What is the Effect of Open versus Percutaneous Screws on Complications among Patients Undergoing Lateral Interbody Fusion for Adult Spinal Deformity?

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. S262-S263
Author(s):  
Khoi D. Than ◽  
Stacie Nguyen ◽  
Paul Park ◽  
Dean Chou ◽  
Frank LaMarca ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 697-705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell G. Strom ◽  
Junseok Bae ◽  
Jun Mizutani ◽  
Frank Valone ◽  
Christopher P. Ames ◽  
...  

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.


Spine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsuya Yamamoto ◽  
Mitsuru Yagi ◽  
Satoshi Suzuki ◽  
Satoshi Nori ◽  
Osahiko Tsuji ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (9) ◽  
pp. S90
Author(s):  
Tatsuya Yamamoto ◽  
Mitsuru Yagi ◽  
Satoshi Suzuki ◽  
Osahiko Tsuji ◽  
Narihito Nagoshi ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-470
Author(s):  
Zhuo Xi ◽  
Dean Chou ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Huibing Ruan ◽  
Charles Eichler ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVEIn adult spinal deformity and degenerative conditions of the spine, interbody fusion to the sacrum often is performed to enhance arthrodesis, induce lordosis, and alleviate stenosis. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has traditionally been performed, but minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) may or may not cause less morbidity because less retraction of the abdominal viscera is required. The authors evaluated whether there was a difference between the results of ALIF and OLIF in multilevel anterior or lateral interbody fusion to the sacrum.METHODSPatients from 2013 to 2018 who underwent multilevel ALIF or OLIF to the sacrum were retrospectively studied. Inclusion criteria were adult spinal deformity or degenerative pathology and multilevel ALIF or OLIF to the sacrum. Demographic, implant, perioperative, and radiographic variables were collected. Statistical calculations were performed for significant differences.RESULTSData from a total of 127 patients were analyzed (66 OLIF patients and 61 ALIF patients). The mean follow-up times were 27.21 (ALIF) and 24.11 (OLIF) months. The mean surgical time was 251.48 minutes for ALIF patients and 234.48 minutes for OLIF patients (p = 0.154). The mean hospital stay was 7.79 days for ALIF patients and 7.02 days for OLIF patients (p = 0.159). The mean time to being able to eat solid food was 4.03 days for ALIF patients and 1.30 days for OLIF patients (p < 0.001). After excluding patients who had undergone L5–S1 posterior column osteotomy, 54 ALIF patients and 41 OLIF patients were analyzed for L5–S1 radiographic changes. The mean cage height was 14.94 mm for ALIF patients and 13.56 mm for OLIF patients (p = 0.001), and the mean cage lordosis was 15.87° in the ALIF group and 16.81° in the OLIF group (p = 0.278). The mean increases in anterior disc height were 7.34 mm and 4.72 mm for the ALIF and OLIF groups, respectively (p = 0.001), and the mean increases in posterior disc height were 3.35 mm and 1.24 mm (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean change in L5–S1 lordosis was 4.33° for ALIF patients and 4.59° for OLIF patients (p = 0.829).CONCLUSIONSPatients who underwent multilevel OLIF and ALIF to the sacrum had comparable operative times. OLIF was associated with a quicker ileus recovery and less blood loss. At L5–S1, ALIF allowed larger cages to be placed, resulting in a greater disc height change, but there was no significant difference in L5–S1 segmental lordosis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document