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.

Clinical Analysis and Imaging Study of Lateral Lumbar Intervertebral Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis.

OBJECTIVE: As the population ages and technology advances, lateral lumbar intervertebral fusion (LLIF) is gaining popularity for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis (DLS). This study investigated the feasibility, minimally invasive concept, and benefits of LLIF for the treatment of DLS by observing and assessing the clinical efficacy, imaging changes, and complications following the procedure. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed for 52 DLS patients (12 men and 40 women, aged 65.84 ± 9.873 years) who underwent LLIF from January 2019 to January 2023. The operation time, blood loss, complications, clinical efficacy indicators (visual analogue scale [VAS], Oswestry disability index [ODI], and 36-Item Short Form Survey), and imaging indicators (coronal position: Cobb angle and center sacral vertical line-C7 plumbline [CSVL-C7PL]; and sagittal position: sagittal vertical axis [SVA], lumbar lordosis [LL], pelvic incidence angle [PI], and thoracic kyphosis angle [TK] were measured). All patients were followed up. The above clinical evaluation indexes and imaging outcomes of patients postoperatively and at last follow-up were compared to their preoperative results. RESULTS: Compared to the preoperative values, the Cobb angle and LL angle were significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.001). Meanwhile, CSVL-C7PL, SVA, and TK did not change much after surgery (p > 0.05) but improved significantly at follow-up (p < 0.001). There was no significant change in PI at either the postoperative or follow-up timepoint. The operation took 283.90 ± 81.62 min and resulted in a total blood loss of 257.27 ± 213.44 mL. No significant complications occurred. Patients were followed up for to 21.7 ± 9.8 months. VAS, ODI, and SF-36 scores improved considerably at postoperative and final follow-up compared to preoperative levels (p < 0.001). After surgery, the Cobb angle and LL angle had improved significantly compared to preoperative values (p < 0.001). CSVL-C7PL, SVA, and TK were stable after surgery (p > 0.05) but considerably improved during follow-up (p < 0.001). PI showed no significant change at either the postoperative or follow-up timepoints. CONCLUSION: Lateral lumbar intervertebral fusion treatment of DLS significantly improved sagittal and coronal balance of the lumbar spine, as well as compensatory thoracic scoliosis, with good clinical and radiological findings. Furthermore, there was less blood, less trauma, and quicker recovery from surgery.

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.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes following 120 consecutive patients undergoing prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

PURPOSE: The prone transpsoas approach is a single-position alternative to traditional lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Earlier prone LLIF studies have focused on technique, feasibility, perioperative efficiencies, and immediate postoperative radiographic alignment. This study was undertaken to report longer-term clinical and radiographic outcomes, and to identify learnings from experiential evolution of the prone LLIF procedure. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing prone LLIF for any indication at one institution were included (n = 120). Demographic, diagnostic, treatment, and outcomes data were captured via prospective institutional registry. Retrospective analysis identified 31 'pre-proceduralization' and 89 'post-proceduralization' prone LLIF approaches, enabling comparison across early and later cohorts. RESULTS: 187 instrumented LLIF levels were performed. Operative time, retraction time, LLIF blood loss, and hospital stay averaged 150 min, 17 min, 50 ml, and 2.2 days, respectively. 79% of cases were without complication. Postoperative hip flexion weakness was identified in 14%, transient lower extremity weakness in 12%, and sensory deficits in 10%. At last follow-up, back pain, worst-leg pain, Oswestry, and EQ-5D health state improved by 55%, 46%, 48%, and 51%, respectively. 99% improved or maintained sagittal alignment with an average 6.5° segmental lordosis gain at LLIF levels. Only intra-psoas retraction time differed between pre- and post-proceduralization; proceduralization saved an average 3.4 min/level (p = 0.0371). CONCLUSIONS: The largest single-center prone LLIF experience with the longest follow-up to-date shows that it results in few complications, quick recovery, improvements in pain and function, high patient satisfaction, and improved sagittal alignment at an average one year and up to four years postoperatively.

