Tag: LLIF

Posted on

Low Posterior Electromyographic Threshold and Functional Outcomes After L4-5 Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Operative Neurosurgery 30:566–570, 2026

This single-institution retrospective study evaluates whether low posterior electromyography (EMG) stimulation thresholds during lateral L4-5 lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) correlate with postoperative femoral nerve motor or sensory neurapraxia. Forty-two lateral-position single-level L4-5 LLIFs with neuromonitoring data showed no significant association between posterior EMG threshold or retractor time and transient postoperative anterior thigh numbness or weakness.

The cohort experienced transient sensory neurapraxia in 38% at six weeks that resolved by six months; only one patient had temporary motor neurapraxia. Limitations include small sample size, retrospective design, and short follow-up, leading authors to conclude no demonstrable link between posterior EMG threshold and plexus injury in this series.

Context: In L4-5 transpsoas LLIF, the retractor is placed near the lumbar plexus; directional EMG stimulation thresholds are used intraoperatively to estimate nerve proximity and potentially reduce injury risk.

Objective: Assessed whether posterior EMG stimulation threshold was associated with lumbar plexus injury/neurapraxia after single-level L4-5 LLIF performed in the lateral position.

Design/criteria: Retrospective, single-institution review of single-level L4-5 LLIF (Jan 2019–May 2022) with available neuromonitoring thresholds and retractor time; excluded cases with additional levels or missing monitoring data.

Cohort/intraop metrics: 42 patients (mean age 66 years); mean retractor time 12.4 minutes; mean posterior EMG threshold 10.4 mA.

Neurologic outcomes: Femoral motor neurapraxia occurred in 1 patient (2%); sensory neurapraxia (anterior thigh numbness) occurred in 16 patients (38%) at 6 weeks and resolved to 0% by 6 months.

Main finding: Posterior EMG threshold was not associated with postoperative motor neurapraxia or sensory neurapraxia at 6 weeks (including logistic regression showing OR 1.00; P=.98 for thigh numbness).

Other associations: No significant correlation between posterior EMG threshold and retractor time (Spearman ρ=0.11; P=.50) or postoperative ODI (ρ=0.17; P=.33).

Notable case/interpretation: The single motor neurapraxia case had 27-minute retractor time with posterior EMG 5 mA and recovered by 6 months; median retractor time in the cohort was low (10.8 minutes), limiting conclusions about longer retraction durations.

Posted on

Novel Use of Bilateral Prone Transpsoas Approach for the Treatment of Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Pseudarthrosis and Interbody Cage Subsidence

Operative Neurosurgery 27:86–93, 2024

Pseudarthrosis is a complication after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) that leads to recurrent symptoms and potential revision surgery. Subsidence of the interbody adds to the complexity of surgical revision. In addition, we report a novel technique for the treatment of TLIF pseudarthrosis with subsidence and propose an approach algorithm for TLIF cage removal.

METHODS: Cases of reoperation for TLIF pseudarthrosis were reviewed. We report a novel technique using a bilateral prone transpsoas (PTP) approach to remove a subsided TLIF cage and place a new lateral cage. An approach algorithm was developed based on the experience of TLIF cage removal. The patient was placed in the prone position with somatosensory evoked potential and electromyography monitoring. A PTP retractor was placed using standard techniques on the ipsilateral side of the previous TLIF. After the discectomy, the subsided TLIF cage was visualized but unable to be removed. The initial dilator was closed, and a second PTP retractor was placed on the contralateral side. After annulotomy and discectomy to circumferentially isolate the subsided cage, a box cutter was used to push and mobilize the TLIF cage from this contralateral side, which could then be pulled out from the ipsilateral side. A standard lateral interbody cage was then placed.

RESULTS: Retractor time was less than 10 minutes on each side. The patient’s symptoms resolved postoperatively. We review illustrative cases of various approaches for TLIF cage removal spanning the lumbosacral spine and recommend an operative approach based on the lumbar level, degree of subsidence, and mobility of the interbody.

CONCLUSION: Bilateral PTP retractors for TLIF cage removal may be effectively used in cases of pseudarthrosis with severe cage subsidence. Careful consideration of various factors, including patient surgical history, body habitus, and intraoperative findings, is essential in determining the appropriate treatment for these complex cases.

