Tag: stand-alone

Posted on

Adjacent segment disease treated with stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: an analysis of domino adjacent segment revisions

J Neurosurg Spine 44:884–893, 2026

This clinical study compares stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with circumferential LLIF plus posterior instrumentation for treating adjacent segment disease (ASD) after prior posterior lumbosacral fusion. Primary outcome focused on “domino” proximal ASD revisions, with secondary measures including cage subsidence, radiographic alignment, and perioperative metrics.

Results from 236 patients show stand-alone LLIF had significantly lower 5-year domino ASD revision rates, shorter operative times and hospital stays, and comparable alignment despite higher rates of moderate-to-severe cage subsidence. Multivariable and competing-risk analyses supported stand-alone LLIF’s protective association against subsequent adjacent-segment reoperations.

Objective Assess whether stand-alone LLIF is a durable ASD revision strategy with lower risk of subsequent “domino” adjacent-segment revision compared with circumferential LLIF (LLIF + posterior fusion extension).

Design/Methods Single-center retrospective cohort (Jan 2008–Aug 2023) of patients with prior posterior lumbosacral fusion undergoing ASD revision via stand-alone vs circumferential LLIF; primary outcome was domino ASD revision; survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression used, adjusting for alignment, stenosis severity, and fused levels.

Cohort 236 patients included (131 stand-alone; 105 circumferential); baseline demographics/treated levels similar; preop MRI showed more severe central stenosis in the circumferential group (more Schizas grade D).

Primary outcome Stand-alone LLIF had a lower 5-year incidence of domino ASD revision (13.7% vs 28.6%, p = 0.005).

Adjusted association After multivariable adjustment, stand-alone LLIF remained independently associated with fewer domino ASD revisions (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23–0.79; p = 0.007).

Radiographic outcomes Overall radiographic alignment was comparable between groups, but stand-alone LLIF had higher cage subsidence (Marchi grade ≥ II: 22.9% vs 9.5%, p = 0.019), and subsidence was not associated with increased revision risk.

Perioperative outcomes Stand-alone LLIF had significantly shorter operative time and hospital stay than circumferential LLIF (with lower blood loss also reported).

Conclusion Stand-alone LLIF is supported as a treatment option for ASD after prior posterior fusion, with less domino ASD revision and similar radiographic alignment, at the cost of higher subsidence rates.

Posted on

Cage migration in multilevel stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: incidence and clinical correlations

J Neurosurg Spine 44:426–435, 2026

This clinical case series compares the incidence and outcomes of lateral interbody cage migration (LCM) following multilevel stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) versus LLIF with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation in 87 age-matched patients. The retrospective analysis reports similar LCM rates (7% vs 5%), no significant differences in complications, and comparable improvements in Oswestry Disability Index and pain scores at ≥1 year follow-up.

The report details patient selection, radiographic assessment methods, operative characteristics, and risk-factor analysis, emphasizing meticulous selection for multilevel stand-alone LLIF. Authors conclude multilevel stand-alone LLIF can be safe in selected patients but call for prospective studies to validate findings and clarify factors contributing to cage migration.

Lateral Cage Migration (LCM) Incidence: LCM occurred in 7% of multilevel stand-alone LLIF cases and 5% of LLIF cases with posterior instrumentation; this difference was not statistically significant.

Patient Selection Criteria: Optimal candidates for multilevel stand-alone LLIF have neutral sagittal and coronal balance, mild to moderate facet arthropathy, stable grade 1 spondylolisthesis, absence of severe central canal stenosis, normal or mildly reduced bone mineral density, and comorbidities or age that increase surgical risk with posterior fixation.

Clinical Outcomes: Both cohorts (stand-alone and posterior instrumentation) showed significant postoperative improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores, with no significant differences between groups.

Complication Rates: Postoperative complication rates were similar between groups (23% stand-alone vs. 20% posterior instrumentation), and no intraoperative complications were reported in either group.

Biomechanical Considerations: Supplemental posterior instrumentation increases construct stability, but clinical significance in preventing LCM in well-selected patients remains unclear; stand-alone LLIF can be safe with meticulous patient selection.

Role of Lateral Plates: Adding lateral plates to stand-alone LLIF does not significantly improve stability or reduce cage migration/subsidence in multilevel constructs and may increase cost and risk.

Risk Factors for LCM: No significant demographic, radiographic, or procedural risk factors for LCM were identified in this study; all patients with LCM had normal bone density, and meticulous surgical technique and patient selection are emphasized.

Study Limitations: Retrospective design, single institution, and small sample size may limit generalizability; prospective studies are needed for further validation.

Posted on

The role of sacral slope in lumbosacral fusion: a biomechanical study

sacral slope in LS fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 23:754–762, 2015

Abnormal sacral slope (SS) has shown to increase progression of spondylolisthesis, yet there exists a paucity in biomechanical studies investigating its role in the correction of adult spinal deformity, its influence on lumbosacral shear, and its impact on the instrumentation selection process. This in vitro study investigates the effect of SS on 3 anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs in a biomechanics laboratory.

Methods Nine healthy, fresh-frozen, intact human lumbosacral vertebral segments were tested by applying a 550- N axial load to specimens with an initial SS of 20° on an MTS Bionix test system. Testing was repeated as SS was increased to 50°, in 10° increments, through an angulated testing fixture. Specimens were instrumented using a standalone integrated spacer with self-contained screws (SA), an interbody spacer with posterior pedicle screws (PPS), and an interbody spacer with anterior tension band plate (ATB) in a randomized order. Stiffness was calculated from the linear portion of the load-deformation curve. Ultimate strength was also recorded on the final construct of all specimens (n = 3 per construct) with SS of 40°.

Results Axial stiffness (N/mm) of the L5–S1 motion segment was measured at various angles of SS: for SA 292.9 ± 142.8 (20°), 277.2 ± 113.7 (30°), 237.0 ± 108.7 (40°), 170.3 ± 74.1 (50°); for PPS 371.2 ± 237.5 (20°), 319.8 ± 167.2 (30°), 280.4 ± 151.7 (40°), 233.0 ± 117.6 (50°); and for ATB 323.9 ± 210.4 (20°), 307.8 ± 125.4 (30°), 249.4 ± 126.7 (40°), 217.7 ± 99.4 (50°). Axial compression across the disc space decreased with increasing SS, indicating that SS beyond 40° threshold shifted L5–S1 motion into pure shear, instead of compression-shear, defining a threshold. Trends in ultimate load and displacement differed from linear stiffness with SA > PPS > ATB.

Conclusions At larger SSs, bilateral pedicle screw constructs with spacers were the most stable; however, none of the constructs were significantly stiffer than intact segments. For load to failure, the integrated spacer performed the best; this may be due to angulations of integrated plate screws. Increasing SS significantly reduced stiffness, which indicates that surgeons need to consider using more aggressive fixation techniques.

Proudly powered by WordPress