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

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

Inclusion of L5-S1 in oblique lumbar interbody fusion-techniques and early complications-a single center experience.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The oblique prepsoas retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) provides safe access to nearly all lumbar levels. A wide interval between the psoas and aorta allows for a safe and straightforward left-sided oblique approach to the discs above L5. Inclusion of L5-S1 in this approach, however, requires modifications in the technique to navigate the complex and variable vascular anatomy distal to the bifurcation of the great vessels. While different oblique approaches to L5-S1 have been described in the literature, to our knowledge, no previous study has provided guidance for the choice of technique. PURPOSE: Our objectives were to evaluate our early experience with the safety of including L5-S1 in OLIF using 3 different approach techniques, as well as to compare early complications between OLIF with and without L5-S1 inclusion. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Of the 87 patients who underwent lumbar interbody fusion at 167 spinal levels via an OLIF approach, 19 included L5-S1 (group A) and 68 did not (group B). OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics, levels fused, indications, operative time (ORT), estimated blood loss (EBL), vascular ligation, intraoperative blood transfusion, length of stay (LOS), discharge to rehabilitation facility, and complications (intraoperative, early ≤90 days, and delayed >90 days) were retrospectively assessed and compared between the groups. METHODS: A retrospective chart and imaging review of all consecutive patients who underwent OLIF at a single institution was performed. Indications for OLIF included symptomatic lumbar degenerative stenosis, deformity, and spondylolisthesis. The L5-S1 level, when included, was approached via one of the following 3 techniques: (1) a left-sided intrabifurcation approach; (2) left-sided prepsoas approach; and (3) right-sided prepsoas approach. Vascular anatomic variations at the lumbosacral junction were evaluated using the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and a "facet line" was proposed to assess this relationship. A minimum of 6 months of follow-up data were assessed for approach-related morbidities. RESULTS: Demographics and operative indications were similar between the groups. The mean follow-up was 10.8 (6-36) months. ORT was significantly longer in group A than in group B (322 vs. 256.3 min, respectively; p=.001); however, no difference in ORT between the two groups was found in the subanalyses for 2- and 3-level surgeries. Differences in EBL (260 vs. 207.91 cc, p=.251) and LOS (2.76 vs. 2.48 days, p=.491) did not reach statistical significance. Ligation of the iliolumbar vein, segmental veins, median sacral vessels, or any vascular structure, as needed for adequate exposure, was required in 13 (68.4%) patients from group A and 4 (5.9%) from group B (p<.00001). Two patients suffered minor vascular injuries (1 in each group); however, no major vascular injuries were seen. Complications were not significantly different between groups A and B, or between the three approaches to L5-S1, and trended lower in the latter part of the series as the learning curve progressed. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of L5-S1 in OLIF is safe and feasible through three different approaches but likely involves greater operative complexity. In our early experience, inclusion of L5-S1 showed no increase in early complications. This is the first series that reports the use of 3 different oblique approaches to L5-S1. The proposed "facet line" in the preoperative MRI may guide the choice of approach.

Nuances of oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1: Three case reports.

BACKGROUND: Oblique lumbar interbody fusion is a mini-open retroperitoneal approach that uses a wide corridor between the left psoas muscle and the aorta above L5. This approach avoids the limitations of lateral lumbar interbody fusion, is considered less invasive than anterior lumbar interbody fusion, and is similarly effective for indirect decompression and improving lordosis while maintaining a low complication profile. Including L5-S1, when required, adds to these advantages, as this allows single-position surgery. However, variations in vascular anatomy can affect the ease of access to the L5-S1 disc. The nuances of three different oblique anterolateral techniques to access L5-S1 for interbody fusion, namely, left-sided intra-bifurcation, left-sided pre-psoas, and right-sided pre-psoas approaches, are illustrated using three representative case studies. CASE SUMMARY: Cases of three patients who underwent multilevel oblique lumbar interbody fusion including L5-S1, using one of the three different techniques, are described. All patients presented with symptomatic degenerative lumbar pathology and failed conservative management prior to surgery. The anatomical considerations that affected the decisions to utilize each approach are discussed. The pros and cons of each approach are also discussed. A parasagittal facet line objectively assesses the relationship between the left common iliac vein and the L5-S1 disc and assists in choosing the approach to L5-S1. CONCLUSION: Oblique retroperitoneal access to L5-S1 in the lateral decubitus position is possible through three different approaches. The choice of approach to L5-S1 may be individualized based on a patient's vascular anatomy using preoperative imaging. While most surgeons will rely on their experience and comfort level in choosing the approach, this article elucidates the nuances of each technique.