ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.