RESUMEN

Background: Flatback deformity, or lumbar hypolordosis, can cause sagittal imbalance, causing back pain, fatigue, and functional limitation. Surgical correction through osteotomies and interbody fusion techniques can restore sagittal balance and relieve pain. This study investigated sagittal vertical alignment (SVA) and lumbar lordosis correction achieved through sequential procedures on human spine specimens. Methods: Human T10-sacrum specimens were stratified into 2 groups: degenerative flatback specimens had smaller L1-S1 lordosis compared to the iatrogenic group (26.1°±15.0° vs. 47.8°±19.3°, p<.05). Specimens were mounted in the apparatus in simulated standing posture with a nominal sacral slope of 45 degrees and subjected to a 400N compressive follower preload. Sequential correction of degenerative lumbar flatback deformity involved: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5-S1, ALIF at L4-5, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) at L2-3 and L3-4, and posterior column osteotomy (PCO) at L2-3 and L3-4. In iatrogenic specimens, flatback deformity was created by performing a posterior in-situ immobilization using pedicle screw instrumentation at L4-L5-S1 followed by distraction across the pedicle screws. We then performed LLIF at L2-3 and L3-4, followed by PCO at L2-3 and L3-4. Results: Statistically significant incremental corrections were noted in SVAs and lordosis after L5-S1 ALIF, L4-5 ALIF, and PCO in degenerative flatback specimens. For the iatrogenic group, statistically significant worsening was noted in measures of standing alignment after L4-L5-S1 hypolordotic fusion. Subsequent LLIF at L2-3 and L3-4 did not significantly improve sagittal alignment. However, after PCO at L2-3 and L3-4, final alignment parameters were not significantly different than preoperative baseline values prior to hypolordotic fusion. Conclusions: ALIF cages in the lower lumbar segments significantly improved sagittal alignment in degenerative flatback specimens. In the upper lumbar segments, LLIF cages alone were ineffective at enhancing lumbar lordosis. LLIF cages in conjunction with PCO improved alignment parameters in degenerative and iatrogenic flatback deformities.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) can be combined with posterior column osteotomies (PCOs) to maximize lordotic correction. This study compares radiographic changes in regional and segmental lordosis in patients undergoing ALIF with and without PCOs. METHODS: Patients >18 years old who underwent ALIF at 1 or 2 segments at a single institution (January 2014-July 2020) were included. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic parameters were determined, and a propensity-matched analysis was performed. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (53 [54%] men) underwent ALIF at 129 levels (mean [SD], 1.3 [0.46] levels; median [range] age, 61 [32-83] years). PCOs were performed in 13 (13%) patients at 19 (15%) segments. PCOs included 13 Schwab grade 1 and 6 grade 2 osteotomies. All measures, including lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, disc angle, and neural foramen height, increased significantly after surgery (p≤0.003). In the propensity-matched analysis, PCO was associated with greater increases in lumbar lordosis (14.9° vs. 8.2°, p=0.02), segmental lordosis (14.0° vs. 9.6°, p=0.03), and disc angle (15.0° vs. 10.2°, p=0.046). The change in disc angle more closely approximated the inherent lordosis of the cage when PCO was performed (94% vs. 62%, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Performing PCOs and ALIFs significantly increased the radiographic correction of overall and segmental lordosis in the selected patient cohort. The disc angle achieved with ALIF without PCOs was approximately 60% of the cage lordosis. The addition of PCO allowed for greater segmental compression, enabling the disc angle to reach nearly 100% of the inherent interbody cage lordosis.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages could offer an alternative to anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Bilateral cage insertion enhances endplate coverage, potentially improving stability and fusion rates and maximizing segmental lordosis. This study aims to compare the biomechanical properties of bilateral expandable TLIF cages to ALIF cages using finite element modeling. METHODS: We used a validated 3-dimensional finite element model of the lumbar spine. ALIF and TLIF cages were created based on available product data. Our focus was on analyzing spinal motion in the sagittal plane, evaluating forces transmitted through the vertebrae, and comparing an ALIF model with various TLIF cage models. RESULTS: The largest TLIF cage model exhibited a 407.9% increase in flexion motion and a 42.1% decrease in extension motion compared with the ALIF cage. The second largest TLIF cages resulted in more flexion motion and less extension motion compared with ALIF, while smaller cages were inferior to ALIF. ALIF cages were associated with increased adjacent segment motion compared with TLIF cages, primarily in extension. Endplate stress analysis revealed higher stress in the ALIF cage model with a more uniform stress distribution. CONCLUSION: ALIF cages excel in stabilizing L5 to S1 during flexion, while largest TLIF cages offer superior stability in extension. Large bilateral TLIF cages may provide biomechanical stability comparable to ALIF, especially in extension and could potentially reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease with lower adjacent segment motion.