Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy for Decompression of Extraforaminal Stenosis at the Lumbosacral Junction: Surgical Techniques and Clinical Outcomes

Objective: The aims of this study were to describe the unilateral biportal endoscopic (UBE) technique for decompression of extraforaminal stenosis at L5–S1 and evaluate 1-year clinical outcomes. Especially, we evaluated compression factors of extraforaminal stenosis at L5–S1 and described the surgical technique for decompression in detail.Methods: Thirty-five patients who underwent UBE decompression for extraforaminal stenosis at L5–S1 between March 2018 and February 2019 were enrolled. Clinical results were analyzed using the MacNab criteria, the visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Compression factors evaluated pseudoarthrosis within the transverse process of L5 and ala of sacrum, disc bulging with or without osteophytes, and the thickened lumbosacral and extraforaminal ligament.Results: The mean back VAS was 3.7 ± 1.8 before surgery, which dropped to 2.3 ± 0.8 at 1-year postoperative follow-up (p < 0.001). There was a significant drop in postoperative mean VAS for leg pain from 7.2 ± 1.1 to 2.3 ± 1.2 at 1 year (p < 0.001). The ODI was 61.5 before surgery and 28.6 (p < 0.001). Pseudoarthrosis between the transverse process and the ala was noted in all cases (35 of 35, 100%). Pure disc bulging was seen in 12 patients (34.3%), and disc bulging with osteophytes was demonstrated in 23 patients. The thickened lumbosacral and extraforaminal ligament were identified in 19 cases (51.4%). No complications occurred in any of the patients.Conclusion: In the current study, good surgical outcomes without complications were achieved after UBE decompression for extraforaminal stenosis at L5–S1.

The Contralateral Approach to intra- and Extraforaminal Lumbar Disk Herniations: Surgical Technique and Review of Surgical Procedures

Background Surgery for intra-/extraforaminal disk herniations (IEDH) is technically demanding due to the hidden location of the compressed nerve root section. Ipsilateral approaches (medial and lateral) are accompanied by extended resection of the facet joint and inadequate visualization of the pathology, especially at the L5–S1 level. Methods We describe a microsurgical interlaminar contralateral approach (MICA) suitable for IEDH at the lumbosacral junction that can also be used at L4–L5 and L3–L4. Conclusion The MICA provides access and sufficient intraforaminal visualization for IEDH in the lumbosacral region without resection of stability-relevant structures or manipulation of the nerve root ganglion.

Comparison of Incidence of Adjacent Segment Pathology between Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Treatments for Lumbosacral Junction

This research compared the incidence of adjacent segment pathology (ASP) between anterior interbody lumbar fusion (ALIF) treatment and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) treatment. Seventy patients were included in this retrospective study: 30 patients received ALIF treatment, and 40 patients received TLIF treatment at a single medical center between 2011 and 2020 with a follow-up of at least 12 months. The outcomes were radiographic adjacent segment pathology (RASP) and clinical adjacent segment pathology (CASP). The mean follow-up period was 42.10 ± 22.61 months in the ALIF group and 56.20 ± 29.91 months in the TLIF group. Following single-level lumbosacral fusion, ALIF is superior to TLIF in maintaining lumbar lordosis, whereas the risk of adjacent instability in the ALIF group is significantly higher. Regarding ASP, the incidence of overall RASP and CASP did not differ significantly between ALIF and TLIF groups.

Is L5/S1 interbody fusion necessary in long-segment surgery for adult degenerative scoliosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE There is no consensus regarding the best surgical strategy at the lumbosacral junction (LSJ) in long constructs for adult spinal deformity (ASD). The use of interbody fusion (IF) has been advocated to increase fusion rates, with additional pelvic fixation (PF) typically recommended. The actual benefit of IF even when extending to the pelvis, however, has not been vigorously analyzed. The goal of this work was to better understand the role of IF, specifically with respect to arthrodesis, when extending long constructs to the ilium. METHODS A systematic review of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed to identify the relevant studies in English, addressing the management of LSJ in long constructs (defined as ≥ 5 levels) in ASD. The search terms used were as follows: “Lumbosacral Junction,” “Long Constructs,” “Long Fusion to the Sacrum,” “Sacropelvic Fixation,” “Interbody Fusion,” and “Iliac Screw.” The authors excluded technical notes, case reports, literature reviews, and cadaveric studies; pediatric populations; pathologies different from ASD; studies not using conventional techniques; and studies focused only on alignment of different levels. RESULTS The PRISMA protocol was used. The authors found 12 retrospective clinical studies with a total of 1216 patients who were sorted into 3 different categories: group 1, using PF or not (n = 6); group 2, using PF with or without IF (n = 5); and group 3, from 1 study comparing anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Five studies in group 1 and 4 in group 2 had pseudarthrosis rate as primary outcome and were selected for a quantitative analysis. Forest plots were used to display the risk ratio, and funnel plots were used to look at the risk of publication bias. The summary risk ratios were 0.36 (0.23–0.57, p < 0.001) and 1.03 (0.54–1.96, p = 0.94) for the PF and IF, respectively; there is a protective effect of overall pseudarthrosis for using PF in long constructs for ASD surgeries, but not for using IF. CONCLUSIONS The long-held contention that L5/S1 IF is always advantageous in long-construct deformity surgery is not supported by the current literature. Based on the findings from this systematic review and meta-analysis, PF with or without additional L5/S1 interbody grafting demonstrates similar overall construct pseudarthrosis rates. The added risk and costs associated with IF, therefore, should be more closely considered on a case-by-case basis.

