous internal fixation has a good effect on patients with or without RNRs. Multi-segmental lumbar spinal stenosis and decreased dural sac area may lead to the occurrence of RNRs, and LSS patients with RNRs have more severe symptoms. LSS patients with RNRs have worse surgical outcomes than those without RNRs.

Is Direct Decompression Necessary for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)? A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Direct and Indirect Decompression With LLIF in Selected Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) between direct and indirect decompression in the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar diseases. METHODS: Patients who underwent single-level LLIF were randomized into 2 groups: direct decompression (group D) and indirect decompression (group I). Clinical outcomes including the Oswestry Disability index and visual analogue scale of back and leg pain were collected. Radiographic outcomes including cross-sectional area (CSA) of thecal sac, disc height, foraminal height, foraminal area, fusion rate, segmental, and lumbar lordosis were measured. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients who met the inclusion criteria were eligible for the analysis, with a distribution of 14 subjects in each group. The average age was 66.1 years. Postoperatively, significant improvements were observed in all clinical parameters. However, these improvements did not show significant difference between both groups at all follow-up periods. All radiographic outcomes were not different between both groups, except for the increase in CSA which was significantly greater in group D (77.73 ± 20.26 mm2 vs. 54.32 ± 35.70 mm2, p = 0.042). Group I demonstrated significantly lower blood loss (68.13 ± 32.06 mL vs. 210.00 ± 110.05 mL, p < 0.005), as well as shorter operative time (136.35 ± 28.07 minutes vs. 182.18 ± 42.67 minutes, p = 0.002). Overall complication rate was not different. CONCLUSION: Indirect decompression through LLIF results in comparable clinical improvement to LLIF with additional direct decompression over 1-year follow-up period. These findings suggest that, for an appropriate candidate, direct decompression in LLIF might not be necessary since the ligamentotaxis effect achieved through indirect decompression appears sufficient to relieve symptoms while diminishing blood loss and operative time.

A retrospective analysis of perioperative complications of lateral approach lumbar interbody fusion in patients with prior abdominal surgery or a history of colonic inflammatory disease.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lateral approaches for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) allow for access to the lumbar spine and disc space by passing through a retroperitoneal corridor either pre- or trans-psoas. A contraindication for this approach is the presence of retroperitoneal scarring that may occur from prior surgical intervention in the retroperitoneal space or from inflammatory conditions with fibrotic changes and pose challenges for the mobilization and visualization needed in this approach. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the prevalence of surgical complications following lateral fusion surgery in patients with a history of abdominal surgery. PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study is to describe the association between surgical complications following lateral interbody fusion surgery and prior abdominal surgical. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients over the age of 18 who underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion at a large, tertiary care center between 2011 and 2019 were included in the study. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome included medical, surgical, and thigh-related complications either in the intraoperative or 90-day postoperative periods. Additional outcome metrics included readmission rates, length of stay, and operative duration. METHODS: The electronic health records of 250 patients were reviewed for demographic information, surgical data, complications, and readmission following surgery. The association of patient and surgical factors to complication rate was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Statistical analysis was performed using R statistical software (R, Vienna, Austria). RESULTS: Of 250 lateral interbody fusion patients, 62.8% had a prior abdominal surgery and 13.8% had a history of colonic disease. The most common perioperative complication was transient thigh or groin pain/sensory changes (n=62, 24.8%). A multivariable logistic regression considering prior abdominal surgery, age, BMI, history of colonic disease, multilevel surgery, and the approach relative to psoas found no significant association between surgical complication rates and colonic disease (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.02-2.22) or a history of prior abdominal surgeries (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.20-1.55). Further, the invasiveness of prior abdominal surgeries showed no association with overall spine complication rate, lateral-specific complications, or readmission rates (p>.05). CONCLUSION: Though retroperitoneal scarring is an important consideration for lateral approaches to the lumbar spine, this study found no association between lateral lumbar approach complication rates and prior abdominal surgery. Further study is needed to determine the impact of inflammatory colonic disease on lateral approach spine surgery.

