Comparing the medium-term outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion via transforaminal and oblique approach in treating lumbar degenerative disc diseases

BACKGROUND CONTEXTOblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be effective in treating lumbar degenerative disorders (LDDs) via indirect decompression. However, its superiority over transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains questionable, especially in terms of medium-term follow-up.PURPOSETo compare the medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes of TLIF and OLIF in treating patients with LDDs.STUDY DESIGNRetrospective comparative study.PATIENT SAMPLEFifty-two patients treated by TLIF and forty-six patients treated by OLIF.OUTCOME MEASURESClinical records including the visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back and leg and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiological records including disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, and fusion rate. Surgical-related information and complications were also recorded.METHODSA retrospective review was performed on patients who were surgically managed for LDDs at L4–5 between 2015 and 2017 and completed at least 4 years of follow-up. A total of 98 patients were analyzed, with 46 patients treated by OLIF combined with anterolateral single screw-rod fixation (OLIF-AF group), and 52 patients treated by TLIF (TLIF group). Parameters including postoperative outcomes and perioperative complications were compared with evaluate the efficacy of the two approaches.RESULTSThere was significantly less bleeding, surgical duration, and hospitalization in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group. Significant improvements in the clinical score were achieved in both groups. However, the VAS score of the lower back was significantly higher in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group throughout the whole follow-up period. Significantly higher expansion of the CSA was found in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group. However, the improvements in DH, LL, and SL were significantly lower in the TLIF group. The fusion rate was significantly higher in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group within 6 months postoperatively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups at the final record. No significant difference was found in the rate of overall complications between the two groups (25.0% vs. 23.9%, p=.545). The intraoperative complication rate in the TLIF group (13.5%) was slightly higher than that in the OLIF-AF group (6.5%) (p=.257). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adjacent segment disorder (ASD) between the two groups (7.7% vs. 10.9%, p=.422). Cage subsidence was slightly lower in the TLIF group (5.8%) than in the OLIF-AF group (13.0%) (p=.298).CONCLUSIONSBoth the TLIF and OLIF-AF approaches demonstrated good medium-term outcomes in treating LDDs. Compared with TLIF, OLIF-AF showed advantages in postoperative recovery, improvement of intervertebral space and lumbar sagittal balance, and early intervertebral fusion but was associated with inferior spinal canal decompression efficacy. The two approaches shared comparable overall complication rates. However, OLIF-AF tended to have fewer intraoperative complications, and a higher incidence of subsidence.     

Postoperative change in lumbopelvic alignment after short-segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is related to preoperative postural difference in lumbar lordosis

BackgroundPostoperative changes in lumbar lordosis (LL) after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and the related factors are not well-understood. Recently, the preoperative difference in LL between standing and supine positions (DiLL) was proposed as a factor for predicting postoperative radiologic outcomes after short-segment TLIF. This study investigated the influence of DiLL on mid-term radiological outcomes after short-segment TLIF.MethodsSixty-six patients with lumbar degenerative disease treated with short-segment TLIF (1–2 levels) who underwent lumbar spine standing radiographs at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years postoperatively were divided into DiLL (+) and DiLL (−) groups (preoperative DiLL ≥0° and <0°, respectively). Associations between the postoperative change in LL and DiLL and clinical outcomes (Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Nakai score) were evaluated.ResultsTemporary restoration of LL (+4.5°) until 1 year postoperatively and a subsequent decrease in LL from 1 to 5 years postoperatively (−5.3°) was observed in the DiLL (+) group. No postoperative change in LL was observed in the DiLL (−) group. Postoperative changes in LL were mainly observed in non-fused segments. The postoperative change in LL (ΔLL) until 1 year postoperatively had a significant positive association with DiLL (p = 0.00028), whereas ΔLL from 1 to 5 years postoperatively showed a significant negative association with DiLL (p = 0.010) and a positive association with Nakai score (p = 0.028). ΔLL until 5 years postoperatively showed a significant positive association with postoperative ODI improvement (p = 0.011).ConclusionsDiLL (+) patients showed a specific time course with temporary LL restoration until 1 year postoperatively and a subsequent decrease in LL from 1 to 5 years postoperatively. Patients with larger postoperative increase in LL until 5 years postoperatively and lesser decrease in LL from 1 to 5 years postoperatively tended to show better mid-term clinical outcomes.     