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To determine of the impact of ALIF with minimally invasive unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) on perioperative outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and the rates of fusion, subsidence, and adjacent segment stenosis. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent one-level ALIF with UPSF or BPSF at an academic institution between 2015 and 2022 were retrospectively identified. Postoperative outcomes including length of hospital stay (LOS), wound complications, readmissions, and revisions were determined. The rates of fusion, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and subsidence were assessed on one-year postoperative CT. Lumbar alignment including lumbar lordosis, L4-S1 lordosis, regional lordosis, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, and sacral slope were assessed on standing x-rays at preoperative, immediate postoperative, and final postoperative follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analysis compared outcomes across posterior fixation groups. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included (27 UPSF, 33 BPSF). Patients with UPSF were significantly younger (p = 0.011). Operative time was significantly greater in the BPSF group in univariate (p < 0.001) and multivariate analysis (ß=104.1, p < 0.001). Intraoperative blood loss, LOS, lordosis, pelvic parameters, fusion rate, subsidence, screw loosening, adjacent segment stenosis, and revision rate did not differ significantly between fixation groups. Though sacral slope (p = 0.037) was significantly greater in the BPSF group, fixation type was not a significant predictor on regression. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF with UPSF relative to BPSF predicted decreased operative time but was not a significant predictor of postoperative outcomes. ALIF with UPSF can be considered to increase operative efficiency without compromising construct stability.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Interbody devices in anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) are currently a focus of innovation due to their potential to improve clinical outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to analyze complications and changes in spinopelvic parameters after ALIF with the novel Medacta MectaLIF interbody fusion device. METHODS: Patients aged 18 to 80 years who underwent multilevel ALIF using this novel implant were identified. Demographic and surgical data were collected. Patients were divided into short- and long-fusion cohorts. A comparison of outcomes between the short- and long-fusion groups was performed using the Student t test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test and the χ2 test for categorical variables. Analysis of the pre- vs postoperative radiographic data for the entire cohort was performed using the 2-tailed Student t test. RESULTS: One hundred and eight patients met the inclusion criteria. No significant postoperative change was observed in L1-4 lumbar lordosis (LL). L1-S1 LL increased to a mean of 55.1 ± 12.8 (a mean change of 10.7 ± 14.5), and L4-S1 LL increased to a mean of 38.4 ± 8.7 (a mean increase of 7.5 ± 8.2), with pelvic incidence LL mismatch changing from 8.9 ± 15.1 to 1.1 ± 13.5 (n = 102). Related changes in sacral slope and pelvic tilt were also observed (33.0 ± 11.0 to 37.6 ± 10.9 and 19.6 ± 9.5 to 18.2 ± 9.1 [n = 103], respectively). Five patients (4.6%) experienced implant subsidence, 1 (0.9%) had implant migration, and 6 (5.6%) experienced a nonunion. There was no difference in the rates of complications associated with the novel implant in the short- and long-fusion cohorts. CONCLUSION: This novel implant achieves correction of spinopelvic parameters with minimal complications. The ability to modify the implant intraoperatively based on the patient's anatomy can help achieve maximal contact area and therefore help reduce the risk of subsidence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This modular implant can achieve correction of spinopelvic parameters with minimal medical and surgical complications.

