scholarly journals Does the position of cage affect the clinical outcome of lateral interbody fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guangxi Qiao ◽  
Min Feng ◽  
Jian Liu ◽  
Xiaodong Wang ◽  
Miao Ge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Posterior Group ◽  
Foraminal Height ◽  
Lateral Interbody ◽  
Segmental Angle

Abstract Background: Lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) decompress the neural elements indirectly by increasing the height of disc, instead of resecting the disc or osteophytes herniated to the canal. When performing LLIF, the position of interbody cage is quite important for the outcome of decompression. This study aims to identify the ideal cage position in LLIF and to investigate if the posterior instrumentation would affect the indirect decompression. Methods: This is a retrospective study. Patients underwent 2-stage surgeries: stage I was LLIF and stage II was percutaneous pedicle screws fixation after 1 week. Anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), left and right foraminal height (FH) and segmental angle (SA) were measured on lateral CT reconstructions. The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac (CSA) was determined by the outlined area of the thecal sac on a T2-weighted axial MRI. The patients were subgroups according to the cage position: the anterior (cage located at the anterior 1/3 of disc space) and posterior groups (cage located at the posterior 2/3 of disc space). P-values <0.05 were considered significant. Results: This study included 46 patients and 71 surgical levels. After stage I LLIF, significant increase in ADH, PDH, bilateral FH was found in both 2 subgroups, as well as the CSA (all p<0.01). SA increased 2.84±3.2° in anterior group after stage I LLIF and increased 0.81±3.1° in posterior group (p=0.013). After stage II surgery, SA was similar between anterior and posterior group (p=0.20). CSA showed no difference between the 2 groups. Conclusion: The anteriorly placed cage may provide better improvement of anterior disc height and segmental angle after stand-alone LLIF surgery. After the second stage posterior instrumentation, the cage position would not affect the segmental angle or foraminal height.

scholarly journals Does the Position of Cage Affect the Clinical Outcome of Lateral Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822094802
Author(s):  
Guangxi Qiao ◽  
Min Feng ◽  
Jian Liu ◽  
Xiaodong Wang ◽  
Miao Ge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Posterior Group ◽  
Indirect Decompression ◽  
Foraminal Height ◽  
Segmental Angle

Study Design: A retrospective study. Objective: This study aims to identify the ideal cage position in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and to investigate if the posterior instrumentation would affect the indirect decompression. Methods: Patients underwent 2-stage surgeries: stage I was LLIF and stage II was percutaneous pedicle screws fixation after 1 week. Anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), left and right foraminal height (FH), and segmental angle (SA) were measured on lateral computed tomography reconstructions. The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac (CSA) was determined by the outlined area of the thecal sac on a T2-weighted axial magnetic resonance imaging. The patients were subgroups according to the cage position: the anterior (cage located at the anterior 1/3 of disc space) and posterior groups (cage located at the posterior 2/3 of disc space). P values <.05 were considered significant. Results: This study included 46 patients and 71 surgical levels. After stage I LLIF, significant increase in ADH, PDH, bilateral FH was found in both 2 subgroups, as well as the CSA (all Ps < .01). SA increased 2.84° ± 3.2° in the anterior group after stage I LLIF and increased 0.81° ± 3.1° in the posterior group ( P = .013). After stage II surgery, SA was similar between the anterior and posterior groups ( P = .20). Conclusion: The anteriorly placed cage may provide better improvement of anterior disc height and segmental angle after stand-alone LLIF surgery. After the second stage posterior instrumentation, the cage position would not affect the segmental angle or foraminal height.

