Laparoscopic spinal fusion of L4-L5 and L5-S1

Background: Patients with degenerative disc disease were treated by laparoscopic spondylodesis. Clinical outcome and quality of life were then analyzed in a retrospective study. Methods: Thirty patients with a mean age of 43 years (range, 26-63) who suffered from instability of levels L4-L5 (n = 23), L5-S1 (n = 3), or both (n = 2) underwent surgery. Spondylodesis was achieved with two BAK cylinders. After ?6 months, all patients completed a questionnaire designed to assess satisfaction with the operative outcome. Results: After a median follow-up of 2.3 years (range, 0.9-3.5), 23 patients were free of pain or greatly improved. Complications included bleeding (n = 2), cage displacement (n = 1), retrograde ejaculation (n = 3), and postoperative ileus (n = 1). Good improvement was reported in daily activities and quality of life. Conclusion: Laparoscopic spondylodesis has a good clinical outcome with a low rate of morbidity. Notable improvements can be achieved in terms of daily activities and quality of life; however, these improvements are moderate in degree, and patient activity remains somewhat limited.     

Postoperative spinal alignment comparison of lateral versus supine patient position L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion

European Spine Journal - Over the past decade, alternative patient positions for the treatment of the anterior lumbar spine have been explored in an effort to maximize the benefits of direct...     

Comparison of Dynesys posterior stabilization and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spinal stenosis L4L5

The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the radiological and clinical outcome after treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis L4L5 with or without spondylolisthesis, with either posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) (26 patients) or Dynesys posterior stabilization (27 patients). Demographic characteristics were comparable in both groups. Dynesys stabilization resulted in significantly higher preservation of motion at the index level (p < 0.001), and significantly less (p < 0.05) hypermobility at the adjacent segments. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and VAS for back and leg pain improved significantly (p < 0.05) with both methods, but there was no significant difference between groups. Operation time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay were all significantly (p < 0.001) less in the Dynesys group. The latter benefits may be of particular importance for elderly patients, or those with significant comorbidities. Complications were comparable in both groups. Dynesys posterior stabilization was effective for treating spinal stenosis L4L5 with or without spondylolisthesis.     

Risk factors for L5 pedicle fractures after single-level posterior spinal fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPedicle fractures are a rare but potentially devastating complication of posterior instrumented spinal fusion (PSF). Preoperative awareness of the possible risk factors may help prevent these fractures by modifying the surgical plan. However, the risk factors have not yet been identified.PURPOSETo determine the preoperative parameters associated with postoperative L5 pedicle fracture after L4/5 PSF.STUDY DESIGNCase control study.PATIENT SAMPLEPatients undergoing L4/5 PSF at a single academic institution between 2014 and 2020.OUTCOME MEASURESOccurrence of postoperative L5 pedicle fracture.METHODSOf 253 patients (female:male, 145:108) undergoing L4/5 PSF from 2014 to 2020, patients with postoperative L5 pedicle fractures were identified retrospectively as “cases” (n = 8, all female, age: 70 ± 10.7 years). As a control group all remaining patients with a follow-up of more than 12 months were allocated (n = 184, 104 females, age: 64.27 ± 13.00 years). In all but 16 cases, anterior support with transforaminal or posterior interbody fusion was performed. Demographic and clinical data (body mass index (BMI)), surgical factors, and comorbidities) were compared. Radiological assessment of spinopelvic parameters was performed using pre- and postoperative standing lateral radiographs.RESULTSThe overall incidence of L5 pedicle fractures after L4/5 spinal fusion was 3.16%, with a median time from index surgery to diagnosis of 25 days (range, 6–199 days) (75% within the first 32 days postoperatively). Patients with L5 pedicle fractures had higher pelvic incidence (PI) (71° ± 9° vs. 56° ± 11°; p=.001), sacral slope (SS) (45° ± 7° vs. 35° ± 8°; p=.002), L5 slope (30° ± 11° vs. 15° ± 10°, p=.001), L5 incidence (42° ± 14° vs. 26° ± 11°; p= .003), L1-S1 lumbar lordosis (LL) postop (57° ± 10° vs. 45° ± 11°; p=.006), and L4 -S1 LL postop (33° ± 7° vs. 28° ± 7°; p=.049) compared with the control group. Pelvic tilt and PI- LL mismatch were not significantly different. Female gender was a significant risk factor for L5 pedicle fractures (p=.015). BMI (kg/m²) was statistically equal in patients with or without pedicle fractures (28.37 ± 5.96 vs. 28.53 ± 16.32; p=.857). There was no significant difference between the groups for approximative bone mineral density assessment (Hounsfield units; 113 ± 60 vs. 120 ± 43; p=.396) using the L3 trabecular region of interest (ROI) measurement. The correlation analysis demonstrated that most of the identified risk factors except for the postoperative L4-S1 lordosis show significant positive associations among each other. All eight patients in the fracture group underwent revision surgery, and the instrumented fusion was extended to the sacrum, with the addition of sacral-alar-iliac or iliac screws, in six cases.CONCLUSIONSL5 pedicle fractures occurred in 3% of the patients after single level L4/5 PSF. Risk factors are female gender, higher PI, SS, L5 slope, L5 incidence, and LL postop but not high BMI. These findings can be used for surgical planning and decision of fusion levels.     

