Reasons for revision following stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Austin Q. Nguyen ◽  
Jackson P. Harvey ◽  
Krishn Khanna ◽  
Bryce A. Basques ◽  
Garrett K. Harada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Preoperative Imaging ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Level ◽  
Posterior Decompression ◽  
Less Invasive ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Reoperation Rates

OBJECTIVE Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are alternative and less invasive techniques to stabilize the spine and indirectly decompress the neural elements compared with open posterior approaches. While reoperation rates have been described for open posterior lumbar surgery, there are sparse data on reoperation rates following these less invasive procedures without direct posterior decompression. This study aimed to evaluate the overall rate, cause, and timing of reoperation procedures following anterior or lateral lumbar interbody fusions without direct posterior decompression. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients indicated for an ALIF or LLIF for lumbar spine at a single academic institution. Patients who underwent concomitant posterior fusion or direct decompression surgeries were excluded. Rates, causes, and timing of reoperations were analyzed. Patients who underwent a revision decompression were matched with patients who did not require a reoperation, and preoperative imaging characteristics were analyzed to assess for risk factors for the reoperation. RESULTS The study cohort consisted of 529 patients with an average follow-up of 2.37 years; 40.3% (213/529) and 67.3% (356/529) of patients had a minimum of 2 years and 1 year of follow-up, respectively. The total revision rate was 5.7% (30/529), with same-level revision in 3.8% (20/529) and adjacent-level revision in 1.9% (10/529) of patients. Same-level revision patients had significantly shorter time to revision (7.14 months) than adjacent-level revision patients (31.91 months) (p < 0.0001). Fifty percent of same-level revisions were for a posterior decompression. After further analysis of decompression revisions, an increased preoperative canal area was significantly associated with a lower risk of further decompression revision compared to the control group (p = 0.015; OR 0.977, 95% CI 0.959–0.995). CONCLUSIONS There was a low reoperation rate after anterior or lateral lumbar interbody fusions without direct posterior decompression. The majority of same-level reoperations were due to a need for further decompression. Smaller preoperative canal diameters were associated with the need for revision decompression.

Topping-off technique for stabilization of lumbar degenerative instabilities in 322 patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 366-372
Author(s):  
Sandro M. Krieg ◽  
Nele Balser ◽  
Haiko Pape ◽  
Nico Sollmann ◽  
Lucia Albers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Smooth Transition ◽  
Lumbar Pain ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Rod System ◽  
Reoperation Rates ◽  
Topping Off

OBJECTIVESemi-rigid instrumentation (SRI) was introduced to take advantage of the concept of load sharing in surgery for spinal stabilization. The authors investigated a topping-off technique in which interbody fusion is not performed in the uppermost motion segment, thus creating a smooth transition from stabilized to free motion segments. SRI using the topping-off technique also reduces the motion of the adjacent segments, which may reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD), a frequently observed sequela of instrumentation and fusion, but this technique may also increase the possibility of screw loosening (SL). In the present study the authors aimed to systematically evaluate reoperation rates, clinical outcomes, and potential risk factors and incidences of ASD and SL for this novel approach.METHODSThe authors collected data for the first 322 patients enrolled at their institution from 2009 to 2015 who underwent surgery performed using the topping-off technique. Reoperation rates, patient satisfaction, and other outcome measures were evaluated. All patients underwent pedicle screw–based semi-rigid stabilization of the lumbar spine with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rod system.RESULTSImplantation of PEEK rods during revision surgery was performed in 59.9% of patients. A median of 3 motion segments (range 1–5 segments) were included and a median of 2 motion segments (range 0–4 segments) were fused. A total of 89.4% of patients underwent fusion, 73.3% by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), 18.4% by anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), 3.1% by extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), 0.3% by oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and 4.9% by combined approaches in the same surgery. Combined radicular and lumbar pain according to a visual analog scale was reduced from 7.9 ± 1.0 to 4.0 ± 3.1, with 56.2% of patients indicating benefit from surgery. After maximum follow-up (4.3 ± 1.8 years), the reoperation rate was 16.4%.CONCLUSIONSThe PEEK rod concept including the topping-off principle seems safe, with at least average patient satisfaction in this patient group. Considering the low rate of first-tier surgeries, the presented results seem at least comparable to those of most other series. Follow-up studies are needed to determine long-term outcomes, particularly with respect to ASD, which might be reduced by the presented approach.