RESUMEN

Background: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior spinal fusion (PSF) play pivotal roles in restoring lumbar lordosis in spinal surgery. There is an ongoing debate between combined single-position surgery and traditional prone-position PSF for optimizing segmental lumbar lordosis. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 59 patients who underwent ALIF in the supine position followed by PSF in the prone position at a single institution. Cobb angles were measured preoperatively, post-ALIF, and post-PSF using X-ray imaging. One-way repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc analyses with Bonferroni adjustment were employed to compare mean Cobb angles at different time points. Cohen's d effect sizes were calculated to assess the magnitude of changes. Sample size calculations were performed to ensure statistical power. Results: The mean segmental Cobb angle significantly increased from preoperative (32.2 ± 13.8 degrees) to post-ALIF (42.2 ± 14.3 degrees, Cohen's d: -0.71, p < 0.0001) and post-PSF (43.6 ± 14.6 degrees, Cohen's d: -0.80, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between Cobb angles after ALIF and after PSF (Cohen's d: -0.10, p = 0.14). The findings remained consistent when Cobb angles were analyzed separately for single-screw and double-screw ALIF constructs. Conclusions: Both supine ALIF and prone PSF significantly increased segmental lumbar lordosis compared to preoperative measurements. The negligible difference between post-ALIF and post-PSF lordosis suggests that supine ALIF followed by prone PSF can be an effective approach, providing flexibility in surgical positioning without compromising lordosis improvement.

RESUMEN

Background: In anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), the use of integrated screws is attractive to surgeons because of the ease of implantation and no additional profile. However, the number and length of screws necessary for safe and stable implantation in various bone densities is not yet fully understood. The current study aims to determine how important both length and number of screws are for stability of ALIFs. Methods: Three bone models with densities of 10, 15, and 20 pounds per cubic foot (PCF) were chosen as surrogates. These were instrumented using the Z-Link lumbar interbody system with either 2, 3, or 4 integrated 4.5 × 20 mm screws or 4.5 × 25 mm screws (Zavation, LLC, Flowood, MS). The bone surrogates were tested with loading conditions resulting in spine extension to measure construct stiffness and peak force. Results: The failure load of the construct was influenced by the length of screws (p=.01) and density of the bone surrogate (p<.01). There was no difference in failure load between using 2 screws and 3 screws (p=.32) or when using four 20 mm screws versus three 25 mm screws (p=.295). Conclusion: In our study, both bone density and length of screws significantly affected the construct's load to failure. In certain cases where a greater number of screws are unable to be implanted, the same stability can potentially be conferred with use of longer screws. Future clinical studies should be performed to test these biomechanical results.

RESUMEN

Background: Learning curves (LC) are typically defined by the number of different spinal procedures surgeons must perform before becoming "proficient," as demonstrated by reductions in operative times, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), adverse events (AE), fewer conversions to open procedures, along with improved outcomes. Reviewing 12 studies revealed LC varied widely from 10-44 cases for open vs. minimally invasive (MI) lumbar diskectomy, laminectomy, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and oblique/extreme lateral interbody fusions (OLIF/XLIF). We asked whether the risks of harm occurring during these LC could be limited if surgeons routinely utilized in-person/intraoperative mentoring (i.e., via industry, academia, or well-trained colleagues). Methods: We evaluated LC for multiple lumbar operations in 12 studies. Results: These studies revealed no LC for open vs. MI lumbar diskectomy. LC required 29 cases for MI laminectomy, 10-44 cases for MI TLIF, 24-30 cases for MI OLIF, and 30 cases for XLIF. Additionally, the LC for MI ALIF was 30 cases; one study showed that 32% of major vascular injuries occurred in the first 25 vs. 0% for the next 25 cases. Shouldn't the risks of harm to patients occurring during these LC be limited if surgeons routinely utilized in-person/intraoperative mentoring? Conclusions: Twelve studies showed that the LC for at different MI lumbar spine operations varied markedly (i.e., 10-44 cases). Wouldn't and shouldn't spine surgeons avail themselves of routine in-person/intraoperative mentoring to limit patients' risks of injury during their respective LC for these varied spine procedures ?

