Single-position prone lateral transpsoas approach: early experience and outcomes

OBJECTIVE Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) via a transpsoas approach is a workhorse minimally invasive approach for lumbar arthrodesis that is often combined with posterior pedicle screw fixation. There has been increasing interest in performing single-position surgery, allowing access to the anterolateral and posterior spine without requiring patient repositioning. The feasibility of the transpsoas approach in patients in the prone position has been reported. Herein, the authors present a consecutive case series of all patients who underwent single-position prone transpsoas LLIF performed by an individual surgeon since adopting this approach. METHODS A retrospective review was performed of a consecutive case series of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) who underwent single-position prone LLIF for any indication between October 2019 and November 2020. Pertinent operative details (levels, cage use, surgery duration, estimated blood loss, complications) and 3-month clinical outcomes were recorded. Intraoperative and 3-month postoperative radiographs were reviewed to assess for interbody subsidence. RESULTS Twenty-eight of 29 patients (97%) underwent successful treatment with the prone lateral approach over the study interval; the approach was aborted in 1 patient, whose data were excluded. The mean (SD) age of patients was 67.9 (9.3) years; 75% (21) were women. Thirty-nine levels were treated: 18 patients (64%) had single-level fusion, 9 (32%) had 2-level fusion, and 1 (4%) had 3-level fusion. The most commonly treated levels were L3–4 (n = 15), L2–3 (n = 12), and L4–5 (n = 11). L1–2 was fused in 1 patient. The mean operative time was 286.5 (100.6) minutes, and the mean retractor time was 29.2 (13.5) minutes per level. The mean fluoroscopy duration was 215.5 (99.6) seconds, and the mean intraoperative radiation dose was 170.1 (94.8) mGy. Intraoperative subsidence was noted in 1 patient (4% of patients, 3% of levels). Intraoperative lateral access complications occurred in 11% of patients (1 cage repositioning, 2 inadvertent ruptures of anterior longitudinal ligament). Subsidence occurred in 5 of 22 patients (23%) with radiographic follow-up, affecting 6 of 33 levels (18%). Postoperative functional testing (Oswestry Disability Index, SF-36, visual analog scale–back and leg pain) identified significant improvement. CONCLUSIONS This single-surgeon consecutive case series demonstrates that this novel technique is well tolerated and has acceptable clinical and radiographic outcomes. Larger patient series with longer follow-up are needed to further elucidate the safety profile and long-term outcomes of single-position prone LLIF.

Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion From L2 to S1: 2-Dimensional Operative Video

This surgical video demonstrates the technique of an oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) in the lumbar spine from L2 to L5 as well as an oblique approach to the L5-S1 level. It demonstrates the surgical approach, technical nuances of OLIF, and pearls of the surgery. The video discusses the importance of the release of the disc space to allow for height restoration and deformity correction, endplate preparation to enhance arthrodesis, and appropriate implant sizing. The concept of the approach is the minimally invasive blunt dissection through the abdominal wall musculature and mobilization of the retroperitoneal fat. Unlike the transpsoas approach, the surgery is performed anterior to the psoas, avoiding the lumbar plexus.1 For L5-S1, the approach is still performed in the lateral position but with an oblique approach. A vascular surgeon performs the L5-S1 approach, and the disc space is accessed through the iliac bifurcation.2 The discectomy and interbody fusion are performed similarly to a standard anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), but in a lateral position and at an oblique angle. The patient consented to this procedure and for filming a video of this case.

Expandable Cage Technology—Transforaminal, Anterior, and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

This review of the literature will focus on the indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes for expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) operations. The expandable TLIF cage has become a workhorse for common degenerative pathology, whereas expandable ALIF cages carry the promise of greater lordotic correction while evading the diseased posterior elements. Expandable LLIF cages call upon minimally invasive techniques for a retroperitoneal, transpsoas approach to the disc space, obviating the need for an access surgeon and decreasing risk of injury to the critical neurovascular structures. Nuances between expandable and static cages for all 3 TLIF, ALIF, and LLIF operations are discussed in this review.

Prone transpsoas lumbar corpectomy: simultaneous posterior and lateral lumbar access for difficult clinical scenarios

OBJECTIVE Lateral lumbar corpectomy with interbody fusion has been well described via a transpsoas approach in the lateral position, as has lumbar interbody fusion with posterior fixation in the prone position. However, no previous report has described the use of both an open posterior approach and a lateral transpsoas approach simultaneously in the prone position. Here, the authors describe their technique of performing transpsoas lumbar corpectomy in the prone position in order to have simultaneous posterior and lateral access for difficult clinical scenarios, and they report their early clinical experience. METHODS The surgical technique for simultaneous posterior and lateral transpsoas access to the lumbar spine was reviewed and described in detail. The cases of 2 patients who underwent simultaneous posterior and lateral access in the prone position for complex lumbar pathology were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical presentation, preoperative radiographs, postoperative course, and postoperative radiographs were reviewed. RESULTS The first patient presented after previous transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion that was complicated by significant subsidence of the intervertebral cage, vertebral body split fracture, rotational instability, and resulting spinal stenosis. A simultaneous posterior and lateral transpsoas approach in the prone position allowed for removal of the previous cage, lumbar corpectomy, and rigid posterior fixation with direct decompression. The second patient had a significant pathologic burst fracture secondary to a plasmacytoma with retropulsion, resulting in vertebra plana and significant canal stenosis. Simultaneous approaches allowed for complete resection of the plasmacytoma, restoration of lumbar alignment, rigid fixation, and direct posterior decompression. There were no short-term complications, and both patients had resolution of their preoperative symptoms. CONCLUSIONS Simultaneous posterior and lateral transpsoas access to the lumbar spine in the prone position is a previously unreported technique that allows a safe surgical approach to difficult clinical scenarios.

Broken surgical blade retrieval following lumbar discectomy through paravertebral/lateral transpsoas approach: A case report

Background: There are rare reports of broken surgical blades occurring during lumbar discectomy, and even fewer that discuss their retrieval. Case Description: While a 54-year-old male was undergoing a lumbar discectomy, the knife blade was broken. As it was difficult to retrieve the fragment through the original incision, the patient was closed, and a postoperative angio-computerized tomography (CT) was obtained. When the CT angiogram (CTA) documented the retained fragment had become lodged near the iliac vein within the psoas muscle, a second operation for blade retrieval, consisting of a paravertebral, lateral transpsoas approach, was successfully performed. Conclusion: In some cases, it is difficult to retrieve a broken scalpel blade during the index surgery. When this occurs, we would recommend closing the patient, and obtaining a CTA to better document the location of the retained foreign body. Based upon these findings, a safer second stage procedure may be performed (e.g., as in this case using a paravertebral lateral transpsoas approach) to avoid undue sequelae/morbidity.