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.

Advancing Prone-Transpsoas Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review and Evolution of Indications with Representative Cases.

The Prone Transpsoas (PTP) approach to lumbar spine surgery, emerging as an evolution of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), offers significant advantages over traditional methods. PTP has demonstrated increased lumbar lordosis gains compared to LLIF, owing to the natural increase in lordosis afforded by prone positioning. Additionally, the prone position offers anatomical advantages, with shifts in the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus, reducing the likelihood of postoperative femoral plexopathy and moving critical peritoneal contents away from the approach. Furthermore, operative efficiency is a notable benefit of PTP. By eliminating the need for intraoperative position changes, PTP reduces surgical time, which in turn decreases the risk of complications and operative costs. Finally, its versatility extends to various lumbar pathologies, including degeneration, adjacent segment disease, and deformities. The growing body of evidence indicates that PTP is at least as safe as traditional approaches, with a potentially better complication profile. In this narrative review, we review the historical evolution of lateral interbody fusion, culminating in the prone transpsoas approach. We also describe several adjuncts of PTP, including robotics and radiation-reduction methods. Finally, we illustrate the versatility of PTP and its uses, ranging from 'simple' degenerative cases to complex deformity surgeries.

Comparing Bone Fusion Rates Between Novel Unidirectional Porous Tricalcium Beta-Phosphate and Autologous Bone in Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Two-Year Radiographic Outcome Study.

This retrospective cohort study aims to examine the potential differences in bone fusion between autologous bone and artificial bone in the lumbar lateral interbody fusion at 2two years post-surgery. The bone fusions performed in 15 cases and at 34 intervertebral levels were compared to assess the differences between the artificial bone, Affinos® (Kuraray Co., Tokyo, Japan), and autogenous bone. Two years post-surgery, we evaluated computed tomography (CT) multi-planar reconstruction images in the coronal and sagittal planes. One year after surgery, out of the 24 windows, 17 (70.8%) windows transplanted with autologous bones showed bone fusion. Additionally, out of the 38 windows, 18 (47.4%) windows transplanted with Affinos® showed bone fusion. Two years post-surgery, out of the 24 windows, 19 (79.2%) windows transplanted with autologous bones showed bone fusion. Additionally, out of the 38 windows, 30 (79.0%) windows transplanted with Affinos® showed bone fusion, and no difference was observed in the fusion rate at two years post-surgery (P = 0.238). In cases using Affinos® for transplanted bone, the bone fusion rate increased between one and two years. The rate of bony fusion using Affinos® in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) cages is at par with that of autologous bone grafts at two years post-surgery. Affinos® is a promising candidate for graft material in LLIF surgery.

Prone Transpsoas Lateral Interbody Fusion (PTP LIF) with Anterior Docking: Preliminary functional and radiographic outcomes.

Background: Disadvantages of lateral interbody fusion (LIF) through a direct, transpsoas approach include difficulties associated with lateral decubitus positioning and limited sagittal correction without anterior longitudinal ligament release or posterior osteotomy. Prior technical descriptions advocate anchoring or docking the retractor into the posterior to middle aspect of the disc space. Methods: 72 patients who underwent 116 total levels of Prone Transpsoas (PTP) LIF with anterior docking with a single surgeon between December 2021 and May 2023 were included. Patient characteristics, perioperative data, as well as postoperative functional and radiographic outcomes were recorded. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients who underwent single-level PTP LIF with single-level percutaneous fixation (SLP). Patients in the SLP subgroup did not undergo direct decompression, release, or osteotomy. Results: N=41 (56.9%) of cases included the L4-5 level. No vascular, bowel, or other visceral complications occurred. No patients developed a permanent motor deficit. Both the total cohort and the SLP group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in functional outcomes including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) as well as all radiographic parameters measured. Mean total operative time (incision to completion of closure for lateral and posterior fusion) in the SLP group was 104.3 minutes with a significant downward trend with increasing surgeon experience. The SLP group demonstrated a 9.9° increase in segmental lordosis (SL), a 7.5° increase in lumbar lordosis (LL), 5.3° reduction in pelvic tilt (PT), and a decrease in pelvic incidence - lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) from 11.0° preoperatively to 3.9°, postoperatively (p<.01). Conclusions: PTP LIF with anterior docking may address shortcomings associated with traditional lateral interbody fusion by producing safe and reproducible access with improved restoration of segmental lordosis and optimization of spinopelvic parameters.

