Comparing perioperative and postoperative outcomes and complications of ALIF and LLIF

Purpose: This paper compares anterior lumbar intercorporeal fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar intercorporeal fusion (LLIF). LLIF is an approach through the lateral retroperitoneal corridor, transpsoas. ALIF is a described alternative to interbody fusion with approach variations described as retroperitoneal, transperitoneal, open, and laparoscopic. Our objective is to compare complications can occur in both approaches the ALIF and the LLIF, to see what the advantages and disadvantages are during the perioperative and postoperative. Method: This is a literature review article. A MEDLINE search was conducted through PubMed, google scholar, science direct, and Cochrane to identify articles that reported the differences between ALIF, LLIF and other lumbar interbody fusion approaches focusing the complications, cost and length of surgery, length of hospitalization, narcotic use, sagittal balance and surgical technique. Result: There was no overall significant difference in the postoperative narcotic use, fusion rate, and disc height. However, ALIF was seen to have better postoperative sagittal balance. Although long-term complication rates between ALIF and LLIF are not statistically even though the procedures have procedure-specific complications. Intraoperative blood loss and operative time were relatively higher in ALIF than in LLIF. The risk of injury to the lumbar plexus and iliac vessels is relatively higher than ALIF. Conclusion: ALIF and LLIF they are considered safe, effective and non-invasive. Both procedures present their pearls and pitfalls, but LLIF is associated with more complications than ALIF, although they do not present great differences of clinical outcomes. There is a need more extensive research to determine the best approach.

Propósito: Este trabajo compara la fusión intercorpórea lumbar anterior (ALIF, por sus siglas en inglés) y la fusión intercorpórea lumbar lateral (LLIF, por sus siglas en inglés). LLIF es una aproximación a través del corredor retroperitoneal lateral, con transpsoas. La ALIF es una alternativa a la fusión intercorporal con variaciones de abordaje descritas como retroperitoneal, transperitoneal, abierta y laparoscópica. Nuestro objetivo es comparar las complicaciones que pueden ocurrir en ambos abordajes de la ALIF y la LLIF, para ver cuáles son las ventajas y desventajas durante los procesos perioperatorio y postoperatorio. Método: Este es un artículo de revisión de literatura. Se realizó una búsqueda MEDLINE a través de PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct y Cochrane para identificar artículos que reportaron las diferencias entre ALIF, LLIF y otros enfoques de fusión intercorporal lumbar enfocándose en las complicaciones, el costo y la duración de la cirugía, duración de la hospitalización, uso de estupefacientes, equilibrio sagital y técnica quirúrgica. Resultado: No hubo diferencia significativa general en el uso posoperatorio de narcóticos, la tasa de fusión y la altura del disco. Sin embargo, se observó que la ALIF tenía un mejor equilibrio sagital postoperatorio. Aunque las tasas de complicaciones a largo plazo entre ALIF y LLIF no son estadísticamente significativas a pesar de que los procedimientos tienen complicaciones específicas del procedimiento. La pérdida de sangre intraoperatoria y el tiempo operativo fueron relativamente más altos en ALIF que en LLIF. El riesgo de lesión en el plexo lumbar y los vasos ilíacos es relativamente mayor que la ALIF. Conclusiones: ALIF y LLIF se consideran métodos seguros, eficaces y no invasivos. Ambos procedimientos presentan aciertos y desaciertos, pero el LLIF se asocia a más complicaciones que el ALIF, aunque no presentan grandes diferencias en los resultados clínicos. Se necesita una investigación más amplia para determinar el mejor enfoque.

Iliolumbar vein: a challenge for the exposure of the L4-5 disc in the anterior approach to the lumbar spine.

PURPOSE: Anterior lumbar spine arthrodesis has been increasingly prescribed. In order to obtain better exposure of the intervertebral discs, it is necessary to identify vascular structures depending on the level to be approached. Systematic ligation of the iliolumbar vein has been suggested for access to the L4-L5 level, which may be technically challenging. The goal of the present study was to determine a safe limit for separating the iliolumbar vein safely without the need for its ligation. METHODS: In total, 2284 patients involving the topography of the iliolumbar vein were included. If this vein was up to 5 mm distant from the inferior border of the L4-L5 intervertebral disc, its ligature was performed. In cases that the distance was greater than 5 mm, only the retraction was performed without ligature. RESULTS: A total of 115 ligatures were necessary (5% of cases). Among the 2169 cases with no ligature, bleeding due to ruptures occurred during traction in only 55 patients (3% of cases). The time taken for ligation ranged from five minutes to thirty-two minutes, with an average of 18.3 min per ligature. In cases in which ligatures were needed (distance less than 5 mm), there was loosening of the ligatures leading to bleeding in 23 cases (20% of ligatures). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic ligature is not necessary for accessing the anterior route to the L4-L5 level, leading to a reduction in the time of surgery and avoiding serious vascular injuries that can occur.