Posted on

Are there differences in the reoperation rates for operative adjacent-segment disease between ALIF+PS, PLIF+PS, TLIF+PS, and LLIF+PS? An analysis of a cohort of 5291 patients

J Neurosurg Spine 40:733–740, 2024

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 followup 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.

Posted on

Complications associated with single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 39:380–386, 2023

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a workhorse surgical approach for lumbar arthrodesis. There is growing interest in techniques for performing single-position surgery in which LLIF and pedicle screw fixation are performed with the patient in the prone position. Most studies of prone LLIF are of poor quality and without long-term followup; therefore, the complication profile related to this novel approach is not well known. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and pooled analysis to understand the safety profile of prone LLIF.

METHODS A systematic review of the literature and a pooled analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies reporting prone LLIF were assessed for inclusion. Studies not reporting complication rates were excluded.

RESULTS Ten studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Overall, 286 patients were treated with prone LLIF across these studies, and a mean (SD) of 1.3 (0.2) levels per patient were treated. The 18 intraoperative complications reported included cage subsidence (3.8% [3/78]), anterior longitudinal ligament rupture (2.3% [5/215]), cage repositioning (2.1% [2/95]), segmental artery injury (2.0% [5/244]), aborted prone interbody placement (0.8% [2/244]), and durotomy (0.6% [1/156]). No major vascular or peritoneal injuries were reported. Sixty-eight postoperative complications occurred, including hip flexor weakness (17.8% [21/118]), thigh and groin sensory symptoms (13.3% [31/233]), revision surgery (3.8% [3/78]), wound infection (1.9% [3/156]), psoas hematoma (1.3% [2/156]), and motor neural injury (1.2% [2/166]).

CONCLUSIONS Single-position LLIF in the prone position appears to be a safe surgical approach with a low complication profile. Longer-term follow-up and prospective studies are needed to better characterize the long-term complication rates related to this approach.

Posted on

Ten-Step 3-Dimensional-Navigated Single-Stage Lateral Surgery With Microtubular Decompression

Operative Neurosurgery 23:406–412, 2022

Single-stage lateral lumbar interbody fusion is a safe and effective procedure that relies on indirect decompression and fusion to treat various lumbar pathologies. This technique, however, has an overall 9% rate of indirect decompression failure, which may require additional surgery to achieve adequate direct decompression. To address this concern, we modified this technique by adding a minimally invasive, direct tubular decompression in lateral position when indicated. No study has described the technical nuances of incorporating a microtubular decompression into the single-stage lateral lumbar interbody fusion workflow (SSLLIF+).

OBJECTIVE: To report on the procedural steps and clinical outcomes of the SSLLIF+.

METHODS: In this retrospective case series of prospectively collected data, we present the detailed surgical approach of the SSLLIF+ with a single-center case series over a 5-year period. Surgical and clinical outcomes are presented.

RESULTS: A total of 7 patients underwent a SSLLIF+ with a total of 18 levels fused and 7 levels decompressed. The SSLLIF+ was successfully performed in all cases without the occurrence of intraoperative complications in this case series. There was 1 revision after 20 months of follow-up because of adjacent segment disease. There was no need for further direct decompression in a delayed fashion.

CONCLUSION: SSLLIF with direct microtubular decompression in lateral position is a safe and effective procedure in patients where indirect decompression alone may not achieve the surgical goal. Adherence to minimally invasive spine surgery principles and thoughtful patient selection facilitate the successful management of these patients while demonstrating short hospital stay and low-risk of perioperative complications.

Posted on

Assessing the differences in operative and patient-reported outcomes between lateral approaches for lumbar fusion: a systematic review and indirect meta-analysis

 

J Neurosurg Spine 37:498–514, 2022

Anterior-to-psoas lumbar interbody fusion (ATP-LIF), more commonly referred to as oblique lateral interbody fusion, and lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LTP-LIF), also known as extreme lateral interbody fusion, are the two commonly used lateral approaches for performing a lumbar fusion procedure. These approaches help overcome some of the technical challenges associated with traditional approaches for lumbar fusion. In this systematic review and indirect meta-analysis, the authors compared operative and patient-reported outcomes between these two select approaches using available studies.

METHODS Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, the authors conducted an electronic search using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for studies published before May 1, 2019. Indirect meta-analysis was conducted on fusion rate, cage movement (subsidence plus migration), permanent deficits, and transient deficits; results were depicted as forest plots of proportions (effect size [ES]).

