Anterior column realignment following lateral interbody fusion for sagittal deformity correction

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (S1) ◽  
pp. 29-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luiz Pimenta ◽  
Fernanda Fortti ◽  
Leonardo Oliveira ◽  
Luis Marchi ◽  
Rubens Jensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Anterior Column ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Sagittal Deformity ◽  
Lateral Interbody

scholarly journals Lateral interbody fusion combined with open posterior surgery for adult spinal deformity

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 697-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell G. Strom ◽  
Junseok Bae ◽  
Jun Mizutani ◽  
Frank Valone ◽  
Christopher P. Ames ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Deformity Correction ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Sagittal Imbalance ◽  
Hybrid Strategy ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

OBJECTIVE Lateral interbody fusion (LIF) with percutaneous screw fixation can treat adult spinal deformity (ASD) in the coronal plane, but sagittal correction is limited. The authors combined LIF with open posterior (OP) surgery using facet osteotomies and a rod-cantilever technique to enhance lumbar lordosis (LL). It is unclear how this hybrid strategy compares to OP surgery alone. The goal of this study was to evaluate the combination of LIF and OP surgery (LIF+OP) for ASD. METHODS All thoracolumbar ASD cases from 2009 to 2014 were reviewed. Patients with < 6 months follow-up, prior fusion, severe sagittal imbalance (sagittal vertical axis > 200 mm or pelvic incidence-LL > 40°), and those undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion were excluded. Deformity correction, complications, and outcomes were compared between LIF+OP and OP-only surgery patients. RESULTS LIF+OP (n = 32) and OP-only patients (n = 60) had similar baseline features and posterior fusion levels. On average, 3.8 LIFs were performed. Patients who underwent LIF+OP had less blood loss (1129 vs 1833 ml, p = 0.016) and lower durotomy rates (0% vs 23%, p = 0.002). Patients in the LIF+OP group required less ICU care (0.7 vs 2.8 days, p < 0.001) and inpatient rehabilitation (63% vs 87%, p = 0.015). The incidence of new leg pain, numbness, or weakness was similar between groups (28% vs 22%, p = 0.609). All leg symptoms resolved within 6 months, except in 1 OP-only patient. Follow-up duration was similar (28 vs 25 months, p = 0.462). LIF+OP patients had significantly less pseudarthrosis (6% vs 27%, p = 0.026) and greater improvement in visual analog scale back pain (mean decrease 4.0 vs 1.9, p = 0.046) and Oswestry Disability Index (mean decrease 21 vs 12, p = 0.035) scores. Lumbar coronal correction was greater with LIF+OP surgery (mean [± SD] 22° ± 13° vs 14° ± 13°, p = 0.010). LL restoration was 22° ± 13°, intermediately between OP-only with facet osteotomies (11° ± 7°, p < 0.001) and pedicle subtraction osteotomy (29° ± 10°, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS LIF+OP is an effective strategy for ASD of moderate severity. Compared with the authors' OP-only operations, LIF+OP was associated with faster recovery, fewer complications, and greater relief of pain and disability.

scholarly journals Clinical Evaluation of Microendoscopy-Assisted Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 135
Author(s):  
Tomohide Segawa ◽  
Hisashi Koga ◽  
Masahito Oshina ◽  
Katsuhiko Ishibashi ◽  
Yuichi Takano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Background and objectives: Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) is a widely performed, minimally invasive technique to achieve lumbar lateral interbody fusion. However, some complications can arise due to constraints posed by the limited surgical space and visual field. The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term postoperative clinical outcomes of microendoscopy-assisted OLIF (ME-OLIF) compared to conventional OLIF. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively investigated 75 consecutive patients who underwent OLIF or ME-OLIF. The age, sex, diagnosis, and number of fused levels were obtained from medical records. Operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and intraoperative complications were also collected. Operation time and EBL were only measured per level required for the lateral procedure, excluding the posterior fixation surgery. The primary outcome measure was assessed using the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). The secondary outcome measure was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), measured preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Results: This case series consisted of 14 patients in the OLIF group and 61 patients in the ME-OLIF group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the mean operative time and EBL (p = 0.90 and p = 0.50, respectively). The perioperative complication rate was 21.4% in the OLIF group and 21.3% in the ME-OLIF group (p = 0.99). In both groups, the postoperative JOABPEQ, EQ-5D, and ODI scores improved significantly (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Although there was no significant difference in clinical results between the two surgical methods, the results suggest that both are safe surgical methods and that microendoscopy-assisted OLIF could serve as a potential alternative to the conventional OLIF procedure.

scholarly journals Incisional hernia after extreme lateral interbody fusion on the lumbar spine: A case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 130-132
Author(s):  
Masakazu Wakabayashi ◽  
Yurika Miyazaki ◽  
Kana Aoki ◽  
Hayato Yoshida ◽  
Kou Minoshima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Incisional Hernia ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Endoscope-Assisted Extreme-Lateral Interbody Fusion: Preliminary Experience and Technical Note

2017 ◽  
Vol 103 ◽  
pp. 869-875.e3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Schonauer ◽  
Martin Nikolaus Stienen ◽  
Oliver Pascal Gautschi ◽  
Karl Schaller ◽  
Enrico Tessitore
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Motor nerve injuries following the minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin S. Cahill ◽  
Joseph L. Martinez ◽  
Michael Y. Wang ◽  
Steven Vanni ◽  
Allan D. Levi
Keyword(s):  
Abdominal Wall ◽  
Injury Risk ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Motor Nerve ◽  
Femoral Nerve ◽  
Nerve Injuries ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Fusion Procedure ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Object The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of motor nerve injuries during the minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion procedure at a single academic medical center. Methods A retrospective chart review of 118 patients who had undergone lateral interbody fusion was performed. Both inpatient and outpatient records were examined to identify any new postoperative motor weakness in the lower extremities and abdominal wall musculature that was attributable to the operative procedure. Results In the period from 2007 to 2011 the lateral interbody fusion procedure was attempted on 201 lumbar intervertebral disc levels. No femoral nerve injuries occurred at any disc level other than the L4–5 disc space. Among procedures involving the L4–5 level there were 2 femoral nerve injuries, corresponding to a 4.8% injury risk at this level as compared with a 0% injury risk at other lumbar spine levels. Five patients (4.2%) had postoperative abdominal flank bulge attributable to injury to the abdominal wall motor innervation. Conclusions The overall incidence of femoral nerve injury after the lateral transpsoas approach was 1.7%; however, the level-specific incidence was 4.8% for procedures performed at the L4–5 disc space. Approximately 4% of patients had postoperative abdominal flank bulge. Surgeons will be able to minimize these motor nerve injuries through judicious use of the procedure at the L4–5 level and careful attention to the T-11 and T-12 motor nerves during exposure and closure of the abdominal wall.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document