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Adult spinal deformity (ASD) occurs from progressive anterior column collapse due to disc space desiccation, compression fractures, and autofusion across disc spaces. Anterior column realignment (ACR) is increasingly recognized as a powerful tool to address ASD by progressively lengthening the anterior column through the release of the anterior longitudinal ligament during lateral interbody approaches. Here, we describe the application of minimally invasive ACR through an oblique antepsoas corridor for deformity correction in a patient with adult degenerative scoliosis and significant sagittal imbalance. OBSERVATIONS: A 65-year-old female with a prior history of L4-5 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and morbid obesity presented with refractory, severe low-back and lower-extremity pain. Preoperative radiographs showed significant sagittal imbalance. Computed tomography showed a healed L4-5 fusion and a vacuum disc at L3-4 and L5-S1, whereas magnetic resonance imaging was notable for central canal stenosis at L3-4. The patient was treated with a first-stage L5-S1 lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion with oblique L2-4 ACR. The second-stage posterior approach consisted of a robot-guided minimally invasive T10-ilium posterior instrumented fusion with a mini-open L2-4 posterior column osteotomy (PCO). Postoperative radiographs showed the restoration of her sagittal balance. There were no complications. LESSONS: Oblique ACR is a powerful minimally invasive tool for sagittal plane correction. When combined with a mini-open PCO, substantial segmental lordosis can be achieved while eliminating the need for multilevel PCO or invasive three-column osteotomies.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Biomechanical factors in lumbar fusions accelerate the development of adjacent-segment disease (ASD). Stiffness in the fused segment increases motion in the adjacent levels, resulting in ASD. The objective of this study was to determine if there are differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between anterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (ALIF+PS), posterior lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (PLIF+PS), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (TLIF+PS), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion plus pedicle screws (LLIF+PS). METHODS: A retrospective study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Spine Registry identified an adult cohort (≥ 18 years old) with degenerative disc disease who underwent primary lumbar interbody fusions with pedicle screws between L3 to S1. Demographic and operative data were obtained from the registry, and chart review was used to document operative ASD. Patients were followed until operative ASD, membership termination, the end of study (March 31, 2022), or death. Operative ASD was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: The final study population included 5291 patients with a mean ± SD age of 60.1 ± 12.1 years and a follow-up of 6.3 ± 3.8 years. There was a total of 443 operative ASD cases, with an overall incidence rate of reoperation for ASD of 8.37% (95% CI 7.6-9.2). The crude incidence of operative ASD at 5 years was the lowest in the ALIF+PS cohort (7.7%, 95% CI 6.3-9.4). In the adjusted models, the authors failed to detect a statistical difference in operative ASD between ALIF+PS (reference) versus PLIF+PS (HR 1.06 [0.79-1.44], p = 0.69) versus TLIF+PS (HR 1.03 [0.81-1.31], p = 0.83) versus LLIF+PS (HR 1.38 [0.77-2.46], p = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of over 5000 patients with an average follow-up of > 6 years, the authors found no differences in the reoperation rates for symptomatic ASD (operative ASD) between ALIF+PS and PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, or LLIF+PS.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) can treat spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease and pseudoarthrosis. This approach facilitates complete discectomy, disc space distraction, indirect decompression of neural foramina and placement of large interbody devices. Several intra- and postoperative complications can be attributed to the anterior approach: vascular/visceral injury, hypogastric plexus injury and urogenital consequences. Spine-specific complications include implant migration, graft failure, pseudoarthrosis and persistent symptomology. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed patient demographics, medium-term outcomes and complication rates following ALIF surgery performed over a 5-year period. A total of 110 consecutive patients had undergone ALIF surgery at a single tertiary spinal centre. The database was reviewed with a primary outcome of identifying postoperative 90-day complications and whether a revision anterior operation was required after primary ALIF. RESULTS: No patients required revision anterior operation after their primary ALIF surgery by final follow-up. Out of 110 patients, 11 (10%) recorded a complication attributed to the anterior stage of their operation within 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our 90-day complication rate of 10% lies within the 2.6% acute complication and 40% overall complications rates described in previous literature. The risk of vascular/visceral injury is significant (3%) and we recommend that ALIF be performed as a dual surgeon procedure with a vascular-trained access surgeon accompanying the spinal surgeon. ALIF is a valid revision surgical option for failed posterior approaches leading to complications such as pseudoarthrosis. In our sample, 89% of patients were managed with posterior fixation to augment the anterior fusion as, biomechanically, this is a proven construct.