斜外侧椎间融合术与微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术治疗单节段轻中度腰椎滑脱的临床疗效

目的 比较斜外侧椎间融合术（OLIF）与微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术（MIS-TLIF）治疗单节段轻中度腰椎滑脱的临床疗效和影像学结果。方法 2015年2月—2018年2月,收治单节段轻中度腰椎滑脱患者48例,其中22例采用OLIF治疗（OLIF组）,26例采用MIS-TLIF治疗（MIS-TLIF组）。记录2组手术时间、术中出血量、住院时间及并发症发生情况;术前及术后1周、1个月、6个月及末次随访时采用疼痛视觉模拟量表（VAS）评分和Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）评估腰腿痛程度及腰椎功能。术前及末次随访时在影像学资料上测量腰椎前凸角（LL）、手术节段Cobb角、椎间高度（DH）、椎管横截面积（CSA）及椎间孔面积（FA）。结果 所有手术顺利完成,所有患者随访24～45个月,平均32.8个月。OLIF组手术时间、术中出血量及住院时间明显少于MIS-TLIF组,差异均有统计学意义（P <0.05）。2组术后各随访时间点VAS评分和ODI较术前明显改善,差异均有统计学意义（P <0.05）;术后1周OLIF组VAS评分和ODI优于MIS-TLIF组,差异均有统计学意义...     

斜外侧腰椎体间融合术初次术后邻近节段退变

[目的]评价斜外侧腰椎体间融合术(oblique lumbar interbody fusion,0LIF)治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段退变的临床效果。[方法]回顾性分析2016年12月一2019年12月本院脊柱外科采用0LIF术治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段退变50例患者的临床资料。[结果]50例患者均顺利完成手术,均未发生严重并发症。所有患者随访12?16个月,平均(13.74±1.63)个月。术后(12.66±3.64)周患者恢复完全负重活动。随访期间,患者术后疼痛逐步减缓,功能逐步改善。与术前相比较,末次随访时VAS和0DI评分均显著下降(P<0.05)。影像方面,与术前相比,末次随访时患者的腰椎前凸角(LL)显著增加(P<0.05),而侧凸Cobb角显著减少(P<0.05)。至末次随访时,50例患者再次手术椎间隙均达到骨性融合,椎间融合器无移位、下沉。[结论]采用0LIF治疗腰椎融合术后邻近节段退变具有较好的安全性和有效性。     

The impact of interbody approach and lumbar level on segmental,adjacent, and sagittal alignment in degenerative lumbar pathology: a radiographic analysis six months following surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXTInterbody fusion, including: transforaminal (TLIF), posterior (PLIF), anterior (ALIF), and lateral (LLIF); effectively treat lumbar degenerative pathology and provide spinopelvic balance. Although the decision on surgical approach and technique are multifactorial and patient specific, the impact of the interbody approach on segmental and adjacent level lordosis could be an important factor to consider during pre-operative planning to achieve pre-specified alignment goals.PURPOSEThe purpose of this study is to compare the 6-month postoperative radiographic outcomes in the lumbar spine following 1 to 2 level transforaminal (TLIF), posterior (PLIF), anterior (ALIF), and lateral (LLIF) interbody fusions at the L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 levels. As our primary outcome, we evaluated the change in segmental lordosis at the level of fusion in ALIF/LLIF approaches compared to TLIF/PLIF. Secondarily, we evaluated the pelvic incidence to lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and examined the compensatory lordotic changes at the adjacent levels 6 months following surgery.STUDY DESIGNRetrospective cohort.PATIENT SAMPLEThis retrospective study included 18 centers of various practice settings across the United States. Patients were included in the study if they underwent a one- or two-level primary lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology.OUTCOMES MEASURESMeasurements of the pre-operative and 6-month post-operative lumbar AP and lateral lumbar plain radiographs included: pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt, lumbar lordosis from L1-S1 (LL), as well as segmental lordosis (SL) of each segment between L1-S1.METHODSDue to there being 2 evaluated time points, patients were then grouped based on alignment into categories of preserved, restored, not corrected, and worsened.RESULTS474 patients underwent 608 levels of fusion. ALIF/LLIF resulted in significantly more segmental lordosis compared to TLIF/PLIF procedures at both L4-5 and L5-S1 (p<.001). Overall, ALIF/LLIF resulted in significantly more global lumbar lordotic alignment change compared to TLIF/PLIF (p=.01). Whether patients’ alignment was preserved versus worsened was not significantly predicted by type of procedure. Similarly, whether patients’ alignment was restored versus not corrected was not significantly predicted by type of procedure. Finally, anterior approaches resulted in decreased lordosis at adjacent levels, thus resulting in a more neutral position.CONCLUSIONIn this large multicenter retrospective study of 1 to 2 level interbody fusion surgeries, we identified that A/LLIF procedures at L4-L5 and L5-S1 resulted in greater segmental lordosis restoration and PI-LL mismatch improvement compared to T/PLIF procedures. A/LLIF may also significantly reduce lordosis (compared to T/PLIF) at the adjacent levels in a fashion that serves to reduce the lumbar lordosis that may have been increased at the fused level.     