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.

scholarly journals Short-term outcomes of lateral lumbar interbody fusion without decompression for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4–5

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. E6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter G. Campbell ◽  
Pierce D. Nunley ◽  
David Cavanaugh ◽  
Eubulus Kerr ◽  
Philip Andrew Utter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Spondylolisthesis ◽  
Sensory Loss ◽  
Motor Deficit ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss ◽  
Indirect Decompression ◽  
The Mean

OBJECTIVERecently, authors have called into question the utility and complication index of the lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedure at the L4–5 level. Furthermore, the need for direct decompression has also been debated. Here, the authors report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion, relying only on indirect decompression to treat patients with neurogenic claudication secondary to Grade 1 and 2 spondylolisthesis at the L4–5 level.METHODSThe authors conducted a retrospective evaluation of 18 consecutive patients with Grade 1 or 2 spondylolisthesis from a prospectively maintained database. All patients underwent a transpsoas approach, followed by posterior percutaneous instrumentation without decompression. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and SF-12 were administered during the clinical evaluations. Radiographic evaluation was also performed. The mean follow-up was 6.2 months.RESULTSFifteen patients with Grade 1 and 3 patients with Grade 2 spondylolisthesis were identified and underwent fusion at a total of 20 levels. The mean operative time was 165 minutes for the combined anterior and posterior phases of the operation. The estimated blood loss was 113 ml. The most common cage width in the anteroposterior dimension was 22 mm (78%). Anterior thigh dysesthesia was identified on detailed sensory evaluation in 6 of 18 patients (33%); all patients experienced resolution within 6 months postoperatively. No patient had lasting sensory loss or motor deficit. The average ODI score improved 26 points by the 6-month follow-up. At the 6-month follow-up, the SF-12 mean Physical and Mental Component Summary scores improved by 11.9% and 9.6%, respectively. No patient required additional decompression postoperatively.CONCLUSIONSThis study offers clinical results to establish lateral lumbar interbody fusion as an effective technique for the treatment of Grade 1 or 2 degenerative spondylolisthesis at L4–5. The use of this surgical approach provides a minimally invasive solution that offers excellent arthrodesis rates as well as favorable clinical and radiological outcomes, with low rates of postoperative complications. However, adhering to the techniques of transpsoas lateral surgery, such as minimal table break, an initial look-and-see approach to the psoas, clear identification of the plexus, minimal cranial caudal expansion of the retractor, mobilization of any traversing sensory nerves, and total psoas dilation times less than 20 minutes, ensures the lowest possible complication profile for both visceral and neural injuries even in the narrow safe zones when accessing the L4–5 disc space in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

Guide device for percutaneous placement of translaminar facet screws after anterior lumbar interbody fusion

2003 ◽  
Vol 98 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jee Soo Jang ◽  
Sang Ho Lee ◽  
Sang Rak Lim
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Screw Fixation ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Fixation ◽  
Foraminal Stenosis ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Guide Device ◽  
Fine Print

Because the degree of immediate stabilization provided by cage-assisted anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has been shown by several studies to be inadequate, supplementary posterior fixation, such as that created by translaminar or transpedicle screw fixation, is necessary. In this study, the authors studied the ALIF-augmentation procedure in which a special guide device is used to place percutaneously translaminar facet screws in 18 patients with degenerative lumbar disease. The minimum follow-up period was 1 month (mean 6 months, range 1–13 months). Degenerative spondylolisthesis with foraminal stenosis was diagnosed in nine patients, associated degenerative disc disease alone or combined with foraminal stenosis in eight, and recurrent disc herniation in one. Following screw placement, computerized tomography scanning was conducted to evaluate the accuracy of the facet screw positioning. All screws were properly placed. No screw penetrated the spinal canal or injured the neural structures. Excellent or good clinical outcomes were demonstrated in all patients at the last follow up. The use of this guide device for post—ALIF percutaneous translaminar facet screw fixation represents a safe, accurate, and minimally invasive modality with which to achieve immediate solid fixation in the lumbar spine.

scholarly journals Predictors of the need for laminectomy after indirect decompression via initial anterior or lateral lumbar interbody fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 781-787
Author(s):  
Daehyun Park ◽  
Praveen V. Mummaneni ◽  
Ratnesh Mehra ◽  
Yonguk Kwon ◽  
Sungtae Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Symptom Duration ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Decompression ◽  
Staged Surgery ◽  
Vas Score ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Indirect Decompression ◽  
Facet Joint Degeneration

