Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of postoperative outcomes.

PURPOSE: To determine of the impact of ALIF with minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) on perioperative outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and the rates of fusion, subsidence, and adjacent segment stenosis. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent one-level ALIF with UPSF or BPSF at an academic institution between 2015 and 2022 were retrospectively identified. Postoperative outcomes including length of hospital stay (LOS), wound complications, readmissions, and revisions were determined. The rates of fusion, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and subsidence were assessed on one-year postoperative CT. Lumbar alignment including lumbar lordosis, L4-S1 lordosis, regional lordosis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and sacral slope were assessed on standing x-rays at preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final postoperative follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analysis compared outcomes across posterior fixation groups. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included (27 UPSF, 33 BPSF). Patients with UPSF were significantly younger (p = 0.011). Operative time was significantly greater in the BPSF group in univariate (p < 0.001) and multivariate analysis (ß=104.1, p < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss, LOS, lordosis, pelvic parameters, fusion rate, subsidence, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and revision rate did not differ significantly between fixation groups. Though sacral slope (p = 0.037) was significantly greater in the BPSF group, fixation type was not a significant predictor on regression. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF with UPSF relative to BPSF predicted decreased operative time but was not a significant predictor of postoperative outcomes. ALIF with UPSF can be considered to increase operative efficiency without compromising construct stability.

Long-term comparison of anterior (ALIF) versus transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion: a propensity score-matched register-based study.

PURPOSE: Anterior (ALIF) and transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion have shown similar clinical outcomes at short- and medium-term follow-ups. Possible advantages of ALIF in the long run could be better disc height and lumbar lordosis and reduced risk of adjacent segment disease. We aimed to study if ALIF could be associated with superior clinical outcomes than TLIF at long-term follow-up. METHODS: We analysed 535 patients treated with ALIF or TLIF of the L5-S1 spinal segment between 2007 and 2017 who completed long-term follow-up in a national spine registry database (NORspine). We defined treatment success after surgery as at least 30% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at long-term follow-up. Patients treated with ALIF and TLIF and who responded at long term were balanced by propensity score matching. The proportions of successfully treated patients within each group were compared by numbers and percentages with corresponding relative risk. RESULTS: The mean (95%CI) age of the total study population was 50 (49-51) years, and 264 (49%) were females. The mean (95%CI) preoperative ODI score was 40 (39-42), and 174 (33%) had previous spine surgery. Propensity score matching left 120 patients in each treatment group. At a median (95%CI) of 92 (88-97) months after surgery, we found no difference in proportions successfully treated patients with ALIF versus TLIF (68 (58%) versus 77 (65%), RR (95%CI) = 0.88 (0.72 to1.08); p = 0.237). CONCLUSIONS: This propensity score-matched national spine register study of patients treated with ALIF versus TLIF of the lumbosacral junction found no differences in proportions of successfully treated patients at long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Abdominal lymphocele following multi-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) managed with a laparoscopic peritoneal window: case report and review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Lymphocele formation following anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is not common, but it can pose diagnostic and treatment challenges. The purpose of this case is to report for the first time the treatment of a postoperative lymphocele following a multi-level ALIF using a peritoneal window made through a minimally invasive laparoscopic approach. METHODS: Case report. RESULTS: A 74-year-old male with a history of prostatectomy and pelvic radiation underwent a staged L3-S1 ALIF (left paramedian approach) and T10-pelvis posterior instrumented with L1-5 decompression/posterior column osteotomies for degenerative scoliosis and neurogenic claudication. Three weeks after surgery, swelling of the left abdomen and entire left leg was reported. Computed tomography of the abdomen/pelvis demonstrated a large (19.2 × 12.0 × 15.4 cm) retroperitoneal fluid collection with compression of the left ureter and left common iliac vein. Fluid analysis (80% lymphocytes) was consistent with a lymphocele. Percutaneous drainage for 4 days was ineffective at clearing the lymphocele. For more definitive management, the patient underwent an uncomplicated laparoscopic creation of a peritoneal window to allow passive drainage of lymphatic fluid into the abdomen. Three years after surgery, he had no back or leg pain, had achieved spinal union, and had no abdominal swelling or left leg swelling. Advanced imaging also confirmed resolution of the lymphocele. CONCLUSIONS: In this case report, creation of a peritoneal window minimally invasively via a laparoscope allowing passive drainage of lymphatic fluid into the abdomen was safe and effective for management of an abdominal lymphocele following a multi-level ALIF.