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) may be used to correct the lumbosacral fractional curve (LsFC) in de novo adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis. Yet, the relative benefits of ALIF and TLIF for LsFC correction remain largely undetermined. Purpose: To compare the currently available data comparing radiographic correction of the LsFC provided by ALIF and TLIF of LsFC in adult (thoraco)lumbar scoliosis. Methods: A systematic review was performed on original articles discussing fractional curve correction of lumbosacral spinal deformity (using search criteria: "lumbar" and "fractional curve"). Articles which discussed TLIF or ALIF for LsFC correction were presented and radiographic results for TLIF and ALIF were compared. Results: Thirty-one articles were returned in the original search criteria, with 7 articles included in the systematic review criteria. All 7 articles presented radiographic results using TLIF for LsFC correction. Three of these articles also discussed results for patients whose LsFC were treated with ALIFs; 2 articles directly compared TLIF and ALIF for LsFC correction. Level III and level IV evidence indicated ALIF as advantageous for reducing the coronal Cobb angle of the LsFC. There were mixed results on relative efficacy of ALIF and TLIF in the LsFC for restoration of adequate global coronal alignment. Conclusions: Limited level III and IV evidence suggests ALIF as advantageous for reducing the coronal Cobb angle of the LsFC in de novo adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis. Relative efficacy of ALIF and TLIF in the LsFC for restoration of global coronal alignment may be dictated by several factors, including directionality and magnitude of preoperative coronal deformity. Given the limited and low-quality evidence, additional research is warranted to determine the ideal interbody support strategies to address the LsFC in adult (thoraco) lumbar scoliosis.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the frequency of intraoperative complication rates related to access surgery, operating time, and intraoperative bleeding rates described in the literature for patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) to evaluate the adverse effects and, thus, help in therapeutic decision making and contribute to future clinical trials. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of MEDLINE and Embase databases in March 2023. The main inclusion criteria were adult patients aged >18 years, with no maximum age limit; the use of ALIF; the presence of quantitative data on intraoperative complications; and randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Vascular and peritoneal injuries were considered primary endpoints. The operative time and intraoperative bleeding rate were secondary endpoints. Reports and case series, case-control series, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were excluded. RESULTS: Eight studies were included with a total of 2395 patients. We found important quantitative data for future randomized clinical studies involving ALIF surgery, including the rate of vascular lesions (2.79%) and peritoneal lesions (0.37%). In addition to these factors, only 4 of the 8 studies addressed the average surgery time, with a total average of 145.61 minutes. Furthermore, 6 of the 8 articles reported the mean rate of intraoperative bleeding, with a total mean blood loss of 272.75 mL. CONCLUSIONS: ALIF is a lumbar spine access technique with low intraoperative complications. Patients with contraindications have a higher risk of complications. Randomized clinical trials are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of the procedure.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Anterior (ALIF) and transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion have shown similar clinical outcomes at short- and medium-term follow-ups. Possible advantages of ALIF in the long run could be better disc height and lumbar lordosis and reduced risk of adjacent segment disease. We aimed to study if ALIF could be associated with superior clinical outcomes than TLIF at long-term follow-up. METHODS: We analysed 535 patients treated with ALIF or TLIF of the L5-S1 spinal segment between 2007 and 2017 who completed long-term follow-up in a national spine registry database (NORspine). We defined treatment success after surgery as at least 30% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at long-term follow-up. Patients treated with ALIF and TLIF and who responded at long term were balanced by propensity score matching. The proportions of