Microsurgical Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (Mini-ALIF): The Transperitoneal Approach to L5/S1

2006 ◽  
pp. 423-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.M. Mayer
2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Feeley ◽  
I Feeley ◽  
K Clesham ◽  
J Butler

Abstract Aim Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established alternative to posterior-based interbody fusion techniques, with approach variations, such as retroperitoneal; transperitoneal; open; and laparoscopic well described. Variable rates of complications for each approach have been enumerated in the literature. We aim to elucidate the comparative rates of complications across approach type. Method A systematic review of the search databases Pubmed; google scholar; and OVID Medline was made in November 2020 to identify studies related to complications associated with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. PRISMA guidelines were utilised for this review. Studies eligible for inclusion were agreed by two independent reviewers. Meta-analysis was used to compare intra- and postoperative complications with ALIF for each approach. Results 4575 studies were identified, with 5728 patients across 31 studies included for review following application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis demonstrated the transperitoneal approach resulted in higher rates of Retrograde Ejaculation (RE) (p < 0.001; CI = 0.05-0.21) and overall rates of complications (p = 0.05; CI = 0.00-0.23). Rates of RE were higher at the L5/S1 intervertebral level. Rates of vessel injury were not significantly higher in either approach method (p = 0.89; CI=-0.04-0.07). Laparoscopic approaches resulted in shorter inpatient stays (p = 0.01). Conclusions Despite the transperitoneal approach being comparatively underpowered, its use appears to result in a significantly higher rate of intra- and postoperative complications, although confounders including use of BMP and spinal level should be considered. Laparoscopic approaches resulted in shorter hospital stays, however its steep learning curve and longer operative time have deterred surgeons from its widespread adaptation.


2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 459-460
Author(s):  
Joseph L. Laratta ◽  
Eric G. Davis ◽  
Steven D. Glassman ◽  
John R. Dimar

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 525-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyeong Hwan Kim ◽  
Sang-Ho Lee ◽  
Dong Yeob Lee ◽  
Chan Shik Shim ◽  
Dae Hyeon Maeng

Object The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of anterior polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) cement augmentation in instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for patients with osteoporosis. Methods Sixty-two patients with osteoporosis who had undergone single-level instrumented ALIF for spondylolisthesis and were followed for more than 2 years were included in the study. The patients were divided into 2 groups: instrumented ALIF alone (Group I) and instrumented ALIF with anterior PMMA augmentation (Group II). Sixty-one patients were interviewed to evaluate the clinical results, and plain radiographs and 3D CT scans were obtained at the last follow-up in 46 patients. Results The mean degree of cage subsidence was significantly higher in Group I (19.6%) than in Group II (5.2%) (p = 0.001). The mean decrease of vertebral body height at the index level was also significantly higher in Group I (10.7%) than in Group II (3.9%) (p = 0.001). No significant intergroup differences were observed in the incidence of radiographic adjacent-segment degeneration (ASD) or in terms of pain and functional improvement. The incidences of clinical ASD (23% in Group I and 10% in Group II) were not significantly different. There was 1 case of nonunion and 3 cases of screw migration in Group I, but none resulted in implant failure. Conclusions Anterior PMMA augmentation during instrumented ALIF in patients with osteoporosis was useful to prevent cage subsidence and vertebral body collapse. In addition, PMMA augmentation did not increase the nonunion rate and incidence of ASD.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document