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.

scholarly journals Simultaneous Lateral Interbody Fusion and Posterior Percutaneous Instrumentation: Early Experience and Technical Considerations

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Doniel Drazin ◽  
Terrence T. Kim ◽  
J. Patrick Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Lateral Approach ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Percutaneous Instrumentation ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Simultaneous Group ◽  
Simultaneous Procedures ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Lumbar fusion surgery involving lateral lumbar interbody graft insertion with posterior instrumentation is traditionally performed in two stages requiring repositioning. We describe a novel technique to complete the circumferential procedure simultaneously without patient repositioning. Twenty patients diagnosed with worsening back pain with/without radiculopathy who failed exhaustive conservative management were retrospectively reviewed. Ten patients with both procedures simultaneously from a single lateral approach and 10 control patients with lateral lumbar interbody fusion followed by repositioning and posterior percutaneous instrumentation were analyzed. Pars fractures, mobile grade 2 spondylolisthesis, and severe one-level degenerative disk disease were matched between the two groups. In the simultaneous group, avoiding repositioning leads to lower mean operative times: 130 minutes (versus control 190 minutes;p=0.009) and lower intraoperative blood loss: 108 mL (versus 93 mL; NS). Nonrepositioned patients were hospitalized for an average of 4.1 days (versus 3.8 days; NS). There was one complication in the control group requiring screw revision. Lateral interbody fusion and percutaneous posterior instrumentation are both readily accomplished in a single lateral decubitus position. In select patients with adequately sized pedicles, performing simultaneous procedures decreases operative time over sequential repositioning. Patient outcomes were excellent in the simultaneous group and comparable to procedures done sequentially.

scholarly journals Anterior lumbar compared to oblique lumbar interbody approaches for multilevel fusions to the sacrum in adults with spinal deformity and degeneration

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 461-470
Author(s):  
Zhuo Xi ◽  
Dean Chou ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Huibing Ruan ◽  
Charles Eichler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Deformity ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adult Spinal Deformity ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Height Change ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Segmental Lordosis ◽  
Lateral Interbody

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.

scholarly journals Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) versus Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) at L5-S1: A Comparison of Two Approaches to the Lumbosacral Junction

Neurosurgery ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 66 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhuo Xi ◽  
Shane Burch ◽  
Chih-Chang Chang ◽  
Hui-bing Ruan ◽  
Charles M Eichler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Height Increase ◽  
Segmental Lordosis ◽  
Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Abstract INTRODUCTION The oblique lateral interbody fusion OLIF is an alternative anterior approach to the lumbar spine at L5-S1, and it is unknown how it compares to anterior lumbar interbody fusion ALIF. This abstract is to compare the radiographic and clinical factors of ALIF and OLIF at L5-S1 only. METHODS A retrospective review of patients who underwent ALIF or OLIF at L5-S1 only at the University of California San Francisco (2013-2018) was performed. Data collected were demographics, cage parameters, perioperative factors, and radiographic parameters. RESULTS A total of 58 patients were included (33 ALIF and 25 OLIF). The average surgical time was 211.94 min for ALIF and 154.86 min for OLIF (P < .001). The average blood loss was 214 ml for ALIF and 74 ml for OLIF (P < .001). The average day to solid food was 2.55 for ALIF and 0.8 for OLIF (P < .001). The average cage height was 14.78 mm for ALIF and 12.9 mm (P < .001) for OLIF. The average cage lordosis was 15.45° for ALIF and 12.68° (P = .76) for OLIF. Average anterior L5-S1 disc height increase was 8.52 mm (ALIF) and 5.02 mm (OLIF) (P = .018), and average posterior L5-S1 disc height increase was 3.34 mm (ALIF) and 1.30 mm (OLIF) (P = .034). The average L5-S1 segmental lordosis increase was 6.82° for ALIF and 7.63° for OLIF (P = .638). CONCLUSION Patients who underwent OLIF at L5-S1 had shorter ileus duration compared to ALIF and comparable operative times and blood loss. ALIF afforded larger cages to be placed, resulting in greater disc height, but there was no significant difference in L5-S1 segmental lordosis.

scholarly journals Oblique lumbar interbody fusion in management of lumbar degenerative spinal stenosis in Chinese population

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-127
Author(s):  
Man Yee Cheung ◽  
Philip Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Stenosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Psoas Muscle ◽  
Chinese Patients ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Space ◽  
Lateral Incision ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
The Mean

