Anterior to psoas fusion of the lumbar spine

Lateral interbody cages have proven useful in lumbar fusion surgery. Spanning both lateral cortical rims while sparing the anterior longitudinal ligament, they restore disc height, improve coronal balance and add stability. The standard approach to their insertion is 90 degrees lateral transpsoas which is bloodless compared to other techniques of interbody cage insertion but requires neuro-monitoring and at L4/5 can be difficult because of iliac crest obstruction or an anterior plexus position. The oblique muscle-splitting approach with the patient in a lateral position, remains retroperitoneal, and on the left side enters the disc space through a window between psoas and the common iliac vein. Reports of this approach are few and none previously have described how to use the large lateral-type cages so effective at restoring spinal alignment. In this video we demonstrate our technique of anterior to psoas fusion of the lumbar spine with a retroperitoneal approach and gentle retraction of the psoas muscle. The video can be found here: http://youtu.be/OS2vNcX9JMA. Neurosurgical focus, Vol. 35, Suppl. 2, Video 13. Video length: 12 minutes 33 seconds.1 pag

Assessment and classification of subsidence after lateral interbody fusion using serial computed tomography

Object: Intervertebral cage settling during bone remodeling after lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LIF) is a common occurrence during the normal healing process. Progression of this settling with endplate collapse is defined as subsidence. The purposes of this study were to 1) assess the rate of subsidence after minimally invasive (MIS) LIF by CT, 2) distinguish between early cage subsidence (ECS) and delayed cage subsidence (DCS), 3) propose a descriptive method for classifying the types of subsidence, and 4) discuss techniques for mitigating the risk of subsidence after MIS LIF. Methods: A total of 128 consecutive patients (with 178 treated levels in total) underwent MIS LIF performed by a single surgeon. The subsidence was deemed to be ECS if it was evident on postoperative Day 2 CT images and was therefore the result of an intraoperative vertebral endplate injury and deemed DCS if it was detected on subsequent CT scans (≥ 6 months postoperatively). Endplate breaches were categorized as caudal (superior endplate) and/or cranial (inferior endplate), and as ipsilateral, contralateral, or bilateral with respect to the side of cage insertion. Subsidence seen in CT images (radiographic subsidence) was measured from the vertebral endplate to the caudal or cranial margin of the cage (in millimeters). Patient-reported outcome measures included visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental component summary scores. Results: Four patients had ECS in a total of 4 levels. The radiographic subsidence (DCS) rates were 10% (13 of 128 patients) and 8% (14 of 178 levels), with 3% of patients (4 of 128) exhibiting clinical subsidence. In the DCS levels, 3 types of subsidence were evident on coronal and sagittal CT scans: Type 1, caudal contralateral, in 14% (2 of 14), Type 2, caudal bilateral with anterior cage tilt, in 64% (9 of 14), and Type 3, both endplates bilaterally, in 21% (3 of 14). The mean subsidence in the DCS levels was 3.2 mm. There was no significant difference between the numbers of patients in the subsidence (DCS) and no-subsidence groups who received clinical benefit from the surgical procedure, based on the minimum clinically important difference (p > 0.05). There was a significant difference between the fusion rates at 6 months (p = 0.0195); however, by 12 months, the difference was not significant (p = 0.2049). Conclusions: The authors distinguished between ECS and DCS. Radiographic subsidence (DCS) was categorized using descriptors for the location and severity of the subsidence. Neither interbody fusion rates nor clinical outcomes were affected by radiographic subsidence. To protect patients from subsidence after MIS LIF, the surgeon needs to take care with the caudal endplate during cage insertion. If a caudal bilateral (Type 2) endplate breach is detected, supplemental posterior fixation to arrest progression and facilitate fusion is recommended.9 page(s

The cientificWorldJOURNAL Clinical Study Clinical Outcome and Fusion Rates after the First 30 Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusions

Introduction. The lateral transpsoas approach for lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) is gaining popularity. Studies examining a surgeon's early experience are rare. We aim to report treatment, complication, clinical, and radiographic outcomes in an early series of patients. Methods. Prospective data from the first thirty patients treated with XLIF by a single surgeon was reviewed. Outcome measures included pain, disability, and quality of life assessment. Radiographic assessment of fusion was performed by computed tomography. Results. Average follow-up was 11.5 months, operative time was 60 minutes per level and blood loss was 50 mL. Complications were observed: clinical subsidence, cage breakage upon insertion, new postoperative motor deficit and bowel injury. Approach side-effects were radiographic subsidence and anterior thigh sensory changes. Two patients required reoperation; microforaminotomy and pedicle screw fixation respectively. VAS back and leg pain decreased 63% and 56%, respectively. ODI improved 41.2% with 51.3% and 8.1% improvements in PCS and MCS. Complete fusion (last follow-up) was observed in 85%. Conclusion. The XLIF approach provides superior treatment, clinical outcomes and fusion rates compared to conventional surgical approaches with lowered complication rates. Mentor supervision for early cases and strict adherence to the surgical technique including neuromonitoring is essential

Clinical Outcome and Fusion Rates after the First 30 Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusions

Introduction. The lateral transpsoas approach for lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) is gaining popularity. Studies examining a surgeon's early experience are rare. We aim to report treatment, complication, clinical, and radiographic outcomes in an early series of patients. Methods. Prospective data from the first thirty patients treated with XLIF by a single surgeon was reviewed. Outcome measures included pain, disability, and quality of life assessment. Radiographic assessment of fusion was performed by computed tomography. Results. Average follow-up was 11.5 months, operative time was 60 minutes per level and blood loss was 50 mL. Complications were observed: clinical subsidence, cage breakage upon insertion, new postoperative motor deficit and bowel injury. Approach side-effects were radiographic subsidence and anterior thigh sensory changes. Two patients required reoperation; microforaminotomy and pedicle screw fixation respectively. VAS back and leg pain decreased 63% and 56%, respectively. ODI improved 41.2% with 51.3% and 8.1% improvements in PCS and MCS. Complete fusion (last follow-up) was observed in 85%. Conclusion. The XLIF approach provides superior treatment, clinical outcomes and fusion rates compared to conventional surgical approaches with lowered complication rates. Mentor supervision for early cases and strict adherence to the surgical technique including neuromonitoring is essential

Early postoperative dislocation of the anterior Maverick lumbar disc prosthesis : report of 2 cases

The authors report on 2 cases of anterior dislocation of the Maverick lumbar disc prosthesis, both occurring in the early postoperative period. These cases developed after experience with more than 50 uneventful cases and were therefore thought to be unrelated to the surgeon s learning curve. No similar complications have been previously reported. The anterior Maverick device has a ball-and-socket design made of cobalt-chromium-molybdenum metal plates covered with hydroxyapatite. The superior and inferior endplates have keels to resist translation forces. The patient in Case 1 was a 52-year-old man with severe L4-5 discogenic pain; and in Case 2, a 42-year-old woman with disabling L4-5 and L5-S1 discogenic back pain. Both patients were without medical comorbidities and were nonsmokers with no risk factors for osteoporosis. Both had undergone uneventful retroperitoneal approaches performed by a vascular access surgeon. Computed tomography studies on postoperative Day 2 confirmed excellent prosthesis placement. Initial recoveries were uneventful. Two weeks postoperatively, after stretching (extension or hyperextension) in bed at home, each patient suffered the sudden onset of severe abdominal pain with anterior dislocation of the Maverick prosthesis. The patients were returned to the operating room and underwent surgery performed by the same spinal and vascular surgeons. Removal of the Maverick prosthesis and anterior interbody fusion with a separate cage and plate were performed. Both patients had recovered well with good clinical and radiological recovery at the 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Possible causes of the anterior dislocation of the Maverick prosthesis include the following: 1) surgeon error: In both cases the keel cuts were neat, and early postoperative CT confirmed good placement of the prosthesis; 2) equipment problem: The keel cuts may have been too large because the cutters were worn, which led to an inadequate press fit of the implants; 3) prosthesis fault: Both plates of the dislocated implants looked normal and manufacturer analysis reported no fault; 4) patient factors: Both dislocations happened early in the postoperative period, after hyperextension of the spine while the patient was supine in bed. Bracing would not have reduced hyperextension. Dislocation of a lumbar spinal implant represents a life-threatening complication and should therefore be considered and recognized early. Radiographic and CT studies of both the lumbar spine (for prosthesis) and the abdomen (for hematoma) should be performed, as should CT angiography (for vessel damage or occlusion). Any anterior lumbar revision surgery is hazardous, and it is strongly advisable to have a vascular surgeon scrubbed. In cases of dislocation or extrusion of a lumbar interbody prosthesis, the salvage revision strategy is fusing the segment via the same anterior approach. Surgeons should be aware of the risk of anterior dislocation of the Maverick prosthesis. Keel cutters should be regularly checked for sharpness, as they may be implicated in the loosening of implants. Patients and their physical therapists should also avoid lumbar hyperextension in the early postoperative period.6 page(s