Moderate sagittal plane deformity patients have similar radiographic and functional outcomes with either anterior or posterior surgery.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes of two surgical interventions for adult spinal deformity (ASD): anterior lumbar interbody fusion with anterior column realignment (ALIF-ACR) and posterior approach using Smith-Peterson osteotomy with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation (TLIF-Schwab2). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included 61 ASD patients treated surgically between 2019 and 2020 at a single tertiary orthopedic specialty hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (ALIF-ACR, 29 patients) and Group 2 (TLIF-Schwab2, 32 patients). Spinopelvic radiographic parameters and functional outcomes were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery. RESULTS: Perioperative outcomes favored the ALIF-ACR group, with significantly smaller blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and operative time. Radiographic and functional outcomes were similar for both groups; however, the ALIF-ACR group did have a greater degree of correction in lumbar lordosis at 12 months. Complication profiles varied, with the ALIF-ACR group experiencing mostly hardware-related complications, while the TLIF-Schwab2 group faced dural tears, wound dehiscence, and proximal junctional kyphosis. Both groups had similar revision rates. CONCLUSION: Both ALIF-ACR and TLIF-Schwab2 achieved similar radiographic and functional outcomes in ASD patients with moderate sagittal plane deformity at 1-year follow-up. However, the safety profiles of the two techniques differed. Further research is required to optimize patient selection for each surgical approach, aiming to minimize perioperative complications and reoperation rates in this challenging patient population.

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.

A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF).

PURPOSE: The rate of elective lumbar fusion has continued to increase over the past two decades. However, there remains to be a consensus on the optimal fusion technique. This study aims to compare stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with posterior fusion techniques in patients with spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching the Cochrane Register of Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 2022. In the two-stage screening process, three reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts. The full-text reports of the remaining studies were then inspected for eligibility. Conflicts were resolved through consensus discussion. Two reviewers then extracted study data, assessed it for quality, and analysed it. RESULTS: After the initial search and removal of duplicate records, 16,435 studies were screened. Twenty-one eligible studies (3686 patients) were ultimately included, which compared stand-alone ALIF with posterior approaches such as posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). A meta-analysis showed surgical time and blood loss was significantly lower in ALIF than in TLIF/PLIF, but not in those who underwent PLF (p = 0.08). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in ALIF than in TLIF, but not in PLIF or PLF. Fusion rates were similar between the ALIF and posterior approaches. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain were not significantly different between the ALIF and PLIF/TLIF groups. However, VAS back pain favoured ALIF over PLF at one year (n = 21, MD - 1.00, CI - 1.47, - 0.53), and at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 1.39, CI - 1.67, - 1.11). The VAS leg pain scores (n = 46, MD 0.50, CI 0.12 to 0.88) at two years significantly favoured PLF. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at one year were not significantly different between ALIF and the posterior approaches. At two years, ODI scores were also similar between the ALIF and the TLIF/PLIF. However, the ODI scores at two years (2 studies, n = 67, MD - 7.59, CI - 13.33, - 1.85) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF (I2 = 70%). The Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score (JOAS) for low back pain at one year (n = 21, MD - 0.50, CI - 0.78) and two years (two studies, n = 67, MD - 0.36, CI - 0.65, - 0.07) significantly favoured ALIF over PLF. No significant differences were found in leg pain at the 2-year follow-up. Adverse events displayed no significant differences between the ALIF and posterior approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Stand-alone-ALIF demonstrated a shorter operative time and less blood loss than the PLIF/TLIF approach. Hospitalisation time is reduced with ALIF compared with TLIF. Patient-reported outcome measures were equivocal with PLIF or TLIF. VAS and JOAS, back pain, and ODI scores mainly favoured ALIF over PLF. Adverse events were equivocal between the ALIF and posterior fusion approaches.

Single position L5-S1 lateral ALIF with simultaneous robotic posterior fixation is safe and improves regional alignment and lordosis distribution index.