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the outcomes of a cohort of local Chinese patients who underwent oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) surgery for lumbar degenerative diseases. Methods: We adopted a minimally invasive anterior approach to the lumbar spine through retroperitoneal access. In the first part of the surgery, a 3- to 5-cm left lateral incision over the abdomen was made guided by imaging. L2–L5 disc space was approached via the corridor between the left psoas muscle and the great vessels. A specially designed interbody cage filled with bone substitute was utilized for interbody fusion. In the second part of the surgery, posterior instrumentation with or without decompression, was performed in a prone position. Efficacy and safety of the surgery were studied. Results: A total of 60 patients with the mean age of 68 years underwent OLIF at 83 surgical levels. Their mean operative time was 79 min, and the average blood loss was 84 ml for the OLIF part. The mean length of hospital stay was 5.5 days. Based on plain computed tomography scan obtained at post-operative 6 months, successful fusion was achieved in 82 of the 83 surgical levels. The Oswestry Disability Index for low back pain had a mean reduction of 22.3% after 6 months. Specific complications observed include transient thigh pain or numbness, retroperitoneal hematoma, post-operative ileus and Bone Morphogenetic Protein (BMP) osteolysis. None of the patients experienced infection, symptomatic pseudo-arthrosis, hardware failure, vascular injury, nerve injury, ureteral injury, bowel injury, incisional hernia or death. Conclusion: OLIF is an effective procedure to treat lumbar spinal stenosis and spondylolisthesis with excellent fusion rate and good functional outcome. Complications specific to this procedure are not uncommon, but majority are minor and self-recovery. Proper training is required to minimize potential surgical risks.

Biomechanical analysis of stand-alone lumbar interbody cages versus 360° constructs: an in vitro and finite element investigation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Interbody Cage ◽  
Lateral Bending ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Lateral Interbody ◽  
Flexion And Extension

OBJECTIVE Low fusion rates and cage subsidence are limitations of lumbar fixation with stand-alone interbody cages. Various approaches to interbody cage placement exist, yet the need for supplemental posterior fixation is not clear from clinical studies. Therefore, as prospective clinical studies are lacking, a comparison of segmental kinematics, cage properties, and load sharing on vertebral endplates is needed. This laboratory investigation evaluates the mechanical stability and biomechanical properties of various interbody fixation techniques by performing cadaveric and finite element (FE) modeling studies. METHODS An in vitro experiment using 7 fresh-frozen human cadavers was designed to test intact spines with 1) stand-alone lateral interbody cage constructs (lateral interbody fusion, LIF) and 2) LIF supplemented with posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation (360° constructs). FE and kinematic data were used to validate a ligamentous FE model of the lumbopelvic spine. The validated model was then used to evaluate the stability of stand-alone LIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages with and without supplemental posterior fixation at the L4–5 level. The FE models of intact and instrumented cases were subjected to a 400-N compressive preload followed by an 8-Nm bending moment to simulate physiological flexion, extension, bending, and axial rotation. Segmental kinematics and load sharing at the inferior endplate were compared. RESULTS The FE kinematic predictions were consistent with cadaveric data. The range of motion (ROM) in LIF was significantly lower than intact spines for both stand-alone and 360° constructs. The calculated reduction in motion with respect to intact spines for stand-alone constructs ranged from 43% to 66% for TLIF, 67%–82% for LIF, and 69%–86% for ALIF in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In flexion and extension, the maximum reduction in motion was 70% for ALIF versus 81% in LIF for stand-alone cases. When supplemented with posterior fixation, the corresponding reduction in ROM was 76%–87% for TLIF, 86%–91% for LIF, and 90%–92% for ALIF. The addition of posterior instrumentation resulted in a significant reduction in peak stress at the superior endplate of the inferior segment in all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS Stand-alone ALIF and LIF cages are most effective in providing stability in lateral bending and axial rotation and less so in flexion and extension. Supplemental posterior instrumentation improves stability for all interbody techniques. Comparative clinical data are needed to further define the indications for stand-alone cages in lumbar fusion surgery.