Lateral extent and ventral laminar attachments of the lumbar ligamentum flavum : cadaveric study

Background context: Cadaveric descriptions of the deep layer of the lumbar ligamentum flavum (LF), extending between contiguous borders of adjacent laminae and into the lateral spinal canal region are limited. Purpose: To provide detailed descriptions of the lumbar LF. Study design: Cadaveric dissection. Methods: The deep ligamentum flava of 14 formalin-fixed human cadaver lumbar spines (140 levels) were examined to assess their laminar attachments and lateral extents in relation to the intervertebral foramen. Results: The variable attachment of the deep layer of the LF with respect to the cephalad and caudad laminae was identified and described. At each successive caudal level of the lumbar spine, the deep layer appeared to become a more prominent feature of the posterior vertebral column, lining more of the laminae to which it is attached and encroaching further into the posteroinferior region of the intervertebral foramen at its lateral margins. Conclusions: We describe our observations of the deep LF in the human lumbar spine. These observations have clinical relevance for the interpretation of radiologic imaging and the performance of adequate decompression in the setting of spinal stenosis.5 page(s

Maintenance of segmental lordosis and disk height in stand-alone and instrumented extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF)

Study Design: A prospective single-surgeon nonrandomized clinical study. Objective: To evaluate the radiographic and clinical outcomes, by fixation type, in extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) patients and provide an algorithm for determining patients suitable for stand-alone XLIF. Summary of Background Data: XLIF may be supplemented with pedicle screw fixation, however, since stabilizing structures remain intact, it is suggested that stand-alone XLIF can be used for certain indications. This eliminates the associated morbidity, though subsidence rates may be elevated, potentially minimizing the clinical benefits. Materials and Methods: A fixation algorithm was developed after evaluation of patient outcomes from the surgeon's first 30 cases. This algorithm was used prospectively for 40 subsequent patients to determine the requirement for supplemental fixation. Preoperative, postoperative, and 12-month follow-up computed tomography scans were measured for segmental and global lumbar lordosis and posterior disk height. Clinical outcome measures included back and leg pain (visual analogue scale), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and SF-36 physical and mental component scores (PCS and MCS). Results: Preoperatively to 12-month follow-up there were increases in segmental lordosis (7.9-9.4 degrees, P=0.0497), lumbar lordosis (48.8-55.2 degrees, P=0.0328), and disk height (3.7-5.5 mm, P=0.0018); there were also improvements in back (58.6%) and leg pain (60.0%), ODI (44.4%), PCS (56.7%), and MCS (16.1%) for stand-alone XLIF. For instrumented XLIF, segmental lordosis (7.6-10.5 degrees, P=0.0120) and disk height (3.5-5.6 mm, P<0.001) increased, while lumbar lordosis decreased (51.1-45.8 degrees, P=0.2560). Back (49.8%) and leg pain (30.8%), ODI (32.3%), PCS (37.4%), and MCS (2.0%) were all improved. Subsidence occurred in 3 (7.5%) stand-alone patients. Conclusions: The XLIF treatment fixation algorithm provided a clinical pathway to select suitable patients for stand-alone XLIF. These patients achieved positive clinical outcomes, satisfactory fusion rates, with sustained correction of lordosis and restoration of disk height.9 page(s