PURPOSE: Minimally invasive single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with simultaneous robot-assisted posterior fixation has technical and anatomic considerations that need further description. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series of single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with robotic assisted fixation. End points included radiographic parameters, lordosis distribution index (LDI), complications, pedicle screw accuracy, and inpatient metrics. RESULTS: There were 17 patients with mean age of 60.5 years. Eight patients underwent interbody fusion at L5-S1, five patients at L4-S1, two patients at L3-S1, and one patient at L2-S1 in single lateral position. Operative times for 1-level and 2-level cases were 193 min and 278 min, respectively. Mean EBL was 71 cc. Mean improvements in L5-S1 segmental lordosis were 11.7 ± 4.0°, L1-S1 lordosis of 4.8 ± 6.4°, sagittal vertical axis of - 0.1 ± 1.7 cm°, pelvic tilt of - 3.1 ± 5.9°, and pelvic incidence lumbar-lordosis mismatch of - 4.6 ± 6.4°. Six patients corrected into a normal LDI (50-80%) and no patients became imbalanced over a mean follow-up period of 14.4 months. Of 100 screws placed in lateral position with robotic assistance, there were three total breaches (two lateral grade 3, one medial grade 2) for a screw accuracy of 97.0%. There were no neurologic, vascular, bowel, or ureteral injuries, and no implant failure or reoperation. CONCLUSION: Single position lateral ALIF at L5-S1 with simultaneous robotic placement of pedicle screws by a second surgeon is a safe and effective technique that improves global alignment and lordosis distribution index.

Recovery ratios and minimum clinically important difference for clinical outcomes in workers' compensation recipients undergoing MIS-TLIF versus ALIF.

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of literature that examines clinical outcomes through patient-reported outcomes (PROs), minimum clinically important difference (MCID), and recovery ratios (RR) for workers' compensation (WC) recipients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). METHODS: WC claimants undergoing MIS-TLIF versus ALIF were propensity score matched to account for demographic differences. Demographics, perioperative characteristics, and PROs were collected. PROs of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), 12-Item Short Form Physical Composite Score (SF-12 PCS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back, VAS leg, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were collected at preoperative and postoperative time points. MCID achievement was determined through comparison to values in literature. RR was calculated as the difference between postoperative and preoperative PROs over potential improvement. Comparison between surgical techniques was through non-parametric inferential statistics. RESULTS: Eighty-four WC claimants, with 50 patients undergoing MIS-TLIF, were identified after propensity score matching. ALIF patients had higher estimated blood loss. MIS-TLIF patients had higher postoperative day (POD) 0 VAS pain and POD 0 + 1 narcotic consumption. Patients undergoing either MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported significant improvement in pain and disability. ALIF patients reported significant improvement in physical function. ALIF patients reported superior 1-year PROMIS-PF, 6-week SF-12 PCS, 6-month VAS back, and 12-week VAS leg. No significant differences in MCID achievement rates were noted between cohorts. ALIF patients had higher RR in 6-week and 1-year PROMIS-PF and 6-week SF-12 PCS. CONCLUSION: Workers' compensation claimants undergoing either MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported significant improvement in pain and disability. ALIF patients reported superior postoperative physical function and pain. ALIF patients had higher recovery ratios in physical function. Workers' compensation claimants undergoing ALIF may experience greater physical function recovery and superior clinical outcomes in physical function and pain.

Approach-related anatomical differences in patients with lumbo-sacral transitional vertebrae undergoing lumbar fusion surgery at level L4/5.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbo-sacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) are accompanied by changes in soft tissue anatomy. The aim of our retrospective study was to evaluate the effects of LSTV as well as the number of free lumbar vertebrae on surgical approaches of ALIF, OLIF and LLIF at level L4/5. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We assessed the CTs of 819 patients. Of these, 53 had LSTV from which 11 had six (6LV) and 9 four free lumbar vertebrae (4LV). We matched them for sex and age to a control group. RESULTS: Patients with LSTV had a higher iliac crest and vena cava bifurcation, a greater distance between the common iliac veins and an anterior translation of the psoas muscle at level L4/5. In contrast, patients with 6LV had a lower iliac crest and aortic bifurcation, no differences in vena cava bifurcation and distance between the iliac veins compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LSTV and five or four free lumbar vertebrae, the LLIF approach at L4/5 may be hindered due to a high riding iliac crest as well as anterior shift of the psoas muscle. Whereas less mobilization and retraction of the iliac veins may reduce the risk of vascular injury at this segment by ALIF and OLIF. For patients with 6LV, a lower relative height of the iliac crest facilitates lateral approach during LLIF. For ALIF and OLIF, a stronger vessel retraction due to the deeper-seated vascular bifurcation is necessary during ALIF and is therefore potentially at higher risk for vascular injury.