Comparison of Intraoperative Endplate Injury between Mini-Open Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) and Analysis of Risk Factors: A Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare the incidence of intraoperative endplate injury in patients who underwent Transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and mini-open lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery. The independent risk factors related to endplate injury in LLIF procedure were analyzed. METHODS: A total of 199 patients who underwent LLIF (n = 106) or TLIF (n = 93) surgery from June 2019 to September 2021 were reviewed. The endplate injury was assessed by postoperative sagittal CT scan. A binary logistic analysis model were used to identify independent risk factors related to LLIF endplate injury based on univariate analysis. RESULTS: There was an obvious difference in the occurrence of intraoperative endplate injury between LLIF (42/106, 39.6%) and TLIF group (26/93, 28%), although it did not reach the significant level. L1 CT value (OR = 0.985, 95% CI = 0.972-0.998), cage position (OR = 3.881, 95% CI = 1.398-10.771) and height variance (OR = 1.263, 95% CI = 1.013-1.575) were independent risk factors for endplate injury in LLIF procedure. According to the cage settlement patterns, there 5 types of A to E. The severity of the facet joint degeneration was positively related to the occurrence of endplate injury. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of intraoperative endplate injury is higher in LLIF than in TLIF procedures. Low bone quantity, cage posterior position and larger height variance are risk factors to induce endplate injury in LLIF surgery. The facet joint degeneration may be related to severe endplate injuries and even fractures.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Transpsoas Approaches to the Lumbar Spine: Lateral and Prone.

The lateral transpsoas approach has become fundamental to minimally invasive spine surgery. The large interbody grafts that can be placed through this approach allow for robust arthrodesis of the anterior column, indirect decompression, and restoration of lordosis without disrupting the posterior musculature or ligamentous structures. The lateral decubitus position has traditionally been used for this approach but the prone position has gained popularity because it can reduce operating times for patients who also require posterior pedicle screw fixation. The transpsoas approach can be effectively performed in either position but surgeons should know the nuances that distinguish them.

Risk of Injury to Retroperitoneal Structures in Prone and Lateral Decubitus Transpsoas Approaches to Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Pilot Cadaveric Anatomical Study.