Indirect decompression via oblique lateral interbody fusion for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study with direct decompression transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion

Background contextPrevious studies have shown that oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) can improve neurological symptoms via “indirect decompression.” However, data are lacking in terms of its benefits when compared with conventional transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and/or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approach, especially in patients with severe central canal stenosis.PurposeTo investigate the clinical outcome of OLIF without posterior decompression versus conventional TLIF and/or PLIF in severe lumbar stenosis diagnosed on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging.Study designRetrospective comparative study.Patient sampleFifty-one patients who underwent OLIF and 41 patients who underwent conventional TLIF and/or PLIF.Outcome measuresClinical outcome score by Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and radiographic outcomes (disc height and fusion rate on computed tomography scan).Materials/methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 51 patients who underwent OLIF with supplemental percutaneous pedicle screws (55 levels; OLIF group) and 41 patients who underwent conventional TLIF and/or PLIF (47 levels; TPLIF group). The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac was measured preoperatively in OLIF and TPLIF groups, but postoperatively only in the OLIF group. All patients were diagnosed with severe stenosis based on Schizas classification (Grade C or D) on magnetic resonance imaging. We compared radiographic and clinical outcome scores (JOA score) between the 2 groups at 1 year of follow-up. The radiographic evaluation included the fusion status and disc height on computed tomography scan. Surgical data and perioperative complications were also investigated.ResultsThe baseline demographic data of the 2 groups were equivalent in preoperative diagnosis, JOA score, and disc height and/or angle. The cross-sectional area significantly increased postoperatively, which confirmed indirect decompressive effect in the OLIF group. The JOA score improved in both groups at the 1-year follow up (76.6% vs. 73.5% improvement rate in the OLIF and TPLIF groups, respectively). The fusion rate at the 1-year follow-up was higher in the OLIF group than in the TPLIF group (87.2% vs. 57.4%). The disc height restoration was also better in the OLIF group. The operative data demonstrated less estimated blood loss and operative time in the OLIF group.ConclusionsOLIF and conventional TLIF and/or PLIF demonstrated comparable short-term clinical outcomes in the treatment of severe degenerative lumbar stenosis. However, the surgical and radiographic outcomes were better in the OLIF group. Surgeons should choose an appropriate approach on a case by case basis, recognizing the perioperative complications specific to each fusion procedure.     

斜外侧入路与微创经椎间孔入路椎间融合术治疗退变性腰椎滑脱的早期疗效及影像学对比

目的:比较斜外侧入路腰椎椎间融合术(oblique lumbar interbody fusion,OLIF)和Quadrant可扩张通道下微创经椎间孔入路腰椎椎间融合术(minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,MIS-TLIF)治疗退变性腰椎滑脱的短期临床疗效及影像学差异。方法:对2019年4月至2020年10月行OLIF与MIS-TLIF两种微创手术方式治疗的58例腰椎滑脱患者进行回顾性分析。其中采用OLIF治疗28例(OLIF组),男15例,女13例;年龄47～84(63.00±9.38)岁;采用MIS-TLIF治疗30例(MIS-TLIF组),男17例,女13例;年龄43～78岁(61.13±11.10)岁。记录两组患者的一般情况,包括手术时间、术中出血量、术后引流量、并发症、卧床时间、住院时间;比较两组患者的影像学资料,包括椎间盘高度、椎间孔高度、腰椎前凸角;并通过疼痛视觉模拟评分(visual analogue scale,VAS)和Oswestry功能障碍指数(Oswestry disabilit...     