successfully treated patients within each group were compared by numbers and percentages with corresponding relative risk. RESULTS: The mean (95%CI) age of the total study population was 50 (49-51) years, and 264 (49%) were females. The mean (95%CI) preoperative ODI score was 40 (39-42), and 174 (33%) had previous spine surgery. Propensity score matching left 120 patients in each treatment group. At a median (95%CI) of 92 (88-97) months after surgery, we found no difference in proportions successfully treated patients with ALIF versus TLIF (68 (58%) versus 77 (65%), RR (95%CI) = 0.88 (0.72 to1.08); p = 0.237). CONCLUSIONS: This propensity score-matched national spine register study of patients treated with ALIF versus TLIF of the lumbosacral junction found no differences in proportions of successfully treated patients at long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: Diagnostic: individual cross-sectional studies with the consistently applied reference standard and blinding.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the functional and radiographic outcomes of two surgical interventions for adult spinal deformity (ASD): anterior lumbar interbody fusion with anterior column realignment (ALIF-ACR) and posterior approach using Smith-Peterson osteotomy with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation (TLIF-Schwab2). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study included 61 ASD patients treated surgically between 2019 and 2020 at a single tertiary orthopedic specialty hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (ALIF-ACR, 29 patients) and Group 2 (TLIF-Schwab2, 32 patients). Spinopelvic radiographic parameters and functional outcomes were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months postsurgery. RESULTS: Perioperative outcomes favored the ALIF-ACR group, with significantly smaller blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and operative time. Radiographic and functional outcomes were similar for both groups; however, the ALIF-ACR group did have a greater degree of correction in lumbar lordosis at 12 months. Complication profiles varied, with the ALIF-ACR group experiencing mostly hardware-related complications, while the TLIF-Schwab2 group faced dural tears, wound dehiscence, and proximal junctional kyphosis. Both groups had similar revision rates. CONCLUSION: Both ALIF-ACR and TLIF-Schwab2 achieved similar radiographic and functional outcomes in ASD patients with moderate sagittal plane deformity at 1-year follow-up. However, the safety profiles of the two techniques differed. Further research is required to optimize patient selection for each surgical approach, aiming to minimize perioperative complications and reoperation rates in this challenging patient population.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Lymphocele formation following anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is not common, but it can pose diagnostic and treatment challenges. The purpose of this case is to report for the first time the treatment of a postoperative lymphocele following a multi-level ALIF using a peritoneal window made through a minimally invasive laparoscopic approach. METHODS: Case report. RESULTS: A 74-year-old male with a history of prostatectomy and pelvic radiation underwent a staged L3-S1 ALIF (left paramedian approach) and T10-pelvis posterior instrumented with L1-5 decompression/posterior column osteotomies for degenerative scoliosis and neurogenic claudication. Three weeks after surgery, swelling of the left abdomen and entire left leg was reported. Computed tomography of the abdomen/pelvis demonstrated a large (19.2 × 12.0 × 15.4 cm) retroperitoneal fluid collection with compression of the left ureter and left common iliac vein. Fluid analysis (80% lymphocytes) was consistent with a lymphocele. Percutaneous drainage for 4 days was ineffective at clearing the lymphocele. For more definitive management, the patient underwent an uncomplicated laparoscopic creation of a peritoneal window to allow passive drainage of lymphatic fluid into the abdomen. Three years after surgery, he had no back or leg pain, had achieved spinal union, and had no abdominal swelling or left leg swelling. Advanced imaging also confirmed resolution of the lymphocele. CONCLUSIONS: In this case report, creation of a peritoneal window minimally invasively via a laparoscope allowing passive drainage of lymphatic fluid into the abdomen was safe and effective for management of an abdominal lymphocele following a multi-level ALIF.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