Introduction The retroperitoneal approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) originally described an initial posterolateral fascial incision enabling finger dissection from behind the peritoneum and guidance of instruments through a second direct-lateral fascial incision. It has since become common for single direct-lateral incisional access to the retroperitoneum. This study attempted to quantify the distance of the peritoneum from posterior landmarks in the space, assess the risk of peritoneal violation in each access trajectory (i.e., posterolateral versus direct lateral retroperitoneal dissection), and determine whether there are differences based on patient position (prone versus lateral decubitus). Methods In three prone cadaveric torsos, Steinman pins were percutaneously placed mid-disc at each level L2-5 bilaterally (for a total of 18 prone approaches). Open dissections exposed the retroperitoneum including the quadratus lumborum and psoas muscles, maintaining the natural reflection of the peritoneum. Visual assessment qualified whether any pin violated any retroperitoneal structure. Distance from the anterior border of the quadratus lumborum to the posterior-most reflection of the peritoneum was measured. For comparison, three additional torsos were positioned in lateral decubitus, and the above steps were repeated, only unilaterally (for a total of nine lateral decubitus approaches). Results In prone, no pin violated the peritoneum; three (3/18 total approaches) violated the kidney, all at L2-3 (3/6 approaches at L2-3). In lateral decubitus, all three L2-3 pins violated the kidney (3/3 approaches at L2-3); five of the six remaining pins from L3-5 violated the peritoneum (totaling eight violations in the nine total approaches). The incidence of any violation was significantly greater in lateral decubitus vs. prone (8/9 vs. 3/18, p=0.0006). The structure at risk (kidney vs. peritoneum) was significantly associated with disc level (p=0.0041): all kidney violations occurred at L2-3 and all peritoneal violations occurred at L3-4 or L4-5. Distance from the quadratus lumborum to the posterior-most reflection of the peritoneum averaged 8.7 cm (range: 6-10) in prone, and 2.9 cm (range: 2.5-3.2) in lateral decubitus (p=0.0129). Conclusion A cadaveric study of retroperitoneal anatomy demonstrates that there is an increased distance from the quadratus lumborum to the peritoneum in prone versus lateral decubitus and that the trajectory of approach to the lumbar discs risks violation of the peritoneum more frequently when accessing directly laterally versus posterolaterally. In either approach, care should be taken to identify and release the peritoneal reflection to create a safe passage to the lumbar discs.

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.

Nationwide Survey of the Surgical Complications Associated with Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in 2015-2020.

Introduction: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has been introduced in Japan in 2013. Despite the effectiveness of this procedure, several considerable complications have been reported. This study reported the results of a nationwide survey performed by the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research (JSSR) on the complications associated with LLIF performed in Japan. Methods: JSSR members conducted a web-based survey following LLIF between 2015 and 2020. Any complications meeting the following criteria were included: (1) major vessel, (2) urinary tract, (3) renal, (4) visceral organ, (5) lung, (6) vertebral, (7) nerve, and (8) anterior longitudinal ligament injury; (9) weakness of psoas; (10) motor and (11) sensory deficit; (12) surgical site infection; and (13) other complications. The complications were analyzed in all LLIF patients, and the differences in incidence and type of complications between the transpsoas (TP) and prepsoas (PP) approaches were compared. Results: Among the 13,245 LLIF patients (TP 6,198 patients [47%] and PP 7,047 patients [53%]), 389 complications occurred in 366 (2.76%) patients. The most common complication was sensory deficit (0.5%), followed by motor deficit (0.43%) and weakness of psoas muscle (0.22%). Among the patient cohort, 100 patients (0.74%) required revision surgery during the survey period. Almost half of the complications developed in patients with spinal deformity (183 patients [47.0%]). Four patients (0.03%) died from complications. Statistically more frequent complications occurred in the TP approach than in the PP approach (TP vs. PP, 220 patients [3.55%] vs. 169 patients [2.40%]; p<0.001). Conclusions: The overall complication rate was 2.76%, and 0.74% of the patients required revision surgery because of complications. Four patients died from complications. LLIF may be beneficial for degenerative lumbar conditions with acceptable complications; however, the indication for spinal deformity should be carefully determined by the experience of the surgeon and the extent of the deformity.

Preoperative predictors of prolonged hospitalization in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