实时三维导航辅助微创经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术后腰骶部矢状位平衡参数变化分析

目的:探讨实时三维导航辅助微创经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion,MIS-TLIF)与传统开放TLIF术治疗腰椎退行性疾病后腰骶部矢状位参数的动态变化.方法:回顾性分析2017年9月至2019年9月行单节段手术治疗...     

OLIF versus ALIF: Which is the better surgical approach for degenerative lumbar disease? A systematic review

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographical outcomes between OLIF and ALIF in treating lumbar degenerative diseases.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for relevant studies. Changes in disc height (DH), segmental lordosis angle (SLA), lumbar lordosis (LL), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) between baseline and final follow-up, along with other important surgical outcomes, were assessed and analysed. Data on the global fusion rate and main complications were collected and compared.

Results

Approximately, 2041 patients from 36 studies were included, consisting of 1057 patients who underwent OLIF and 984 patients who underwent ALIF. The results reveal no significant difference in DH, SLA, VAS score, and ODI between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The operation time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay were also comparable between the two groups. Over 90% of the fusion rate was achieved in both groups. The OLIF group showed a higher complication rate than the ALIF group (OLIF 18.83% vs ALIF 7.32%).

Conclusions

OLIF leads to a higher complication rate, with the most notable complication being cage subsidence. Both OLIF and ALIF are effective treatments for degenerative lumbar diseases and have similar therapeutic effects. ALIF was expected to be more expensive for patients because of the necessity of involving vascular surgeons.

     

Four types of global spine sagittal alignment and compensation mechanism in adult patients with lumbar degenerative disease

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to describe and classify common variations and compensation mechanisms in the sagittal alignment of the spine with lumbar degenerative disease.MethodsA total of 230 patients over 18 years old who underwent whole-spine X-rays to evaluate lower back pain were enrolled in this study. C7 slope, pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI), thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), cervical lordosis (CL), thoracolumbar kyphosis (TLK), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were measured. Patients were divided into Group A (balance without compensation), B (balance with compensation), C (unbalance with compensation), and D (unbalance without compensation) according to spinopelvic balance and thoracic compensation.ResultsGroup A had the largest LL, smallest PT, largest SS, and best clinical parameters of the four groups (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001). The age increased gradually from Group B to Group D. Group B had an increased TK compared with Group A (p < 0.001). Group C had an increased TK compared with Group A (p < 0.001). Group D had an increased C7 slope compared with Group A (p = 0.022).ConclusionsThis classification is shown four different regional and global alignments of the spine. Compensation took place to keep the balance of the spine. Classification types were consistent with age, compensation abilities, and clinical parameters. This classification potentially represents a valuable tool for comprehensive analysis of lumbar degenerative before surgical treatment considering sagittal balance.     

Does approach matter? A comparative radiographic analysis of spinopelvic parameters in single-level lumbar fusion

Background Context

Lumbar fusion is a popular and effective surgical option to provide stability and restore anatomy. Particular attention has recently been focused on sagittal alignment and radiographic spinopelvic parameters that apply to lumbar fusion as well as spinal deformity cases. Current literature has demonstrated the effectiveness of various techniques of lumbar fusion; however, comparative data of these techniques are limited.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior posterior surgery improves operative efficiency,improves perioperative outcomes,and maintains radiological outcomes comparable with traditional anterior posterior fusion at minimum 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND CONTEXTThe advantages of lateral single position surgery (LSPS) in the perioperative period has previously been demonstrated, however 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively.PURPOSEEvaluate the safety and efficacy of LSPS versus gold-standard FLIPSTUDY DESIGN/SETTINGMulticenter retrospective cohort review.PATIENT SAMPLEFour hundred forty-two patients undergoing lumbar fusion via LSPS or FLIPOUTCOME MEASURESLevels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, and reasons for reoperation at 30-days, 90-days, 1-year, and 2-years. Radiographic outcomes included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch, and segmental lumbar lordosis.METHODSPatients were grouped as LSPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure under the same anesthetic. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2-years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<.05.RESULTSFour hundred forty-two patients met inclusion, including 352 LSPS and 90 FLIP patients. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs 56.9; p≤.001) and smoking status (7% vs 16%; p=.023) between the LSPS and FLIP groups. LSPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p<.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p<.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p<.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs 3.61 days; p<.001) compared to FLIP. LSPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9% vs 34.4%; p=.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p<.001). No differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%LSPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=.125), 90-day (5.1%LSPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.441). LSPS group had a significantly lower preoperative PI-LL (4.1° LSPS vs 8.6°FLIP, p=.018), and a significantly greater postoperative LL (56.6° vs 51.8°, p = .006). No significant differences were noted in rates of fusion (94.3% LSPS vs 97.8% FLIP; p=.266) or subsidence (6.9% LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.260).CONCLUSIONSLSPS and circumferential fusions have similar outcomes at 2-years post-operatively, while reducing perioperative complications, improving perioperative efficiency and safety.     