Single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion: an overview of terminology, concepts, rationale and the current evidence base.

PURPOSE: To provide definitions and a conceptual framework for single position surgery (SPS) applied to circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine. METHODS: Narrative literature review and experts' opinion. RESULTS: Two major limitations of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been (a) a perceived need to reposition the patient to the prone position for posterior fixation, and (b) the lack of a robust solution for fusion at the L5/S1 level. Recently, two strategies for performing single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion have been described. The combination of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position (LALIF), LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (pPSF) in the lateral decubitus position is known as lateral single-position surgery (LSPS). Prone LLIF (PLLIF) involves transpsoas LLIF done in the prone position that is more familiar for surgeons to then implant pedicle screw fixation. This can be referred to as prone single-position surgery (PSPS). In this review, we describe the evolution of and rationale for single-position spinal surgery. Pertinent studies validating LSPS and PSPS are reviewed and future questions regarding the future of these techniques are posed. Lastly, we present an algorithm for single-position surgery that describes the utility of LALIF, LLIF and PLLIF in the treatment of patients requiring AP lumbar fusions. CONCLUSIONS: Single position surgery in circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine includes posterior fixation in association with any of the following: lateral position LLIF, prone position LLIF, lateral position ALIF, and their combination (lateral position LLIF+ALIF). Preliminary studies have validated these methods.

Postoperative spinal alignment comparison of lateral versus supine patient position L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

PURPOSE: Over the past decade, alternative patient positions for the treatment of the anterior lumbar spine have been explored in an effort to maximize the benefits of direct anterior column access while minimizing the inefficiencies of single or multiple intraoperative patient repositionings. The lateral technique allows for access from L1 to L5 through a retroperitoneal, muscle-splitting, transpsoas approach with placement of a large intervertebral spacer than can reliably improve segmental lordosis, though its inability to be used at L5-S1 limits its overall adoption, as L5-S1 is one of the most common levels treated and where high levels of lordosis are optimal. Recent developments in instrumentation and techniques for lateral-position treatment of the L5-S1 level with a modified anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) approach have expanded the lateral position to L5-S1, though the positional effect on L5-S1 lordosis is heretofore unreported. The purpose of this study was to compare local and regional alignment differences between ALIFs performed with the patient in the lateral (L-ALIF) versus supine position (S-ALIF). METHODS: Retrospective, multi-center data and radiographs were collected from 476 consecutive patients who underwent L5-S1 L-ALIF (n = 316) or S-ALIF (n = 160) for degenerative lumbar conditions. Patients treated at L4-5 and above with other single-position interbody fusion and posterior fixation techniques were included in the analysis. Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the groups, though L-ALIF patients were slightly older (58 vs. 54 years), with a greater preoperative mean L5-S1 disk height (7.8 vs. 5.8 mm), and with less preoperative slip (6.6 vs. 8.5 mm), respectively. 262 patients were treated with only L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 while the remaining 214 patients were treated with either L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 along with fusions at other thoracolumbar levels. Lumbar lordosis (LL), L5-S1 segmental lordosis, L5-S1 disk space height, and slip reduction in L5-S1 spondylolisthesis were measured on preoperative and postoperative lateral X-ray images. LL was only compared between single-level ALIFs, given the variability of other procedures performed at the levels above L5-S1. RESULTS: Mean pre- to postoperative L5-S1 segmental lordosis improved 39% (6.6°) and 31% (4.9°) in the L-ALIF and S-ALIF groups, respectively (p = 0.063). Mean L5-S1 disk height increased by 6.5 mm (89%) in the L-ALIF and 6.4 mm (110%) in the S-ALIF cohorts, (p = 0.650). Spondylolisthesis, in those patients with a preoperative slip, average reduction in the L-ALIF group was 1.5 mm and 2.2 mm in the S-ALIF group (p = 0.175). In patients treated only at L5-S1 with ALIF, mean segmental alignment improved significantly more in the L-ALIF compared to the S-ALIF cohort (7.8 vs. 5.4°, p = 0.035), while lumbar lordosis increased 4.1° and 3.6° in the respective groups (p = 0.648). CONCLUSION: Use of the lateral patient position for L5-S1 ALIF, compared to traditional supine L5-S1 ALIF, resulted in at least equivalent alignment and radiographic outcomes, with significantly greater improvement in segmental lordosis in patients treated only at L5-S1. These data, from the largest lateral ALIF dataset reported to date, suggest that-radiographically-the lateral patient position can be considered as an alternative to traditional ALIF positional techniques.