OBJECTIVEThe goal of this study was to evaluate factors that are associated with the need for additional posterior direct decompressive surgery after anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).METHODSEighty-six adult patients who underwent ALIF or LLIF for degenerative spondylolisthesis and foraminal stenosis were enrolled. Patient factors (age, sex, number of surgery levels, and visual analog scale [VAS] score for leg and back pain); procedure-related factors (cage height and lordosis); and radiographic measurements (disc height [DH]; foraminal height [FH], foraminal area [FA], central canal diameter [CCD], and facet joint degeneration [FD]) were analyzed. All patients underwent staged surgery on 2 different days, with the anterior portion first, followed by the posterior portion.RESULTSOf 86 patients, 62 underwent posterior decompression and 24 had no posterior decompression. There were no significant differences between groups with regard to age, sex, preoperative VAS score for back pain, cage height, cage angulation, preoperative DH, FH, FA, CCD, and FD (p > 0.05). The group that underwent posterior decompression showed statistically different numbers of treated segments (1.92 vs 1.21, p < 0.01), preoperative VAS leg score (7.9 vs 6.3), symptom duration (14.2 months vs 9.4 months), postoperative DH improvement (61.3% vs 96.2%), postoperative FH improvement (21.5% vs 32.1%), postoperative FA improvement (24.1% vs 36.9%), and cage height minus preoperative DH (5.3 mm vs 7.5 mm) compared with the nondecompression group.CONCLUSIONSThere appears to be some correlation between the need for posterior decompression and the number of treated segments, VAS leg scores, symptom duration, FH, FA, and difference between the cage height and preoperative DH. In selected patients undergoing staged surgery, indirect decompression without direct decompression may be a reasonable option in treating degenerative spinal conditions.

Single-Position Surgery: Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: 2-Dimensional Operative Video

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ifije E Ohiorhenuan ◽  
Jakub Godzik ◽  
Juan S Uribe
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Prone Position ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Illustrative Case ◽  
Anterior Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Decompression ◽  
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Decubitus

Abstract Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a widely used technique for anterior fusion. However, posterior decompression or instrumentation often requires repositioning the patient, which increases operative time. This video describes the prone LLIF as a modification of the standard surgical technique. The prone LLIF facilitates simultaneous decompression and fusion, which avoids the need for repositioning the patient, increasing operative efficiency. Positioning, fluoroscopic considerations, and operative nuances involved in performing the LLIF in the prone position are described, and an illustrative case is presented. The patient provided informed consent for the procedure and videography. LLIF in the prone position can decrease operative time and increase operative efficiency. The prone position is a viable alternative to the conventional lateral decubitus position. Video used with permission from Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion for adult degenerative scoliosis with 1 or 2 dislocated levels

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 739-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles-Henri Flouzat-Lachaniette ◽  
Louis Ratte ◽  
Alexandre Poignard ◽  
Jean-Charles Auregan ◽  
Steffen Queinnec ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Degenerative Scoliosis ◽  
Surgical Morbidity ◽  
Adult Degenerative Scoliosis ◽  
The Mean

OBJECT Frequent complications of posterolateral instrumented fusion have been reported after treatment of degenerative scoliosis in elderly patients. Considering that in some cases, most of the symptomatology of adult degenerative scoliosis (ADS) is a consequence of the segmental instability at the dislocated level, the use of minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) to manage symptoms can be advocated to reduce surgical morbidity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm outcomes of 1- or 2-level minimally invasive ALIFs in ADS patients with 1- or 2-level dislocations. METHODS A total of 47 patients (average age 64 years; range 43–80 years) with 1- or 2-level ALIF performed for ADS (64 levels) in a single institution were included in the study. An independent spine surgeon retrospectively reviewed all the patients’ medical records and radiographs to assess operative data and surgery-related complications. Clinical outcome was reported using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the visual analog scale (VAS) for lumbar and leg pain. Intraoperative data and complications were collected. Fusion and risk for adjacent-level degeneration were assessed. RESULTS The mean follow-up duration was 3 years (range 1–10 years). ODI, and back and leg pain VAS scores were significantly improved at last follow-up. A majority of patients (74%) had a statistically significant improvement in their ODI score of more than 20 points at latest follow-up and 1 had a worsening of his disability. The mean operating time was 166 minutes (range 70–355 minutes). The mean estimated blood loss was 410 ml (range 50–1700 ml). Six (5 major and 1 minor) surgical complications (12.7% of patients) and 13 (2 major and 11 minor) medical complications (27.7% of patients) occurred without death or wound infection. Fusion was achieved in 46 of 47 patients. Surgery resulted in a slight but significant decrease of the Cobb angle, and improved the pelvic parameters and lumbar lordosis, but had no effect on the global sagittal balance. At latest follow-up, 9 patients (19.1%) developed adjacent-segment disease at a mean of 2 years’ delay from the index surgery; 4 were symptomatic but treated medically, and none required iterative surgery. CONCLUSIONS Single- or 2-level minimally invasive fusion through a minimally invasive anterior approach in some selected cases of ADS produced a good functional outcome with a high fusion rate. They were associated with a significantly lower rate of complications in this study than the historical control.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document