Should patients with lumbar stenosis and grade I spondylolisthesis be treated differently based on spinopelvic alignment? A retrospective,two-year,propensity matched,comparison of patient-reported outcome measures and clinical outcomes from multiple sites within a single health system

BACKGROUNDDegenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is one of the most common pathologies addressed by surgeons. Recently, data demonstrated improved outcomes with fusion in conjunction with laminectomy compared to laminectomy alone. However, given not all degenerative spondylolistheses are clinically comparable, the best treatment option may depend on multiple parameters. Specifically, the impact of spinopelvic alignment on patient reported and clinical outcomes following fusion versus decompression for grade I spondylolisthesis has yet to be explored.PURPOSEThis study assessed two-year clinical outcomes and one-year patient reported outcomes following laminectomy with concomitant fusion versus laminectomy alone for management of grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis. The present study is the first to examine the effect of spinopelvic alignment on patient-reported and clinical outcomes following decompression alone versus decompression with fusion.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective sub-group analysis of observational, prospectively collected cohort study.PATIENT SAMPLE679 patients treated with laminectomy with fusion or laminectomy alone for grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis and comorbid spinal stenosis performed by orthopaedic and neurosurgeons at three medical centers affiliated with a single, tertiary care center.OUTCOME MEASURESThe primary outcome was the change in Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS), Global Physical Health (GPH), and Global Mental Health (GMH) scores at baseline and post-operatively at 4-6 and 10-12 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included operative parameters (estimated blood loss and operative time), and two-year clinical outcomes including reoperations, duration of postoperative physical therapy, and discharge disposition.METHODSRadiographs/MRIs assessed stenosis, spondylolisthesis, pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, sacral slope, and pelvic tilt; from this data, two cohorts were created based on pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis (PILL), denoted as “high” and “low” mismatch. Patients underwent either decompression or decompression with fusion; propensity score matching (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to create matched cohorts of “cases” (fusion) and “controls” (decompression). Binary comparisons used McNemar test; continuous outcomes used Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Between-group comparisons of changes in PROMIS GPH and GMH scores were analyzed using mixed-effects models; analyses were conducted separately for patients with high and low pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PILL) mismatch.RESULTS49.9% of patients (339) underwent lumbar decompression with fusion, while 50.1% (340) received decompression. In the high PLL mismatch cohort at 10-12 months postoperatively, fusion-treated patients reported improved PROs, including GMH (26.61 vs. 20.75, p<0.0001) and GPH (23.61 vs. 18.13, p<0.0001). They also required fewer months of outpatient physical therapy (1.61 vs. 3.65, p<0.0001) and had lower 2-year reoperation rates (12.63% vs. 17.89%, p=0.0442) compared to decompression-only patients. In contrast, in the low PLL mismatch cohort, fusion-treated patients demonstrated worse endpoint PROs (GMH: 18.67 vs. 21.52, p<0.0001; GPH: 16.08 vs. 20.74, p<0.0001). They were also more likely to require skilled nursing/rehabilitation centers (6.86% vs. 0.98%, p=0.0412) and extended outpatient physical therapy (2.47 vs. 1.34 months, p<0.0001) and had higher 2-year reoperation rates (25.49% vs. 14.71%,p=0.0152).CONCLUSIONSLumbar laminectomy with fusion was superior to laminectomy in health–related quality of life and reoperation rate at two years postoperatively only for patients with sagittal malalignment, represented by high PILL mismatch. In contrast, the addition of fusion for patients with low-grade spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, and spinopelvic harmony (low PILL mismatch) resulted in worse quality of life outcomes and reoperation rates.     

Osteotomies through a fusion mass in the lumbar spine

Introduction

Flat-back syndrome is one of the main causes of surgical failure after lumbar fusion and can lead to a revision surgery to correct it. Three-column pedicle subtraction osteotomy is an efficient technique to restore lumbar lordosis (LL) for fixed sagittal malalignment. The fusion mass stemming from the past surgeries makes the procedure demanding as most anatomical landmarks are missing.