Nuances of oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1: Three case reports

BACKGROUNDOblique lumbar interbody fusion is a mini-open retroperitoneal approach that uses a wide corridor between the left psoas muscle and the aorta above L5. This approach avoids the limitations of lateral lumbar interbody fusion, is considered less invasive than anterior lumbar interbody fusion, and is similarly effective for indirect decompression and improving lordosis while maintaining a low complication profile. Including L5-S1, when required, adds to these advantages, as this allows single-position surgery. However, variations in vascular anatomy can affect the ease of access to the L5-S1 disc. The nuances of three different oblique anterolateral techniques to access L5-S1 for interbody fusion, namely, left-sided intra-bifurcation, left-sided pre-psoas, and right-sided pre-psoas approaches, are illustrated using three representative case studies.CASE SUMMARYCases of three patients who underwent multilevel oblique lumbar interbody fusion including L5-S1, using one of the three different techniques, are described. All patients presented with symptomatic degenerative lumbar pathology and failed conservative management prior to surgery. The anatomical considerations that affected the decisions to utilize each approach are discussed. The pros and cons of each approach are also discussed. A parasagittal facet line objectively assesses the relationship between the left common iliac vein and the L5-S1 disc and assists in choosing the approach to L5-S1.CONCLUSIONOblique retroperitoneal access to L5-S1 in the lateral decubitus position is possible through three different approaches. The choice of approach to L5-S1 may be individualized based on a patient’s vascular anatomy using preoperative imaging. While most surgeons will rely on their experience and comfort level in choosing the approach, this article elucidates the nuances of each technique.     

Laparoscopic discectomy with anterior interbody fusion of L5-S1

Background: A laparoscopic approach to the spine for the performance of a minimally invasive discectomy was first described in 1991. Since that time, a number of approaches to laparoscopic discectomy have appeared in the literature. Although these reports demonstrate the ability to approach the spine through a laparoscopic technique, they do not address the issues of loss of disc space, lumbar instability, and the need for interbody fusion. Methods: Described is a technique of laparoscopic discectomy with interbody fusion that has been performed successfully in 75 patients. Although a carbon fiber implant was utilized to aid in the fusion process, the technique can equally be performed using donor bone as the interbody support. In the 75 patients attempted, 73 procedures were successfully completed via the laparoscopic approach. One patient was converted to an open anterior approach due to extensive pelvic adhesions from prior surgery. A second patients procedure was aborted after the diagnostic laparoscopy demonstrated dense presacral scarring from a previous gynecological procedure. Results: There were no major complications in the series. Two patients with high riding bladders sustained bladder lacerations that were recognized and repaired with simple suture closure. There were no bowel injuries, and more importantly, no major vessel injury. The patients were discharged from the hospital on an average within 36 hours, with a return to work averaging between 2–4 weeks depending on the patients type of work. Using a modified pain score for evaluation, post operative pain was reduced by 75%. Conclusions: From this study, it is concluded that laparoscopic discectomy with interbody fusion is not only feasible, but appears to give good results with follow up extending out beyond two years. Issues regarding the use of carbon fiber cages vs. bone and indications of the procedure are independent of the laparoscopic approach and are addressed extensively in the orthopedic literature. It can be concluded that when there is surgical indication for L5-S1 discectomy, that a laparoscopic approach with interbody fusion may become the procedure of choice. Received: 14 May 1996/Accepted: 15 June 1996     