Coronal vertical fracture of vertebral body following minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion: risk factor analysis in consecutive case series.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the incidence and risk factors of coronal vertical vertebral body fracture (CV-VBF) during lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for degenerative lumbar disease. METHODS: Clinical data, including age, sex, body mass index, and bone mineral density, were reviewed. Radiological assessments, such as facet joint arthrosis, intervertebral disc motion, index disc height, and cage profiles, were conducted. Posterior instrumentation was performed using either a single or staged procedure after LLIF. Demographic and surgical data were compared between patients with and without VBF. RESULTS: Out of 273 patients (552 levels), 7 (2.6%) experienced CV-VBF. Among the 552 levels, VBF occured in 7 levels (1.3%). All VBF cases developed intraoperatively during LLIF, with no instances caused by cage subsidence during the follow-up period. Sagittal motion in segments adjacent to VBF was smaller than in others (4.6° ± 2.6° versus 6.5° ± 3.9°, P = 0.031). The average grade of facet arthrosis was 2.5 ± 0.7, indicating severe facet arthrosis. All fractures developed due to oblique placement of a trial or cage into the index disc space, leading to a nutcracker effect. These factors were not related to bone quality. CONCLUSIONS: CV-VBF after LLIF occurred in 2.6% of patients, accounting for 1.3% of all LLIF levels. A potential risk factor for VBF involves the nutcracker-impinging effect due to the oblique placement of a cage. Thorough preoperative evaluations and surgical procedures are needed to avoid VBF when considering LLIF in patients with less mobile spine.

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.

Evaluating the Efficacy of IL-6 as Predictors of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Success: Insights From Pain Scores and JOABPEQ Assessments.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore the correlation between interleukin (IL)- 6 levels in intervertebral disc (IVD) tissue and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar surgery for lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). METHODS: This prospective study analyzed 32 patients (22 men and 10 women, average age 69.6 years) who underwent lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). IL-6 gene expression in IVD tissues collected during surgery was measured and correlated with pre- and postoperative clinical outcomes, including pain intensity assessed via Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) and quality of life (QOL) evaluated through the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). RESULTS: IL-6 levels showed statistical correlations with postoperative intensity of low back pain (LBP) and several JOABPEQ domains. Patients with higher expression of IL-6 levels experienced more severe postoperative LBP and lower scores in lumbar function, walking ability, social life function, and mental health. The effectiveness rate of JOABPEQ scores was exceptionally high for low back pain (.548), walking ability (.677), and social functioning (.563), demonstrating the effectiveness of LLIF. The average operation time was 105.6 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 85.6 mL. CONCLUSIONS: The study underscores IL-6 as a potential biomarker for predicting surgical outcomes in LDD. High IL-6 levels correlate with worse postoperative LBP and lower QOL scores. Integrating molecular markers like IL-6 with patient-reported outcomes could provide a more comprehensive approach to postoperative care in spinal disorders, aiming to improve the overall QOL for LDD patients undergoing LLIF surgery.

Single-Position Robotic-Assisted Prone Lateral Fusion: Technical Description and Feasibility.

Single-position lateral interbody fusion surgery has gained traction over the years because of reduced surgical time and improved operating theater workflow. With the introduction of robotics in spine surgery, surgeons can place pedicle screws with a high degree of accuracy and efficiency; moreover, the robot allows us to localize the disk space and perform endplate preparation accurately with minimal radiation. In this study, we discuss the potential synergistic benefits of integrating robotic-assisted spine surgery and singleposition prone lateral surgery. We share our technique and provide the operative nuances of using the Mazor X Stealth Edition system (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA). We highlighted the potential synergistic benefits of integrating both the prone lateral and robotic-assisted surgical techniques, including the challenges encountered. This approach is not meant to replace other techniques or be used in all patients. Instead, it adds to our arsenal for managing spine fusion.

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.