Material and methods

This review article will focus on the correction of this lack of LL through the fusion mass. We will successively review the preoperative management, the surgical specificities, and various types of clinical cases that can be encountered in flat-back syndromes.

Conclusion

PSO in the fixed fusion mass is technically demanding. Preoperative CT-scan and preoperative navigation allow us to push the limits when anatomical landmarks disappear. Bleeding and neurologic are the two major complications feared by the surgeon. The best way to avoid these revision surgeries is to restore a proper lumbar lordosis at the time of initial surgery by considering lumbo-pelvic indexes.

     

Relation between the sagittal pelvic and lumbar spine geometries following surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis

Sagittal spinopelvic relations have been reported in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), but there is little information on their effect following surgery. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relation between the pelvic and lumbar spine geometries following posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion (PSIF). Sixty patients with AIS undergoing PSIF were studied retrospectively. Thoracic kyphosis (TK), lumbar lordosis (LL), LL within and below fusion, pelvic incidence (PI), sacral slope (SS) and pelvic tilt (PT) were measured on preoperative and postoperative standing lateral radiographs. Significant postoperative correlations were found between PI and LL (r = 0.67), SS and LL (r = 0.90), PI and LL below fusion (r = 0.40), SS and LL below fusion (r = 0.48). Pelvic parameters did not influence LL within fusion. A strong correlation was found between LL below and within fusion (r = −0.76). The close interdependence between lumbar lordosis and pelvic geometry preoperatively is maintained postoperatively following PSIF. In the planning of surgery for AIS, it may be helpful to evaluate the sagittal pelvic morphology (PI) in addition to the spinal curves. Preoperative evaluation of the pelvic morphology could be used to optimize intraoperative positioning of the patient and to determine the optimal amount of LL that needs to be restored or preserved by the instrumentation, so that LL remains congruent with the pelvic morphology.     

What is the fate of the adjacent segmental angles 6 months after single-level L3–4 or L4–5 lateral lumbar interbody fusion?

Background ContextLateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is an effective technique for fusion and sagittal alignment correction/maintenance. Studies have investigated the impact on the segmental angle and lumbar lordosis (and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch), however not much is documented regarding the immediate compensation of the adjacent angles.PurposeTo evaluate acute adjacent and segmental angle as well as lumbar lordosis changes in patients undergoing a L3–4 or L4–5 LLIF for degenerative pathology.Study Design/SettingRetrospective cohort study.Patient SamplePatients included in this study were analyzed pre- and post-LLIF performed by one of three fellowship-trained spine surgeons, 6 months following surgery.Outcome MeasuresPatient demographics (including body mass index, diabetes diagnosis, age, and sex) as well as VAS and ODI scores were measured. Lateral lumbar radiograph parameters: lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), infra and supra-adjacent segmental angle, and pelvic incidence (PI).MethodsMultiple regressions were applied for the main hypothesis tests. We examined any interactive effects at each operative level and used the 95% confidence intervals to determine significance: a confidence interval excluding zero indicates a significant effect.ResultsWe identified 84 patients who underwent a single level LLIF (61 at L4–5, 23 at L3–4). For both the overall sample and at each operative level, the operative segmental angle was significantly more lordotic postop compared to preop (all ps≤.01). Adjacent segmental angles were significantly less lordotic postop compared to pre-op overall (p=.001). For the overall sample, greater lordotic change at the operative segment led to more compensatory reduction of lordosis at the supra-adjacent segment. At L4–5, more lordotic change at the operative segment led to more compensatory lordosis reduction at the infra-adjacent segment.ConclusionThe present study demonstrated that LLIF resulted in significant increase in operative level lordosis and a compensatory decrease in supra- and infra-adjacent level lordosis, and subsequently no significant impact on spinopelvic mismatch.     

Anterolateral retroperitoneal psoas-sparing lumbar interbody fusion outcomes

ObjectiveAnterolateral Retroperitoneal Psoas-sparing, Anterior to Psoas (ATP) or oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) is a psoas sparing technique postulated to decrease iatrogenic lumbar plexus injury. The goal of this paper is to assess the outcomes of the OLIF interbody fusion technique.ResultsOLIF procedures have a high rate of fusion with a low rate of complications particularly from L2-L5. Complications are more common, although still low, from L5-S1, primarily including cage subsidence and vascular injury.ConclusionThe Anterolateral Retroperitoneal Psoas-sparing approach to lumbar interbody fusion is a safe approach with a low complication and high fusion rate, resulting in excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes.     

