Risk Factors for Implant Subsidence after Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. S114 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Essig ◽  
Woojin Cho ◽  
Alexander P. Hughes ◽  
Russel C. Huang ◽  
Andrew A. Sama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Multivariate Analysis on Risk Factors for Postoperative Ileus After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Spine ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (8) ◽  
pp. 688-694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Motasem A. Al Maaieh ◽  
Jerry Y. Du ◽  
Alexander Aichmair ◽  
Russel C. Huang ◽  
Alexander P. Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Postoperative Ileus ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Preoperative Risk Factors for Subsidence

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. S267
Author(s):  
Luis Marchi ◽  
Fernanda Fortti ◽  
Rubens Jensen ◽  
Rodrigo A. Amaral ◽  
Etevaldo Coutinho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Preoperative Risk ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Preoperative Risk Factors

scholarly journals Nonunion of Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using an Allograft: Clinical Assessment and Risk Factors

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-277
Author(s):  
Kotaro Satake ◽  
Tokumi Kanemura ◽  
Hiroaki Nakashima ◽  
Yoshimoto Ishikawa ◽  
Naoki Segi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

scholarly journals IN WHICH PATIENTS IS IT POSSIBLE TO PERFORM STANDALONE LATERAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION WITHOUT CAGE SUBSIDENCE?

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 226-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
LUIS MARCHI ◽  
LUIZ PIMENTA ◽  
RODRIGO AMARAL ◽  
FERNANDA FORTTI ◽  
JOES NOGUEIRA-NETO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cage Subsidence ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Correlation Factors ◽  
Control Study

ABSTRACT Objective: To identify the factors related to the non-occurrence of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Methods: Case-control study of single level standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) including 86 cases. Patients without cage subsidence composed the control group (C), while those in the subsidence group (S) developed cage subsidence. Preoperative data were examined to create a risk score based on correlation factors with S group. The proven risk factors were part of an evaluation score. Results: Of the 86 cases included, 72 were in group C and 14 in group S. The following risk factors were more prevalent in group S compared to C group: spondylolisthesis (93% vs 18%; p<0.001); scoliosis (31% vs 12%; p=0.033); women (79% vs 38%; p=0.007); older patients (average 57.0 vs 68.4 years; p=0.001). These risk factors were used in a score (0-4) to evaluate the risk in each case. The patients with higher risk scores had greater subsidence (p<0.001). Scores ≥2 were predictive of subsidence with 92% sensitivity and 72% specificity. Conclusions: It was possible to correlate the degree of subsidence in standalone LLIF procedures using demographic (age and gender) and pathological (spondylolisthesis and scoliosis) data. With a score based on risk factors and considering any score <2, the probability of non-occurrence of subsidence following standalone LLIF (negative predictive value) was 98%.

Nerve injury after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 919 treated levels with identification of risk factors

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 749-758 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marios G. Lykissas ◽  
Alexander Aichmair ◽  
Alexander P. Hughes ◽  
Andrew A. Sama ◽  
Darren R. Lebl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Nerve Injury ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Perioperative Risk Factors for Early Revisions in Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 134 ◽  
pp. e657-e663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen Rentenberger ◽  
Ichiro Okano ◽  
Stephan N. Salzmann ◽  
Fabian Winter ◽  
Nicolas Plais ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Risk ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Perioperative Risk Factors

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. E11 ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document