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.

Setting for single position surgery: survey from expert spinal surgeons.

PURPOSE: To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field. METHODS: Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed. RESULTS: Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique. CONCLUSION: A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

Post-operative L5 radiculopathy after L5-S1 hyperlordotic anterior lumbar interbody fusion (HL-ALIF) is related to a greater increase of lordosis and smaller post-operative posterior disc height: results from a cohort study.

STUDY DESIGN: A single-centre retrospective study. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aims to investigate the rate of L5 radiculopathy, to identify imaging features associated with the complication and to evaluate the clinical outcomes in adult spine deformity patients undergoing L5-S1 ALIF with hyperlordotic cages. METHODS: Design: retrospective cohort study. A single-centre prospective database was queried to analyse patients undergoing hyperlordotic (HL) ALIF with posterior fusion to correct spinal deformity. Clinical status was evaluated by back and leg pain numeric rate scale and Oswestry Disability Index pre-operatively and at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up. Spinopelvic parameters, such as pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, lumbar lordosis and L5-S1 lordosis, posterior disc height (PDH) and anterior disc height, were assessed pre-operatively and post-operatively on standardized full-spine standing EOS images. The sagittal foraminal area was measured pre- and post-operatively on a CT scan. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with a mean age of 63.2 ± 8.6 years underwent HL-ALIF from January 2016 to December 2019. Seven of them developed post-operative root pain (5) or weakness (2) (Group A), while thirty-two did not (Group B). Root impairment was associated with greater segmental correction magnitude, 26° ± 11.1 in Group A versus 15.1° ± 9.9 in Group B (p < 0.05), and to smaller post-operative PDH, 5.9 mm ± 2.7 in Group A versus 8.3 mm ± 2.6 (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Post-operative root problems were observed in 17.9% of patients undergoing HL-ALIF for adult spine deformity. L5 radiculopathy was associated with larger sagittal angular corrections and smaller post-operative posterior disc height. One patient (2.6%) needed L5 root decompression. At 12 months of follow-up, results were equivalent between groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Anterior column reconstruction of the lumbar spine in the lateral decubitus position: anatomical and patient-related considerations for ALIF, anterior-to-psoas, and transpsoas LLIF approaches.

PURPOSE: Circumferential (AP) lumbar fusion surgery is an effective treatment for degenerative and deformity conditions of the spine. The lateral decubitus position allows for simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior aspects of the spine, enabling instrumentation of both columns without the need for patient repositioning. This paper seeks to outline the anatomical and patient-related considerations in anterior column reconstruction of the lumbar spine from L1-S1 in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS: We detail the anatomic considerations of the lateral ALIF, transpsoas, and anterior-to-psoas surgical approaches from surgeon experience and comprehensive literature review. RESULTS: Single-position AP surgery allows simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior column and may combine ALIF, LLIF, and minimally invasive posterior instrumentation techniques from L1-S1 without patient repositioning. Careful history, physical examination, and imaging review optimize safety and efficacy of lateral ALIF or LLIF surgery. An excellent understanding of patient spinal and abdominal anatomy is necessary. Each approach has relative advantages and disadvantages according to the disc level, skeletal, vascular, and psoas anatomy. CONCLUSIONS: A development of a framework to analyze these factors will result in improved patient outcomes and a reduction in complications for lateral ALIF, transpsoas, and anterior-to-psoas surgeries.