Anterior and posterior spinal fusion. Staged versus same-day surgery

Seventy-five patients who underwent combined anterior and posterior spinal fusion were compared to evaluate the results and safety of staged vs. continuous anterior and posterior spinal fusion. Thirty-five patients underwent two-stage anterior and posterior spinal fusion. The first stage consisted of anterior release; the second stage, which took place 7-10 days later, consisted of posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation. Forty patients underwent continuous anterior and posterior spinal fusion. This procedure consisted of anterior release followed by immediate posterior spinal fusion and instrumentation. The results show that 1) a continuous procedure is faster than the staged procedure; 2) there is less blood loss; 3) fewer days are spent in the hospital; and 4) better correction of the spinal deformity is achieved. Also, the complications were less frequent and less severe with the continuous procedure. It was concluded that the continuous procedure is safe and efficacious and has several advantages over the staged procedure.     

Recordings of the movement at the intervertebral segment L5-S1: a technique for the determination of the movement in the L5-S1 spinal segment by using three specified postural positions

The pathomechanism of low-back pain generation is not understood very well. Functional disturbances of motion at the individual segmental level appear to play a role in many cases. In this study a technique of numeric analysis of radiographic observations of the lumbar spine is developed by which the authors are able to assess the displacement of the two components of the L5-S1 motion segment in the sagittal plane when the subject assumes three specified standard postural positions.     

External fixation as a test for instability after spinal fusion L 4-S 1. A case report

A case presented with severe backache after fusion of the L 4-S 1 levels; the patient became immediately painfree after external transpedicular fixation between L 4 and the sacrum. The device was kept in place for 10 weeks. After an additional 4 weeks the patient was able to return to his work after several years of sick-leave. The case indicates instability as a cause of backache. Painful nonunion of a fusion can be present in spite of signs of healing on radiographs and CT-scan. External transpedicular fixation may be a good tool in assessing instability of the lower lumbar spine.     

Functional results after anterior lumbar fusion at L5-S1 in patients with normal and abnormal MRI scans.

The debate continues as to which patient responds best to surgical versus nonsurgical intervention for painful degenerative disc syndrome. Discography is often used as the basis for that decision. In a review of 53 cases followed for an average of 20 months after surgery, only 50% of patients with type I (contained) discography and normal magnetic resonance imaging findings were found to be improved. In those patients with types II and III (noncontained) discography and abnormal magnetic resonance imaging scans, a 75% success rate was seen. There was an overall 80% fusion rate for all patients who underwent anterior lumbar fusion at L5-S1. Average age was 34 years, with average length of disability from low-back pain of 11 months. All patients were placed in a similar presurgery and postsurgery rehabilitation protocol and had failed nonsurgical treatment options. In this matched group of patients, those with abnormal magnetic resonance imaging scans and abnormal discography, clearly fared better, with a 75% percent success rate versus 50% success rate in those with normal magnetic resonance imaging findings. This series raises the question as to whether those patients with normal magnetic resonance imaging findings are surgical candidates.     

Treatment of L5-S1 spondyloptosis with single-stage surgery through the posterior approach--case report

A 21-year-old male patient with L5-S1 spondyloptosis was treated by total L-5 laminectomy with foraminotomy and posterior fusion through the posterior approach. His complaints of severe low back pain and limited spine mobility were resolved. No new deficits occurred. The surgical management of spondyloptosis includes one-, two-, or three-stage operations with posterior, anterior, or combined approaches. Careful posterior decompression and posterior fusion without reduction may be adequate for the treatment of L5-S1 spondyloptosis.     