RESULTS A total of 63 studies were included in this review after applying the exclusion criteria, of which 26 studies investigated the outcomes of ATP-LIF, while 37 studied the outcomes of LTP-LIF. The average fusion rate was found to be similar between the two groups (ES 0.97, 95% CI 0.84–1.00 vs ES 0.94, 95% CI 0.91–0.97; p = 0.561). The mean incidence of cage movement was significantly higher in the ATP-LIF group compared with the LTP-LIF group (stand-alone: ES 0.15, 95% CI 0.06–0.27 vs ES 0.09, 95% CI 0.04–0.16 [p = 0.317]; combined: ES 0.18, 95% CI 0.07–0.32 vs ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.00–0.05 [p = 0.002]). The mean incidence of reoperations was significantly higher in patients undergoing ATPLIF than in those undergoing LTP-LIF (ES 0.02, 95% CI 0.01–0.03 vs ES 0.04, 95% CI 0.02–0.07; p = 0.012). The mean incidence of permanent deficits was similar between the two groups (stand-alone: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.12 [p = 0.204]; combined: ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.01–0.06 vs ES 0.03, 95% CI 0.00–0.08 [p = 0.595]). The postoperative changes in visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were both found to be higher for ATP-LIF relative to LTP-LIF (VAS: weighted average 4.11 [SD 2.03] vs weighted average 3.75 [SD 1.94] [p = 0.004]; ODI: weighted average 28.3 [SD 5.33] vs weighted average 24.3 [SD 4.94] [p < 0.001]).

CONCLUSIONS These analyses indicate that while both approaches are associated with similar fusion rates, ATP-LIF may be related to higher odds of cage movement and reoperations as compared with LTP-LIF. Furthermore, there is no difference in rates of permanent deficits between the two procedures.

Posted on

Predictors of subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 37:183–187, 2022

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) facilitates the restoration of disc height and the indirect decompression of neural elements. However, these benefits are lost when the graft subsides into the adjacent endplates. The factors leading to subsidence after LLIF are poorly understood. This article presents a case series of patients who underwent LLIF and reports factors correlating with subsidence.

METHODS A retrospective review of a consecutive, prospectively collected, single-institution database of patients who underwent LLIF over a 29-month period was performed. The degree of subsidence was measured on the basis of postoperative imaging. The timing of postoperative subsidence was determined, and intraoperative fluoroscopic images were reviewed to determine whether subsidence occurred as a result of endplate violation. The association of subsidence with age, sex, cage size and type, bone density, and posterior instrumentation was investigated.

RESULTS One hundred thirty-one patients underwent LLIF at a total of 204 levels. Subsidence was observed at 23 (11.3%) operated levels. True subsidence, attributable to postoperative cage settling, occurred for 12 (5.9%) of the levels; for the remaining 11 (5.4%) levels, subsidence was associated with intraoperative endplate violation noted on fluoroscopy during cage placement. All subsidence occurred within 12 weeks of surgery. Univariate analysis showed that the prevalence of true subsidence was significantly lower among patients with titanium implants (0 of 55; 0%) than among patients with polyetheretherketone cages (12 of 149; 8.1%) (p = 0.04). In addition, the mean ratio of graft area to inferior endplate area was significantly lower among the subsidence levels (0.34) than among the nonsubsidence levels (0.42) (p < 0.01). Finally, subsidence among levels with posterior fixation (4.4% [6/135]) was not significantly different than among those without posterior fixation (8.7% [6/69]) (p = 0.23). Multivariate analysis results showed that the ratio of cage to inferior endplate area was the only significant predictor of subsidence in this study (p < 0.01); increasing ratios were associated with a decreased likelihood of subsidence.

CONCLUSIONS Overall, the prevalence of subsidence after LLIF was low in this clinical series. Titanium cages were associated with a lower prevalence of observed subsidence on univariate analysis; however, multivariate analysis demonstrated that this effect may be attributable to the increased surface area of these cages relative to the inferior endplate area.

Posted on

A novel endoscope-assisted technique for lateral lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 35:292–298, 2021

The lateral approach to the spine is generally well tolerated, but reports of debilitating injury to the lumbar plexus, iliac vessels, ureter, and abdominal viscera are increasingly recognized, likely related to the lack of direct visualization of these nearby structures. To minimize this complication profile, the authors describe here a novel, minimally invasive, endoscope-assisted technique for the LLIF and evaluate its clinical feasibility.

