Tag: prone transpsoas

Posted on

Prone Lateral Transpsoas Approach to the Spine: A Technical Guide for Mastery

Int J Spine Surg 2025, 19 (S1) S19-S27

• The prone lateral transpsoas (PTP) approach offers an alternative to traditional lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), allowing direct posterior access without repositioning the patient.

• Advantages of PTP include improved segmental lordosis, single-position surgery, and ease of posterior techniques, though it has a distinct learning curve.

• The technical guide aims to shorten the learning curve, optimize surgical workflow, and ensure patient safety through preoperative planning and technical adjustments.

• Preoperative imaging is crucial for assessing anatomical characteristics and guiding surgical approach decisions.

• Patient positioning in PTP involves prone positioning on a radiolucent table, with special attention to stabilizing the pelvis and optimizing working angles.

• Intraoperative monitoring with triggered electromyography (t-EMG) is essential to minimize lumbar plexus injury risk.

• Technical pearls include strategies for retractor positioning, minimizing retraction time, and using intraoperative navigation to enhance safety and efficiency.

• Conclusion: PTP LIF is a viable alternative to traditional methods, offering significant benefits but requiring mastery of its unique technical nuances.

Posted on

Complications of the Prone Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: A Multicenter Study

Neurosurgery 93:1106–1111, 2023

The prone transpsoas (PTP) approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a novel technique for degenerative lumbar spine disease. However, there is a paucity of information in the literature on the complications of this procedure, with all published data consisting of small samples. We aimed to report the intraoperative and postoperative complications of PTP in the largest study to date.

METHODS: A retrospective electronic medical record review was conducted at 11 centers to identify consecutive patients who underwent LLIF through the PTP approach between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. The following data were collected: intraoperative characteristics (operative time, estimated blood loss [EBL], intraoperative complications [anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) rupture, cage subsidence, vascular and visceral injuries]), postoperative complications, and hospital stay.

RESULTS: A total of 365 patients were included in the study. Among these patients, 2.2% had ALL rupture, 0.3% had cage subsidence, 0.3% had a vascular injury, 0.3% had a ureteric injury, and no other visceral injuries were reported. Mean operative time was 226.2 ± 147.9 minutes. Mean EBL was 138.4 ± 215.6 mL. Mean hospital stay was 2.7 ± 2.2 days. Postoperative complications included new sensory symptoms—8.2%, new lower extremity weakness—5.8%, wound infection—1.4%, cage subsidence—0.8%, psoas hematoma—0.5%, small bowel obstruction and ischemia—0.3%, and 90-day readmission—1.9%.

CONCLUSION: In this multicenter case series, the PTP approach was well tolerated and associated with a satisfactory safety profile.

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.

Proudly powered by WordPress