Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Prospective Monocentric Study

被引:0
|
作者
Stulik, J. [1 ,2 ]
Adamek, S. [2 ]
Barna, M. [1 ]
Kasprikova, N. [3 ]
Polanecky, O. [2 ]
Kryl, J. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Spondylochirurg Oddeleni FN Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
[2] III Chirurg Klin 1 LF UK FN Motol, Prague, Czech Republic
[3] Ustav Biofyziky Informatiky 1 LF UK, Prague, Czech Republic
关键词
AxiaLIF; lumbar spine; spinal fusion; axial lumbar fixation; BIOMECHANICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FOLLOW-UP; L5-S1; COMPLICATIONS; FIXATION; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; STABILIZATION; IMPLANT;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic results in the patients who underwent L5-S1 fixation using the technique of percutaneous lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). MATERIAL The study comprised 23 patients, 11 women and 12 men, who ranged from age of 21 to 63 years, with an average of 48.2 years. In all patients surgical posterior stabilisation involving the L5-S1 segment had previously been done. The initial indications for surgery were L5-S1 spondylolisthesis in 20 and L5-S1 spondylosis and stenosis in three patients. METHODS The AxiaLIF technique for L5-S1 fixation was indicated in overweight patients and in those after repeated abdominal or retroperitoneal surgery. A suitable position and shape of the sacrum or lumbosacral junction was another criterion. The patients were evaluated between 26 and 56 months (average, 40.4 months) after primary surgery and, on the basis of CT and radiographic findings, bone union and lumbosacral junction stability were assessed. The clinical outcome was investigated using the ODI and VAS systems and the results were statistically analysed by the Wilcoxon test for paired samples with statistical significance set at a level of 0.05. RESULTS The average VAS value was 6.6 before surgery and, after surgery, 5.2 at three months, 4.2 at six months, 3.1 at one year, 2.9 at two years and 2.1 at three years (n=18). At two post-operative years, improvement in the VAS value by 56.1% was recorded. The average pre-operative ODI value was 25.1; the post-operative values were 17.0 at six months, 12.3 at one year, 10.6 at two years and 8.2 at three years (n=18). At two years after surgery the ODI value improved by 57.8%. To the question concerning their willingness to undergo, with acquired experience, surgery for the same diagnosis, 21 patients (91.3%) gave an affirmative answer. Neither screw breakage nor neurovascular damage or rectal injury was found. CT scans showed complete interbody bone fusion in 22 of the 23 patients (95.6%), In one patient the finding was not clear. Also, posterolateral fusion was achieved in all but one patients (95.6%). A stable L5-S1 segment was found in all patients at all follow-up intervals. The improvement in both VAS and ODI values was statistically significant. DISCUSSION In addition to indications usual in degenerative disc disease, overweight patients, those who had repeated trans- or retroperitoneal surgery in the L5-S1 region or who underwent long posterior fixation to stabilise the caudal margin of instrumentation are indicated for the AxiaLIF procedure. The clinical results of our study are in agreement with the conclusions of other studies and are similar to the outcomes of surgery using other types of fusion or dynamic stabilisation for this diagnosis. The high rate of fusion in our group is affected by use of a rigid transpedicular fixator together with posterolateral arthrodesis. On the other hand, no negative effects of only synthetic bone applied to interbody space were recorded. CONCLUSIONS The percutaneous axial pre-sacral approach to the L5-S1 interbody space with application of a double-treaded screw is another option for the management of this much strained segment. The technique is useful particularly when contraindications for conventional surgical procedures are present in patients with anatomical anomalies, in overweight patients or in those who have had repeated surgery in the region. Clinical outcomes and the success rate for L5-S1 bone fusion are comparable with conventional techniques. Complications are rare but their treatment is difficult.
引用
收藏
页码:203 / 211
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery Based on Indication: A Prospective Study
    Rao, Prashanth J.
    Loganathan, Ajanthan
    Yeung, Vivian
    Mobbs, Ralph J.
    Wolfla, Christopher
    Wang, Michael Y.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2015, 76 (01) : 7 - 24
  • [2] Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease
    Zhang, Xuelei
    Zhang, Yu
    Gu, Zuchao
    Li, Guo
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01):
  • [3] Complications of axial lumbar interbody fusion Clinical article
    Lindley, Emily M.
    McCullough, Matthew A.
    Burger, Evalina L.
    Brown, Courtney W.
    Patel, Vikas V.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2011, 15 (03) : 273 - 279
  • [4] Outcomes and Spinopelvic Changes After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Novel Interbody Fusion Device: A Retrospective Study
    Hirpara, Ankit
    Koshak, Christina
    Marty, Eric
    Gallus, Christopher
    Kleck, Christopher
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2024, 18 (04) : 389 - 399
  • [5] Axial Presacral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Posterior Fixation for Stabilization of Lumbosacral Isthmic Spondylolisthesis
    Gerszten, Peter C.
    Tobler, William
    Raley, Thomas J.
    Miller, Larry E.
    Block, Jon E.
    Nasca, Richard J.
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2012, 25 (02): : E36 - E40
  • [6] Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?
    Jiang, Sheng-Dan
    Chen, Jiang-Wei
    Jiang, Lei-Sheng
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2012, 132 (09) : 1259 - 1266
  • [7] Axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) approach for adult scoliosis
    Boachie-Adjei, Oheneba
    Cho, Woojin
    King, Akilah B.
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2013, 22 : S225 - S231
  • [8] Minimally Invasive Far Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Cohort Study
    Doria, Carlo
    Balsano, Massimo
    Rampal, Virginie
    Solla, Federico
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2018, 8 (05) : 512 - 516
  • [9] Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Osteobiologics for Lumbar Fusion
    Kim, Young-Hoon
    Ha, Kee-Yong
    Kim, Youn-Soo
    Kim, Ki-Won
    Rhyu, Kee-Won
    Park, Jong-Beom
    Shin, Jae-Hyuk
    Kim, Young-Yul
    Lee, Jun-Seok
    Park, Hyung-Youl
    Ko, Jaeryong
    Kim, Sang-Il
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2022, 16 (06) : 1022 - 1033
  • [10] Lumbar interbody fusion
    Nasca, Richard
    Myers, Mark
    Elmo, Lake
    Ferrara, Lisa
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2013, 19 (04) : 521 - 522