Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Increases Operative Efficiency and Maintains Safety in Revision Lumbar Spinal Fusion

被引:9
作者
Buckland, Aaron J. [1 ,2 ,3 ,7 ]
Proctor, Dylan J. [4 ]
Thomas, J. Alex [5 ]
Protopsaltis, Themistocles S. [3 ]
Ashayeri, Kimberly [3 ]
Braly, Brett A. [6 ]
机构
[1] Melbourne Orthopaed Grp, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Spine & Scoliosis Res Associates Australia, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] NYU Langone Hlth, New York, NY USA
[4] Univ Melbourne, Parkville, Vic, Australia
[5] Atlantic Neurosurg & Spine Specialists, Wilmington, NC USA
[6] Spine Clin Oklahoma City, Oklahoma City, OK USA
[7] Spine & Scoliosis Res Associates Australia Ltd, 33 Ave, Windsor, Vic 3181, Australia
关键词
Prone-Lateral; Extreme lateral lumber interbody fusion (XLIF); lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF); Single-Position; SEGMENTAL LORDOSIS; TRANSPSOAS; BIOMECHANICS; CONSTRUCTS; PLATE;
D O I
10.1097/BRS.0000000000004699
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design. Multi-centre retrospective cohort study.Objective. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery.Background Context. Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without patient repositioning. This study examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF against traditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning.Method. A multi-centre retrospective cohort study involving patients undergoing 1 to 4 level LLIF surgery was performed at 4 institutions in the US and Australia. Patients were included if their surgery was performed via either: P-LLIF with revision posterior fusion; or L-LLIF with repositioning to prone. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications, and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at P<0.05.Results. 101 patients undergoing revision LLIF surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs. 2.66 L-LLIF, P=0.469) and number of LLIF levels (1.35 vs. 1.39, P=0.668) was similar between groups. Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group (151 vs. 206 min, P=0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150mL P-LLIF vs. 182mL L-LLIF, P=0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay in the P-LLIF group (2.7 vs. 3.3d, P=0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in complications between groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment measurements.Conclusion. P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency when compared to L-LLIF for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration.
引用
收藏
页码:E19 / E24
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Changes in coronal and sagittal plane alignment following minimally invasive direct lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease in adults: a radiographic study [J].
Acosta, Frank L., Jr. ;
Liu, John ;
Slimack, Nicholas ;
Moller, David ;
Fessler, Richard ;
Koski, Tyler .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2011, 15 (01) :92-96
[2]   Changes in Segmental and Lumbar Lordosis After Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Different Lordotic Cage Angulations [J].
Bakare, Adewale A. ;
Fessler, David R. ;
Wewel, Joshua T. ;
Fontes, Ricardo B., V ;
Fessler, Richard G. ;
O'Toole, John E. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2021, 15 (03) :440-448
[3]   Single position circumferential fusion improves operative efficiency, reduces complications and length of stay compared with traditional circumferential fusion [J].
Buckland, Aaron J. ;
Ashayeri, Kimberly ;
Leon, Carlos ;
Manning, Jordan ;
Eisen, Leon ;
Medley, Mark ;
Protopsaltis, Themistocles S. ;
Thomas, J. Alex .
SPINE JOURNAL, 2021, 21 (05) :810-820
[4]   Biomechanical Analysis and Review of Lateral Lumbar Fusion Constructs [J].
Cappuccino, Andrew ;
Cornwall, G. Bryan ;
Turner, Alexander W. L. ;
Fogel, Guy R. ;
Duong, Huy T. ;
Kim, Kee D. ;
Brodke, Darrel S. .
SPINE, 2010, 35 (26) :S361-S367
[5]   Simultaneous Lateral Interbody Fusion and Posterior Percutaneous Instrumentation: Early Experience and Technical Considerations [J].
Drazin, Doniel ;
Kim, Terrence T. ;
Johnson, J. Patrick .
BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2015, 2015
[6]   Evaluation of Indirect Decompression of the Lumbar Spinal Canal Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Transpsoas Interbody Fusion: Radiographic and Outcome Analysis [J].
Elowitz, E. H. ;
Yanni, D. S. ;
Chwajol, M. ;
Starke, R. M. ;
Perin, N. I. .
MINIMALLY INVASIVE NEUROSURGERY, 2011, 54 (5-6) :201-206
[7]   Biomechanics of lateral lumbar interbody fusion constructs with lateral and posterior plate fixation [J].
Fogel, Guy R. ;
Parikh, Rachit D. ;
Ryu, Stephen I. ;
Turner, Alexander W. L. .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2014, 20 (03) :291-297
[8]   Prone single-position extreme lateral interbody fusion (Pro-XLIF): preliminary results [J].
Lamartina, Claudio ;
Berjano, Pedro .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 29 (SUPPL 1) :6-13
[9]   Clinical results and limitations of indirect decompression in spinal stenosis with laterally implanted interbody cages: results from a prospective cohort study [J].
Malham, Gregory M. ;
Parker, Rhiannon M. ;
Goss, Ben ;
Blecher, Carl M. .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 24 :S339-S345
[10]   Outpatient outcomes of patients with femoral nerve neurapraxia after prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion at L4-5 [J].
Morgan, Clinton D. ;
Katsevman, Gennadiy A. ;
Godzik, Jakub ;
Catapano, Joshua S. ;
Hemphill, Courtney ;
Turner, Jay D. ;
Uribe, Juan S. .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2022, 37 (01) :92-95