Intraoperative Complications of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 5-Year Experience of a Group of Spine Surgeons Performing Their Own Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery has evolved at an accelerated pace, allowing the development of more efficient surgical techniques while providing a decreasing rate of morbimortality. One example of these approaches is the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical complication rate when performing ALIF without the help of a vascular "access" surgeon. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted at the Hospital Universitario San Ignacio between 2014 and 2018 and included all patients who underwent ALIF during this time. A nonsystematic review was performed assessing approach-related complications in ALIF and the impact of "access" surgeons in surgical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 337 patients were included and 508 levels were fused. ALIF was performed as ALIF-360° (27%), ALIF-lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) (8.9%), and stand-alone ALIF (62%). Most procedures were single-level fusions (51.9%), 45.4% involved 2 levels, and 2.6% were 3-level fusions. The mortality rate was 0%, and only 9 cases of vascular injury were observed and described. Left and common iliac veins were the predominant affected structures. Only a single case required blood transfusion without any other treatment or intensive care unit surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is consistent with literature reports about ALIF complications, finding an incidence of 1.7%. Therefore, ALIF is an excellent alternative for spine procedures, especially for the levels L5-S1 that require sagittal balance restoration. The approaches were performed without a vascular "access" surgeon and presented complication rates similar to those described in the literature.

Need of vascular surgeon and comparison of value for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in lateral decubitus: Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Anterior lumbar approaches are recommended for clinical conditions that require interbody stability, spinal deformity corrections or a large fusion area. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in lateral decubitus position (LatALIF) has gained progressive interest in the last years. The study aims to describe the current habit, the perception of safety and the perceptions of need of vascular surgeons according to experienced spine surgeons by comparing LatALIF to the standard L5-S1 supine ALIF (SupALIF). METHODS: A two-round Delphi method study was conducted to assess the consensus, within expert spine surgeons, regarding the perception of safety, the preoperative planning, the complications management and the need for vascular surgeons by performing anterior approaches (SupALIF vs LatALIF). RESULTS: A total of 14 experts voluntary were involved in the survey. From 82 sentences voted in the first round, a consensus was reached for 38 items. This included the feasibility of safe LatALIF without systematic involvement of vascular surgeon for routine cases (while for revision cases the involvement of the vascular surgeon is an appropriate option) and the appropriateness of standard MRI to evaluate the accessibility of the vascular window. Thirteen sentences reached the final consensus in the second round, whereas no consensus was reached for the remaining 20 statements. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi study collected the consensus on several points, such as the consolidated required experience on anterior approaches, the accurate study of vascular anatomy with MRI, the management of complications and the significant reduction of the surgical times of the LatALIF if compared to SupALIF in combined procedures. Furthermore, the study group agrees that LatALIF can be performed without the need for a vascular surgeon in routine cases.

Venous anatomy of the lumbar region applied to anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF): Proposal of a new classification.

BACKGROUND: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a good alternative for the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. The primary vascular complications regarding this intervention involve the common iliac vein bifurcation complex (CIVC). Currently, no classification system allows defining which patients are more prone to these complications. We aimed to perform a retrospective study evaluating the anatomy of the common iliac CIVC at the L5-S1 disc proposing a novel classification system as it relates to the ALIF difficulty. METHODS: 91 consecutive patients who underwent ALIF at the L5-S1 level were included. We categorize the CIVC at the L5-S1 disc space into four types according to the veins position along the disc space. The patient records were reviewed for demographic information, surgical characteristics, and complications. The surgical difficulty was rated at the end of the procedure. RESULTS: 54% of the patients were women. The mean age was 52.5 ± 14.8 years. Mean surgical bleeding was 152 ml (range 20ml -3000 ml), and mean surgical time was 79 ± 13.3 minutes. Berbeo-Diaz-Vargas (BDV) classification type 4 was found in 43.9% of the patients. The surgical complexity was associated with the bleeding magnitude and surgical time spent (p<0.01), not being related to the corporal mass index or sacral slope. Bleeding magnitude, surgical time, and surgical complexity were significantly related to the BDV classification system (p<0.01). Weighted Cohen´s kappa index for the BDV scale was 0.89 (95% IC 0.822 - 0.974). CONCLUSIONS: BDV scale is a reliable and reproducible tool for the classification of CIVC significantly related to a higher incidence of bleeding, prolonged operating time, and increased perceived difficulty by the surgeon.