Spinal exposure for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position: anatomical and technical considerations.

PURPOSE: Single position surgery has demonstrated to reduce hospital length of stay, operative times, blood loss, postoperative pain, ileus, and complications. ALIF and LLIF surgeries offer advantages of placing large interbody devices under direct compression and can be performed by a minimally invasive approach in the lateral position. Furthermore, simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior column is possible in the lateral position without the need for patient repositioning. The purpose of this study is to outline the anatomical and technical considerations for performing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS: Surgical technique and technical considerations for reconstruction of the anterior column in the lateral position by ALIF at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels. RESULTS: Topics outlined in this review include: Operating room layout and patient positioning; surgical anatomy and approach; vessel mobilization and retractor placement for L4-5 and L5-S1 lateral ALIF exposure, in addition to comparative technique of disc space preparation, trialing and implant placement compared to the supine ALIF procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior exposure performed in the lateral decubitus position allows safe-, minimally invasive access and implant placement in ALIF. The approach requires less peritoneal and vessel retraction than in a supine position, in addition to allowing simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior columns when performing 360° Anterior-Posterior fusion.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion shows equivalent results to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at one-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: This study compares perioperative and 1-year outcomes of lateral decubitus single position circumferential fusion (L-SPS) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) for degenerative pathologies. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective chart review of patients undergoing AP fusion with L-SPS or MIS TLIF. Demographics and clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared using independent samples t tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 445 patients were included: 353 L-SPS, 92 MIS TLIF. The L-SPS cohort was significantly older with fewer diabetics and more levels fused. The L-SPS cohort had significantly shorter operative time, blood loss, radiation dosage, and length of stay compared to MIS TLIF. 1-year follow-up showed that the L-SPS cohort had higher rates of fusion (97.87% vs. 81.11%; p = 0.006) and lower rates of subsidence (6.38% vs. 38.46%; p < 0.001) compared with MIS TLIF. There were significantly fewer returns to the OR within 1 year for early mechanical failures with L-SPS (0.0% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.001). 1-year radiographic outcomes revealed that the L-SPS cohort had a greater LL (56.6 ± 12.5 vs. 51.1 ± 15.9; p = 0.004), smaller PI-LL mismatch (0.2 ± 13.0 vs. 5.5 ± 10.5; p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in amount of change in VAS scores between cohorts. Similar results were seen after propensity-matched analysis and sub-analysis of cases including L5-S1. CONCLUSIONS: L-SPS improves perioperative outcomes and does not compromise clinical or radiographic results at 1-year follow-up compared with MIS TLIF. There may be decreased rates of early mechanical failure with L-SPS.

Technical approach, outcomes, and exposure-related complications in patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To describe our technique, evaluate access related complications and factors contributing to adverse outcomes in patients undergoing retroperitoneal anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients undergoing ALIF at our institution from January 2008 to December 2017. Access was performed by a vascular surgeon who remained present for the duration of the case. Data collected included patients' demographics, comorbidities, exposure related complications and ileus. Study end points included major adverse events and minor complications. Major adverse events included any vascular injuries requiring repair, bowel and ureter injuries, postoperative bleeding requiring reoperation, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism/deep venous thrombosis), wound dehiscence, and death. Minor complications included postoperative paralytic ileus, urinary tract infections, and surgical site infections. The incidence of incisional hernia was also evaluated. RESULTS: During this period, 1178 patients (514 males and 664 females; mean age, 54.1 ± 13.8 years) underwent a total of 2352 levels ALIF at our institution (single level, 422 patients; 2 levels, 450; 3 levels, 205; 4 levels, 98; 5 levels, 6; 6 levels, 1; and 7 levels, 1). The median estimated blood loss was 25 mL (interquartile range, 25-50). There were 57 exposure-related complications (4.8%), including vascular injuries (venous, 13; arterial, 4) in 17 patients (1.4%), bowel injuries in three patients (serosa tear in two and arterial embolization with subsequent bowel ischemia in one). Eleven of the 13 venous injuries (84.6%) occurred while exposing the L4 to L5 lumbar level. Two of the four patients with arterial injuries developed acute limb ischemia requiring embolectomy. One embolized to the superior mesenteric artery and underwent bowel resection. Twenty patients (1.7%) developed venous thromboembolism, two of whom had sustained left iliac vein injury during exposure. Sixteen patients (1.4%) developed a retroperitoneal hematoma/seroma with nine requiring evacuation in the operating room. Thirty-six patients (3.1%) developed postoperative ileus, defined as an inability to tolerate diet on postoperative day 3. Four patients (0.4%) had a postoperative myocardial infarction, and two had a stroke and two (0.17%) died within the first 30 postoperative days. Thirty-one patients developed incisional complications, including surgical site infection in 24 and incisional hernia in 7. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ALIF exposure can be performed safely with a relatively low overall complication rate. The majority of vascular injuries associated with this procedure are venous in nature, occurring predominantly while exposing the L4 to L5 level and can be safely addressed by an experienced vascular team.

