scholarly journals The axial transsacral approach to interbody fusion at L5–S1

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. E8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul S. Issack ◽  
Suhel Y. Kotwal ◽  
Oheneba Boachie-Adjei

Lumbosacral interbody fusion may be indicated to treat degenerative disc disease at L5–S1, instability or spondylolisthesis at that level, and severe neural foraminal stenosis resulting from loss of disc space height. In addition, L5–S1 interbody fusion may provide anterior support to a long posterior fusion construct and help offset the stresses experienced by the distal-most screws. There are 3 well-established techniques for L5–S1 interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Each of these has advantages and pitfalls. A more recently described axial transsacral technique, utilizing the presacral corridor, may represent a minimally invasive approach to obtaining lumbosacral interbody arthrodesis. Biomechanical studies demonstrate that the stiffness of the axial rod is comparable to existing fixation devices, suggesting that, biomechanically, it may be a good implant for obtaining lumbosacral interbody fusion. Clinical studies have demonstrated good early results with the use of the axial transsacral approach in obtaining lumbosacral interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, and below long posterior fusion constructs. The technique is exacting and complications can be major, including rectal perforation and fistula, loss of correction, and pseudarthrosis.

2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Takahashi ◽  
Toru Suguro ◽  
Yuichiro Yokoyama ◽  
Yasuaki Iida ◽  
Fumiaki Terashima ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822093802
Author(s):  
Kuan-Yu Chi ◽  
Shih-Hao Cheng ◽  
Yu-Kai Kuo ◽  
En-Yuan Lin ◽  
Yi-No Kang

Study Design: A network meta-analysis. Objectives: Lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) is an important issue in aging population, for which lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a feasible management in cases refractory to conservative therapy. There are various techniques available to perform LIF, including posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), and anterior (ALIF) approaches. However, the comparative safety profile of these procedures remains controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate comparative adverse events of the LIF procedures in patients with LDDD. Methods: We searched 5 databases for relevant prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials. After quality assessments, we extracted neural, spinal, vascular, and wound events for conducting contrast-based network meta-analysis. Results were reported in risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). Results: We identified 14 studies involving 921 participants with LDDD. Pooled result showed that open PLIF (OPLIF) leads to significantly higher overall adverse event rate than does open TLIF (OTLIF; RR = 3.43, 95% CI = 1.21-9.73). OTLIF confers the highest SUCRA in neural (78.7) and spinal (80.8) event rates. Minimally invasive TLIF has the highest SUCRA in vascular event (84.2), and minimally invasive PLIF has the highest SUCRA in wound event (88.1). No inconsistency or publication bias was detected in the results. Conclusions: Based on our results, perhaps OPLIF should be avoided in the management of LDDD due to the inferiority of overall complications. Specifically, TLIF seems to have the safest profile in terms of neural, spinal, and vascular events. Nevertheless, shared decision making is still mandatory when choosing the proper LIF procedure for patients with LDDD in clinical practice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document