•Key anterior approaches differences in LSTV include vascular (aortic bifurcation/iliocaval confluence), muscular (psoas) and osseus anatomy (inter-crestal tangent/pubic symphysis), when compared to non-LSTV.•There are increased surgical deviations but not significantly greater complications for anterior approaches in LSTV.•Vascular awareness while accessing L45 will be in the presence of a more cephalad ABF and ICC with sacralized L5, and access to the deeper L56 level will be in the presence of a more caudal ABF and ICC in lumbarized S1.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Instrumented lumbar fusion by either the anterior or transforaminal approach has different advantages and disadvantages. Few studies have compared PatientReported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) between stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (SA-ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Research question: This is a register-based dual-center study on patients with severe disc degeneration (DD) and low back pain (LBP) undergoing single-level SA-ALIF or TLIF. Comparing PROMs, including disability, quality of life, back- and leg-pain and patient satisfaction two years after SA-ALIF or TLIF, respectively. Material and methods: Data were collected preoperatively and at one and two-year follow-up. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). The secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, walking ability, visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, and quality of life (QoL) measured by the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index score. To reduce baseline differences between groups, propensity-score matching was employed in a 1:1 fashion. Results: 92 patients were matched, 46 S A-ALIF and 46 TLIF. They were comparable preoperatively, with no significant difference in demographic data or PROMs (P > 0.10). Both groups obtained statistically significant improvement in the ODI, QoL and VAS-score (P < 0.01), but no significant difference was observed (P = 0.14). No statistically significant differences in EQ-5D index scores (P = 0.25), VAS score for leg pain (P = 0.88) and back pain (P = 0.37) at two years follow-up. Conclusion: Significant improvements in ODI, VAS-scores for back and leg pain, and EQ-5D index score were registered after two-year follow-up with both SA-ALIF and TLIF. No significant differences in improvement.

RESUMEN

Introduction Lumbar spine interbody fusions have been performed to relieve back pain and improve stability due to various underlying pathologies. Anterior interbody fusion and posterior interbody fusion approaches are two main approaches that are classically compared. In an attempt to compare these two approaches to the spine, large retrospective national database reviews have been performed to compare and predict 30-day postoperative outcomes; however, they have conflicting findings. Obesity, defined as having a body mass index (BMI) over 30 kg/m2, may also contribute to the extent of spine pathology and is associated with increased rates of postoperative complications. Complication rates in patients who are obese have yet to be thoroughly investigated using a large national database. Our present investigation aims to make this comparison using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. The goal of the present study is to utilize a nationwide prospective database to determine short-term differences in postoperative outcomes between posterior and anterior lumbar fusion in patients with obesity and relate these findings to previous studies in the general population. Methods A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 9,021 patient data from the ACS-NSQIP database from 2015 to 2019 who underwent an elective, single-level fusion via anterior or posterior surgical approach. This database captures over 150 clinical variables on individual patient cases, including demographic data, preoperative risk factors and laboratory values, intraoperative data, and significant events up to postoperative day 30. All outcome measures were included in this analysis with special attention to rates of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), prolonged length of stay (LOS), reoperation, and operation time. Results Multivariable analysis controlling for age, BMI, sex, race, functional status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and selected comorbidities with P < 0.05 demonstrated that the anterior approach was an independent predictor for all significant outcomes except prolonged length of stay. Compared to the posterior approach, the anterior approach had a shorter total operation time (B = -13.257, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-17.522, -8.992], P < 0.001), higher odds of deep vein thrombosis (odds ratio (OR) = 2.210, 95% CI [1.211, 4.033], P= 0.010), and higher odds of pulmonary embolism (OR = 2.679, 95% CI [1.311, 5.477], P = 0.007) and was protective against unplanned reoperation (OR = 0.702, 95% CI [0.548, 0.898], P = 0.005). Conclusions The obese population makes up a large and growing demographic of those undergoing spine surgery, and as such, it is pertinent to investigate the differences, advantages, and disadvantages of lumbar fusion approaches in this group. While anterior approaches may be protective of longer operation time and unplanned reoperation, this benefit may not be clinically significant when considering an increased risk of DVT and PE. Given the short-term nature of this dataset and the limitations inherent in large de-identified retrospective database studies, these findings are interpreted with caution. Longer-term follow-up studies accounting for confounding variables with spine-centered outcomes will be necessary to further elucidate these nuances.