Seven consecutive endoscope-assisted lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedures by the senior authors were reviewed for the incidence of approachrelated complications. One patient had a postoperative approach-related complication. This patient developed transient ipsilateral thigh hip flexion weakness that resolved spontaneously by the 3-month follow-up. No patient experienced visceral, urological, or vascular injury, and no patient sustained a permanent neurological injury related to the procedure.

The authors’ preliminary experience suggests that this endoscope-assisted LLIF technique may be clinically feasible to mitigate vascular, urological, and visceral injury, especially in patients with previous abdominal surgery, anomalous anatomy, and revision operations. It provides direct visualization of at-risk structures without significant additional operative time. A larger series is needed to determine whether it reduces the incidence of lumbar plexopathy or visceral injury compared with traditional lateral approaches.

Posted on

PEEK versus titanium cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis of subsidence

Neurosurg Focus 49 (3):E10, 2020

The authors have provided a review of radiographic subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) as a comparative analysis between titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. Many authors describe a reluctance to use titanium cages in spinal fusion secondary to subsidence concerns due to the increased modulus of elasticity of metal cages. The authors intend for this report to provide observational data regarding the juxtaposition of these two materials in the LLIF domain.

METHODS A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified 113 consecutive patients undergoing lateral fusion for degenerative indications from January to December 2017. The surgeons performing the cage implantations were two orthopedic spine surgeons and two neurosurgeons. Plain standing radiographs were obtained at 1–2 weeks, 8–12 weeks, and 12 months postoperatively. Using a validated grading system, interbody subsidence into the endplates was graded at these time points on a scale of 0 to III. The primary outcome measure was subsidence between the two groups. Secondary outcomes were analyzed as well.

RESULTS Of the 113 patients in the sample, groups receiving PEEK and titanium implants were closely matched at 57 and 56 patients, respectively. Cumulatively, 156 cages were inserted and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein– 2 (rhBMP-2) was used in 38.1%. The average patient age was 60.4 years and average follow-up was 75.1 weeks. Subsidence in the titanium group in this study was less common than in the PEEK cage group. At early follow-up, groups had similar subsidence outcomes. Statistical significance was reached at the 8- to 12-week and 52-week follow-ups, demonstrating more subsidence in the PEEK cage group than the titanium cage group. rhBMP-2 usage was also highly correlated with higher subsidence rates at all 3 follow-up time points. Age was correlated with higher subsidence rates in univariate and multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS Titanium cages were associated with lower subsidence rates than PEEK cages in this investigation. Usage of rhBMP-2 was also robustly associated with higher endplate subsidence. Each additional year of age correlated with an increased subsidence risk. Subsidence in LLIF is likely a response to a myriad of factors that include but are certainly not limited to cage material. Hence, the avoidance of titanium interbody implants secondary solely to concerns over a modulus of elasticity likely overlooks other variables of equal or greater importance.

Posted on

Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography-Based Spinal Navigation in Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography-Based Spinal Navigation in Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion4

Operative Neurosurgery 11:259–267, 2015

As with most minimally invasive spine procedures, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) requires the use of biplanar fluoroscopy for localization and safe interbody cage placement. Computed tomography (CT)-based intraoperative spinal navigation has been shown to be more effective than fluoroscopic guidance for posterior-based approaches such as pedicle screw instrumentation. However, the use of spinal navigation in LLIF has not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE: To present the technique for using an intraoperative cone-beam CT and image-guided navigation system in LLIF and to provide a preliminary analysis of outcomes.

METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively acquired database and the electronic records of patients undergoing LLIF with spinal navigation. Eight patients were identified. Postoperative neurological deficits were recorded. All patients underwent postprocedural CT and x-ray imaging for analysis of accuracy of cage placement. Accuracy of cage placement was determined by location within the disk space.

RESULTS: The mean age was 66 years, and 6 patients were women. A mean 2.8 levels were treated with a total of 22 lateral cages implanted via navigation. All cages were placed within quarters 1 to 2 or 2 to 3, signifying the anterior half or middle portions of the disk space. There were no sensory or motor deficits postoperatively.

CONCLUSION: Use of an intraoperative cone-beam CT with an image-guided navigation system is feasible and safe and appears to be accurate, although a larger study is required to confirm these results.

Proudly powered by WordPress