Novel bone grafting technique in stand-alone ALIF procedure combining allograft and autograft ('Northumbria Technique')-Fusion rate and functional outcomes in 100 consecutive patients.

INTRODUCTION: Successful ALIF surgery depends upon achieving solid fusion, whilst avoiding significant complications. Herein, we present the 'Northumbria Technique' of combining allograft with autograft in order to achieve solid interbody fusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-surgeon series of 100 consecutive patients undergoing stand-alone ALIF from 2016 to 2019 was studied. All had percutaneously harvested iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) dowels inserted into blocks of fresh frozen femoral head (FFFH) allograft, which were then inserted into the ALIF cages. Patients had dynamic radiographs at 4 months, CT at 6 months, and patient reported outcome measure scores (PROMS) throughout. RESULTS: One hundred patients (average age 44.8 years) were followed-up for an average of 29.1 months. Ninety-four (94%) patients were assessed as having fused on both CT and radiographs by an independent Radiologist. Three (3%) patients had abolition of movement on radiographs, but either lacked a CT scan or failed to meet Williams criteria for fusion. Two patients failed to attend for any imaging, so were considered not fused, and one patient had no evidence of fusion in either modality. There was a significant improvement in all PROMS. There were no intra-operative complications, and one patient had transient donor-site pain. CONCLUSIONS: The newly described 'Northumbria Technique' utilises the osteoconductive characteristics of the FFFH allograft, as well as the osteoinductive and osteogenic properties of the ICBG autograft. It gives high fusion rates (94-97%) and statistically significant improvements in PROMS, whilst avoiding the complications of harvesting a large amount of autograft and the huge costs of using synthetic agents.

ALIF in the correction of spinal sagittal misalignment. A systematic review of literature.

PURPOSE: We aim at analysing the impact of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in restoring the main spinopelvic parameters, along with its potentials and limitations in correcting sagittal imbalance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 2009 PRISMA flow chart was used to systematically review the literature; 27 papers were eventually selected. The following spinopelvic parameters were observed: pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lumbar lordosis (LLseg) and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). Papers reporting on hyperlordotic cages (HLC) were analysed separately. The indirect decompression potential of ALIF was also assessed. The clinical outcome was obtained by collecting visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Global fusion rate and main complications were collected. RESULTS: PT, SS, LL, LLseg and SVA spinopelvic parameters all improved postoperatively by - 4.3 ± 5.2°, 3.9 ± 4.5°, 10.6 ± 12.5°, 6.7 ± 3.5° and 51.1 ± 44.8 mm, respectively. HLC were statistically more effective in restoring LL and LLseg (p < 0.05). Postoperative disc height, anterior disc height, posterior disc height and foraminal height, respectively, increased by 58.5%, 87.2%, 80.9% and 18.1%. Postoperative improvements were observed in VAS back and leg and ODI scores (p < 0.05). The global fusion rate was 94.5 ± 5.5%; the overall complication rate was 13%. CONCLUSION: When managing sagittal imbalance, ALIF can be considered as a valid technique to achieve the correct spinopelvic parameters based on preoperative planning. This technique permits to obtain an optimal LL distribution and a solid anterior column support, with lower complications and higher fusion rates when compared to posterior osteotomies.