scholarly journals Restoring spinopelvic harmony with lateral lumbar interbody fusion: is it a realistic goal?

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 639-649
Author(s):  
Mina Asaid ◽  
Aram Cox ◽  
Monique Breslin ◽  
Declan Siedler ◽  
Chester Sutterlin III ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Realistic Goal

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.

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Scoliosis

2019 ◽  
pp. 201-210
Author(s):  
Jeffrey H. Weinreb ◽  
Uchechi Iweala ◽  
Danny Lee ◽  
Warren Yu ◽  
Joseph R. O’Brien
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Scoliosis ◽  
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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document