Vertebral body fracture following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF): report of two events out of 712 levels

Many studies attest to the excellent results achieved using anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis. The purpose of this report is to document a rare instance of L-4 vertebral body fracture following use of a stand-alone interbody fusion device for L3–4 ALIF. The patient, a 55-year-old man, had suffered intractable pain of the back, right buttock, and left leg for several weeks. Initial radiographs showed Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis, with instability in the sagittal plane (upon 15° rotation) and stenosis of central and both lateral recesses at the L3–4 level. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion of the affected vertebrae was subsequently conducted using a stand-alone cage/plate system. Postoperatively, the severity of spondylolisthesis diminished, with resolution of symptoms. However, the patient returned 2 months later with both leg weakness and back pain. Plain radiographs and CT indicated device failure due to anterior fracture of the L-4 vertebral body, and the spondylolisthesis had recurred. At this point, bilateral facetectomies were performed, with reduction/fixation of L3–4 by pedicle screws. Again, degenerative spondylolisthesis improved postsurgically and symptoms eased, with eventual healing of the vertebral body fracture. This report documents a rare instance of L-4 vertebral body fracture following use of a stand-alone device for ALIF at L3–4, likely as a consequence of angular instability in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Under such conditions, additional pedicle screw fixation is advised.

Download Full-text

Letter to the Editor regarding: Dua K, Kepler CK, Huang RC, Marchenko A. Vertebral body fracture after anterolateral instrumentation and interbody fusion in two osteoporotic patients. Spine J 2010;10:e11–5

The Spine Journal ◽

10.1016/j.spinee.2010.12.008 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 166-167 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

William D. Smith ◽

Christopher F. Huntington

Keyword(s):

Vertebral Body ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Vertebral Body Fracture ◽

Letter To The Editor ◽

Body Fracture

Download Full-text

Vertebral body fracture after anterolateral instrumentation and interbody fusion in two osteoporotic patients

The Spine Journal ◽

10.1016/j.spinee.2010.07.007 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 10 (9) ◽

pp. e11-e15 ◽

Cited By ~ 29

Author(s):

Karan Dua ◽

Christopher K. Kepler ◽

Russel C. Huang ◽

Anna Marchenko

Keyword(s):

Vertebral Body ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Vertebral Body Fracture ◽

Body Fracture

Download Full-text

Screws Fixation for Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OL-LIF): A Finite Element Study

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2021/5542595 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-8

Author(s):

Qinjie Ling ◽

Huanliang Zhang ◽

Erxing He

Keyword(s):

Finite Element ◽

Cortical Bone ◽

Vertebral Body ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Screw Fixation ◽

Fe Model ◽

Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Maximum Displacement ◽

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Functional Spinal Unit

Background. The combination of screw fixation and cage can provide stability in lumbar interbody fusion (LIF), which is an important technique to treat lumbar degeneration diseases. As the narrow surface cage is developed in oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OL-LIF), screw fixation should be improved at the same time. We used the finite element (FE) method to investigate the biomechanics response by three different ways of screw fixation in OL-LIF. Methods. Using a validated FE model, OL-LIF with 3 different screw fixations was simulated, including percutaneous transverterbral screw (PTVS) fixation, percutaneous cortical bone trajectory screw (PCBTS) fixation, and percutaneous transpedical screw (PPS) fixation. Range of motion (ROM), vertebral body displacement, cage displacement, cage stress, cortical bone stress, and screw stress were compared. Results. ROM in FE models significantly decreased by 84-89% in flexion, 91-93% in extension, 78-89% in right and left lateral bending, and 73-82% in right and left axial rotation compared to the original model. The maximum displacement of the vertebral body and the cage in six motions except for the extension of model PTVS was the smallest among models. Meanwhile, the model PTVS had the higher stress of screw-rods system and also the lowest stress of cage. In all moments, the maximum stresses of the cages were lower than their yield stress. Conclusions. Three screw fixations can highly restrict the surgical functional spinal unit (FSU). PTVS provided the better stability than the other two screw fixations. It may be a good choice for OL-LIF.

Download Full-text

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in revision surgery for restenosis after posterior decompression

Neurosurgical FOCUS ◽

10.3171/2020.6.focus20361 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 49 (3) ◽

pp. E11 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Yoshifumi Kudo ◽

Ichiro Okano ◽

Tomoaki Toyone ◽

Akira Matsuoka ◽

Hiroshi Maruyama ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Revision Surgery ◽

Spinal Canal ◽

Interbody Fusion ◽

Decompression Surgery ◽

Complication Rates ◽

Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Posterior Decompression ◽

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Dural Tears

OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of revision interbody fusion surgery between lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with propensity score (PS) adjustments and to investigate the efficacy of indirect decompression with LLIF in previously decompressed segments on the basis of radiological assessment.METHODSA retrospective study of patients who underwent revision surgery for recurrence of neurological symptoms after posterior decompression surgery was performed. Postoperative complications and operative factors were evaluated and compared between LLIF and PLIF/TLIF. Moreover, postoperative improvement in cross-sectional areas (CSAs) in the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen was evaluated in LLIF cases.RESULTSA total of 56 patients (21 and 35 cases of LLIF and PLIF/TLIF, respectively) were included. In the univariate analysis, the LLIF group had significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03) and neurological deficits (p = 0.042), whereas the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), surgical site infections (SSIs) (p = 0.02), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p < 0.001). After PS adjustments, the LLIF group still showed significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03), and the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), EBL (p < 0.001), and operating time (p = 0.04). The PLIF/TLIF group showed a trend toward a higher incidence of SSI (p = 0.10). There was no statistically significant difference regarding improvement in the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores between the 2 surgical procedures (p = 0.77). The CSAs in the spinal canal and foramen were both significantly improved (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSLLIF is a safe, effective, and less invasive procedure with acceptable complication rates for revision surgery for previously decompressed segments. Therefore, LLIF can be an alternative to PLIF/TLIF for restenosis after posterior decompression surgery.

Download Full-text