PURPOSE: We aim to examine the preoperative factors associated with increased postoperative length of stay in patients undergoing LLIF in the hospital setting. METHODS: Patient demographics, perioperative characteristics, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected from a single-surgeon database. Patients undergoing LLIF in the hospital setting were separated into postoperative LOS <48 h (H) and LOS ≥ 48H. Univariate analysis for preoperative characteristics was utilized to determine covariates for multivariable logistic regression. Multivariable logistic regression was then utilized to determine significant predictors of extended postoperative length of stay. Secondary univariate analysis of inpatient complications, operative, and postoperative characteristics were calculated to determine postoperative factors associated with prolonged hospitalization. RESULTS: Two-hundred and forty patients were identified with 115 patients' LOS ≥ 48H. Univariate analysis identified age/Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score/gender/insurance type/number of contiguous fused levels/preoperative PROMs of Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back/VAS leg/Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-PF)/Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)/degenerative spondylolisthesis diagnoses/foraminal stenosis/central stenosis for multivariable logistic regression. Multivariable logistic regression calculated significant positive predictors of LOS ≥ 48H to be age/3-level fusion/preoperative ODI scores. Negative predictors of LOS ≥ 48H were the diagnosis of foraminal stenosis/preoperative PROMIS-PF/male gender. The secondary analysis determined that patients with longer operative time/estimated blood loss/transfusion/postoperative day 0 and 1 pain and narcotic consumption/complications of altered mental status/postoperative anemia/fever/ileus/urinary retention were associated with prolonged hospitalization. CONCLUSION: Older patients undergoing LLIF with greater preoperative disability and 3-level fusion were more likely to require prolonged hospitalization. Male patients with higher preoperative physical function and who were diagnosed with foraminal stenosis were less likely to require prolonged hospitalization.

Complications associated with single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a workhorse surgical approach for lumbar arthrodesis. There is growing interest in techniques for performing single-position surgery in which LLIF and pedicle screw fixation are performed with the patient in the prone position. Most studies of prone LLIF are of poor quality and without long-term follow-up; therefore, the complication profile related to this novel approach is not well known. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and pooled analysis to understand the safety profile of prone LLIF. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature and a pooled analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies reporting prone LLIF were assessed for inclusion. Studies not reporting complication rates were excluded. RESULTS: Ten studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Overall, 286 patients were treated with prone LLIF across these studies, and a mean (SD) of 1.3 (0.2) levels per patient were treated. The 18 intraoperative complications reported included cage subsidence (3.8% [3/78]), anterior longitudinal ligament rupture (2.3% [5/215]), cage repositioning (2.1% [2/95]), segmental artery injury (2.0% [5/244]), aborted prone interbody placement (0.8% [2/244]), and durotomy (0.6% [1/156]). No major vascular or peritoneal injuries were reported. Sixty-eight postoperative complications occurred, including hip flexor weakness (17.8% [21/118]), thigh and groin sensory symptoms (13.3% [31/233]), revision surgery (3.8% [3/78]), wound infection (1.9% [3/156]), psoas hematoma (1.3% [2/156]), and motor neural injury (1.2% [2/166]). CONCLUSIONS: Single-position LLIF in the prone position appears to be a safe surgical approach with a low complication profile. Longer-term follow-up and prospective studies are needed to better characterize the long-term complication rates related to this approach.

Postoperative clinical outcomes in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF versus LLIF for adjacent segment disease.

PURPOSE: Few studies examine the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for adjacent segment disease (ASD). We aim to compare the postoperative clinical trajectory through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF versus LLIF for ASD. METHODS: Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on surgical technique for ASD: MIS-TLIF versus LLIF. PROMs of 12-Item Short Form Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), visual analog scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected at preoperative and postoperative 6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year time points. MCID attainment was calculated through comparison to established thresholds. Cohorts were compared through nonparametric inferential statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were identified, with 22 patients undergoing MIS-TLIF after propensity score matching. Patients undergoing MIS-TLIF for ASD demonstrated significant postoperative improvement up to 1-year VAS back, up to 1-year VAS leg, and 6-month through 1-year ODI (p ≤ 0.035, all). Patients undergoing LLIF demonstrated significant postoperative improvement in 6-month SF-12 PCS, 6-month through 1-year VAS back, 12-week through 6-month VAS leg, and 6-month to 1-year ODI (p ≤ 0.035, all). No significant differences were calculated between surgical techniques for PROMs or MCID achievement rates. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing either MIS-TLIF or LLIF for adjacent segment disease demonstrated significant postoperative improvement in pain and disability outcomes. Additionally, patients undergoing LLIF reported significant improvement in physical function. Both MIS-TLIF and LLIF are effective for the treatment of adjacent segment disease.