The lexicon of multirod constructs in adult spinal deformity: a concise description of when, why, and how

The use of multirod constructs in the setting of adult spinal deformity (ASD) began to prevent rod fracture and pseudarthrosis near the site of pedicle subtraction osteotomies (PSOs) and 3-column osteotomies (3COs). However, there has been unclear and inconsistent nomenclature, both clinically and in the literature, for the various techniques of supplemental rod implantation. In this review the authors aim to provide the first succinct lexicon of multirod constructs available for the treatment of ASD, providing a universal nomenclature and definition for each type of supplementary rod. The primary rod of ASD constructs is the longest rod that typically spans from the bottom of the construct to the upper instrumented vertebrae. The secondary rod is shorter than the primary rod, but is connected directly to pedicle screws, albeit fewer of them, and connects to the primary rod via lateral connectors or cross-linkers. Satellite rods are a 4-rod technique in which 2 rods span only the site of a 3CO via pedicle screws at the levels above and below, and are not connected to the primary rod (hence the term “satellite”). Accessory rods are connected to the primary rods via side connectors and buttress the primary rod in areas of high rod strain, such as at a 3CO or the lumbosacral junction. Delta rods span the site of a 3CO, typically a PSO, and are not contoured to the newly restored lordosis of the spine, thus buttressing the primary rod above and below a 3CO. The kickstand rod itself functions as an additional means of restoring coronal balance and is secured to a newly placed iliac screw on the side of truncal shift and connected to the primary rod; distracting against the kickstand then helps to correct the concavity of a coronal curve. The use of multirod constructs has dramatically increased over the last several years in parallel with the increasing prevalence of ASD correction surgery. However, ambiguity persists both clinically and in the literature regarding the nomenclature of each supplemental rod. This nomenclature of supplemental rods should help unify the lexicon of multirod constructs and generalize their usage in a variety of scientific and clinical scenarios.

Utilization of S1 Foraminal Hooks for Augmentation of S1 Screws in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: Comparative Study With Iliac Screws

Objective: To compare the outcomes of S1 foraminal hooks and iliac screws regarding fusion rate at the lumbosacral junction and protective effects on S1 screws.Methods: From January 2017 to December 2019, consecutive patients who underwent long fusions (uppermost instrumented vertebra at or above L1) to the sacrum for adult spinal deformity were enrolled. Patients were divided into S1 foraminal hook group and iliac screw group. Radiographic parameters and the incidence of pseudarthrosis and instrument failure at the lumbosacral junction were compared between the groups.Results: Twenty-nine patients (male:female = 1:28) with a mean age of 73.6 ± 6.8 years were evaluated. Sixteen patients (55.2%) had S1 foraminal hook fixation and 13 patients (44.8%) had iliac screw fixation. Lumbar lordosis, sacral slope, and sagittal vertical axis did not differ between the groups preoperatively and postoperatively. The rate of L5/S1 pseudarthrosis was significantly higher in S1 foraminal hook group (5 of 16, 31.3%), compared to iliac screw group (0 of 13, 0%; p = 0.048). Instrument failure at the lumbosacral junction trended toward a higher rate in S1 foraminal hook group (6 of 16, 37.5%) than in iliac screw group (1 of 13, 7.7%), without statistical significance (p = 0.09). Proximal junctional kyphosis/failure occurred less often in S1 foraminal hook group (2 of 16, 12.5%) than in iliac screw group (3 of 13, 30.8%) without statistical significance (p = 0.36).Conclusion: Treatment with S1 foraminal hooks achieved equivalent satisfactory sagittal correction with proportioned alignment compared to that with iliac screws. However, S1 foraminal hooks did not provide enough structural support to the lumbosacral junction in long fusions to the sacrum.

Lumbosacral transitional vertebra in military aviation candidates: A cross-sectional study

Introduction: Lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV) is a common anomaly of the lumbosacral junction with a prevalence of 4–35.9% in various studies. Plain radiography of the spine in anteroposterior and lateral projections is done for the evaluation of the spine in candidates coming for medical evaluation for flying duties in the armed forces. Material and Methods: An observational study was conducted on the whole spine series of radiographs done at a medical selection establishment. The study population included candidates reporting to the establishment for medical examination to ascertain fitness for flying duties. In a small subset of this study population having LSTV, the Ferguson’s view was done to better delineate the lumbosacral junction. Results: The analysis revealed a total 148 cases of LSTV with a prevalence of 13.9%. Ferguson’s view, undertaken among 30 doubtful cases, confirmed the presence of LSTV in 27 cases. Type IIa was observed to be the most common pattern of LSTV followed by Type IIIb. As per the existing policy, 63.8% of candidates with LSTV were considered unfit for flying duties. Conclusion: Flying duties in the armed forces require the highest standard of physical fitness. LSTV is a very common finding during the evaluation of candidates and it is appropriate that the cases of LSTV be evaluated thoroughly. In doubtful cases of LSTV, the Ferguson’s view is a useful supplementary view as it clearly delineates the lumbosacral junction.