Effectiveness of supplemental screw fixation for the prevention of anterior cage migration in oblique lateral interbody fusion at L5-S1

BackgroundThe anterior cage at L5-S1 segment is more vulnerable to anterior migration because of the sacral slope, the greater disc angle (DA), the higher shear force, and the weaker pedicle screw fixation at S1. We hypothesized that a supplemental screw (SS) fixation is effective for the prevention of anterior cage migration in oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) at L5-S1.MethodsThis study involved 61 consecutive patients who underwent OLIF at L5-S1 and had more than 1-year regular follow-up. In the first 35 cases, the anterior cage was fixed with pedicle screws only (non-SS group). In the remaining 26 cases, the anterior cage was fixed with a SS and pedicle screws (SS group). Radiological parameters including anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), DA, cage migration, cage subsidence, and fusion rate at L5-S1 were compared between the two groups.ResultOf the total 61 patients, fifteen (24.6%) patients had an anterior cage migration of >2 mm and six (9.8%) patients had an anterior cage migration of >5 mm. Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups. The mean cage migration was 2.0 ± 3.1 mm in the non-SS group and 0.9 ± 0.9 mm in the SS group (P = 0.038). Thirteen (37.1%) patients had a cage migration of >2 mm in the non-SS group, while only two (7.7%) had a cage migration of >2 mm in the SS group (P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in the ADH, PDH, DA, cage subsidence, and fusion rate between the two groups (all P > 0.05). There was no SS-related complication in the SS group.ConclusionsSS fixation in front of the anterior L5-S1 cage is simple, safe, and effective for the prevention of anterior cage migration in OLIF at L5-S1.     

Minimum 2-year analysis of sacropelvic fixation and L5-S1 fusion using S1 and iliac screws

STUDY DESIGN: An analysis of lumbosacral fusions for high-grade spondylolisthesis fusions with reduction and long fusions to the sacrum in ambulatory adults. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and radiographic results of lumbosacral fusions using bilateral S1 and iliac screws. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: S1 screws often fail with lumbosacral fusions, whereas L5-S1 pseudarthrosis is common in patients with deformity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 81 patients (38 revision, 43 primary) with minimum 2-year follow-up (average, 4.2 years; range, 2.0-7.1 years) underwent L5-S1 fusion using S1 and iliac screws (158 screws). Forty-nine of 81 constructs (61%) included an anterior load-sharing/fixation device. Group 1 included isthmic spondylolisthesis (n = 42), whereas Group 2 included long fusions (> or =3 levels) to the sacrum (n = 39). In Group 2, 15 patients (Group 2A) were fused from L1, L2, or L3 to the sacrum (3-5 levels, average 3.3 levels) and 24 patients (Group 2B) were fused from the thoracic spine to the sacrum (6-17 levels, average 11.5 levels). Twelve patients had pseudarthrosis at L5-S1. A patient questionnaire was completed. RESULTS: A total of 36 of the 38 revision patients had previous iliac crest harvesting, yet iliac screws were placed in 34 of 36 patients. Overall, 78 of 80 patients had iliac crest harvesting (one not attempted). None had loss of screw fixation or iliac crest fracture after harvesting. Four of the 81 patients (4.9%) had pseudarthrosis at L5-S1 after reconstruction. This included solid fusion in 10 of 12 patients presenting with L5-S1 pseudarthrosis. Fourteen percent of patients experienced some discomfort over the iliac screws; however, only one patient required screw removal. CONCLUSIONS: Bilateral iliac screws coupled with bilateral S1 screws provide excellent distal fixation for lumbosacral fusions with a high fusion rate (95.1%) in high-grade spondylolisthesis and long fusions to the sacrum. Previous iliac crest harvesting does not prevent ipsilateral screw placement (34 of 36 patients) or additional iliac harvesting (78 of 80 patients).