Whether Anterolateral Single Rod Can Maintain the Surgical Outcomes Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Double‐Segment Disc Disease

ObjectiveTo evaluate the outcomes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with anterolateral single‐rod screw fixation (AF) in treating two‐segment lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) and to determine whether AF can maintain the surgical results.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent OLIF combined with AF (OLIF‐AF) for LDDD at the L3‐5 levels between October 2017 and May 2018. A total of 84 patients, including 44 males and 40 females, with a mean age of 62.8 ± 6.8 years, who completed the 12‐month follow‐up were eventually enrolled. Clinical outcomes, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) score for the low back and leg, and radiographic parameters, including the cross‐sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), degree of upper vertebral slippage (DUVS), segmental lumbar lordosis (SL), fusion rate, and lumbar lordosis (LL), were recorded before surgery and 1 and 12 months after surgery. Surgical‐related complications, including cage subsidence (CS), were also evaluated. The local radiographic parameters were compared between L3‐4 and L4‐5. The clinical results and all radiographic parameters were compared between patients with and without CS.ResultsSignificant improvements were observed in radiographic parameters 1 day postoperatively (p < 0.05). Local radiological parameters in L4‐5 had a significant decrease at 12 months postoperatively (p < 0.05), while they were well‐maintained at L3‐4 throughout the follow‐up period (p > 0.05). CS was observed in 26 segments (15.5%). Endplate injury was observed in four segments (2.4%). There was no significant difference in the fusion rate between the segments with and without CS (p = 0.355). The clinical results improved significantly after surgery (p < 0.05), and no significant difference was observed between the groups with and without CS (p > 0.05).ConclusionsAnterolateral fixation combined with OLIF provides sufficient stability to sustain most radiological improvements in treating double‐segment LDDD. Subsidence was the most common complication, which was prone to occur in L4‐5 compared to L3‐4, but did not impede the fusion process or diminish the surgical results.     

Risk factors for postoperative ileus after oblique lateral interbody fusion: a multivariate analysis

Background ContextOblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF)–has become a widely used, efficient surgical tool for various degenerative lumbar conditions. Postoperative ileus (POI) is a relatively common complication after anterior lumbar interbody fusion due to the manipulation of the intestine during the surgical approach. However, to our knowledge, little is known about POI following OLIF even though it also involves bowel manipulation during a surgical procedure.PurposeTo assess the incidence of POI and identify independent risk factors for POI development after OLIF.Study Design/SettingRetrospective cohort study.Patient SampleAll consecutive patients who underwent OLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation from August 2012 until October 2019 at a single institutionOutcome MeasuresPatient demographics (sex, age, body weight, height, and body mass index), comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux disease, antithrombotic medication, previous abdominal surgery, and previous lumbar surgery), and perioperative details (preoperative diagnosis, number of levels fused, inadvertent endplate fracture during cage insertion, type of interbody graft, intraoperative estimated blood loss, duration of surgery and anesthesia, the amount of intraoperative remifentanil and propofol used as anesthetic agents, the total postoperative retroperitoneal closed-suction drainage output, and the cumulative opioid dosage administered in the first 72 hours postoperatively).MethodsPOI was defined as 2 or more of the following at 72 hours postoperatively: (1) ongoing nausea or vomiting postoperatively, (2) the absence of flatus over last 24-hour period, (3) inability to tolerate an oral diet over last 24-hour period, (4) ongoing abdominal distention postoperatively, and (5) radiological confirmation. The subjects were divided into 2 groups: patients with POI and those without POI. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed on demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative factors to identify independent risk factors for POI.ResultsEighteen (3.9%) of 460 patients experienced POI after OLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation. Patients with POI had a significantly longer postoperative length of hospital stay than those without POI (8.61 ± 2.66 vs 6.48 ± 2.64, p = .001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified inadvertent endplate fracture (adjusted odds ratio = 6.017, p = .001) and the amount of intraoperative remifentanil (adjusted odds ratio = 1.057, p = .024) as independent risk factors for the occurrence of POI following OLIF.ConclusionThis study identified inadvertent endplate fracture and the amount of intraoperative remifentanil as independent risk factors for the development of POI after OLIF.