Simultaneous Robotic Single-Position Surgery With Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Software Planning: 2-Dimensional Operative Video

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin H Pham ◽  
Jillian Plonsker ◽  
Luis D Diaz-Aguilar ◽  
Joseph A Osorio ◽  
Ronald A Lehman
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Spinal Instrumentation ◽  
Lateral Position ◽  
Lateral Approach ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Robotic Platform ◽  
Patient Consent ◽  
Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Abstract The use of robotic guidance for spinal instrumentation is promising for its ability to offer the advantages of precision, accuracy, and reproducibility. This has become even more important in the era of lateral interbody surgery because spinal robotics opens up the possibility of a straightforward workflow for single-position surgery in the lateral position.  We present here a case of a 72-yr-old woman who presented with an L4-5 spondylolisthesis with axial back pain and radiculopathy. She subsequently underwent an L4-5 oblique lumbar interbody fusion with L4-5 bilateral posterior instrumentation in a single lateral position (Mazor X Stealth Edition, Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Medtronic Inc, Dublin, Ireland). Due to the oblique lateral approach and posterior robotic assistance, both surgeons were able to work simultaneously for increased efficiency. To our knowledge, this is the first video demonstrating a two-surgeon simultaneous robotic single-position surgery with oblique lumbar interbody fusion using a spinal robotic platform.  There is no identifying information in this video. Patient consent was obtained for the surgical procedure and for publishing of the material included in the video.

Biomechanics of posterior instrumentation in L1–L3 lateral interbody fusion: Pedicle screw rod construct vs. transfacet pedicle screws

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 59-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kingsley R. Chin ◽  
Anna G.U. Newcomb ◽  
Marco T. Reis ◽  
Phillip M. Reyes ◽  
Grace A. Hickam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pedicle Screw ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Instrumentation ◽  
Pedicle Screws ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 110-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Marchi ◽  
Nitamar Abdala ◽  
Leonardo Oliveira ◽  
Rodrigo Amaral ◽  
Etevaldo Coutinho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Lordosis ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Disc Height ◽  
Standard Group ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cage Subsidence ◽  
Grade Ii ◽  
Wide Group ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Object Indirect decompression of the neural structures through interbody distraction and fusion in the lumbar spine is feasible, but cage subsidence may limit maintenance of the initial decompression. The influence of interbody cage size on subsidence and symptoms in minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion is heretofore unreported. The authors report the rate of cage subsidence after lateral interbody fusion, examine the clinical effects, and present a subsidence classification scale. Methods The study was performed as an institutional review board–approved prospective, nonrandomized, comparative, single-center radiographic and clinical evaluation. Stand-alone short-segment (1- or 2-level) lateral lumbar interbody fusion was investigated with 12 months of postoperative follow-up. Two groups were compared. Forty-six patients underwent treatment at 61 lumbar levels with standard interbody cages (18 mm anterior/posterior dimension), and 28 patients underwent treatment at 37 lumbar levels with wide cages (22 mm). Standing lateral radiographs were used to measure segmental lumbar lordosis, disc height, and rate of subsidence. Subsidence was classified using the following scale: Grade 0, 0%–24% loss of postoperative disc height; Grade I, 25%–49%; Grade II, 50%–74%; and Grade III, 75%–100%. Fusion status was assessed on CT scanning, and pain and disability were assessed using the visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index. Complications and reoperations were recorded. Results Pain and disability improved similarly in both groups. While significant gains in segmental lumbar lordosis and disc height were observed overall, the standard group experienced less improvement due to the higher rate of interbody graft subsidence. A difference in the rate of subsidence between the groups was evident at 6 weeks (p = 0.027), 3 months (p = 0.042), and 12 months (p = 0.047). At 12 months, 70% in the standard group and 89% in the wide group had Grade 0 or I subsidence, and 30% in the standard group and 11% in wide group had Grade II or III subsidence. Subsidence was detected early (6 weeks), at which point it was correlated with transient clinical worsening, although progression of subsidence was not observed after the 6-week time point. Moreover, subsidence occurred predominantly (68%) in the inferior endplate. Fusion rate was not affected by cage dimension (p > 0.999) or by incidence of subsidence (p = 0.383). Conclusions Wider cages avoid subsidence and better restore segmental lordosis in stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. Cage subsidence is identified early in follow-up and can be accessed using the proposed classification scale.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document