PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (976616)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Endoscopic transforaminal decompression, interbody fusion, and percutaneous pedicle screw implantation of the lumbar spine: A case series report 
Background
On the basis of the experiences gained from conventional open spinal procedures, a long list of desirable objectives have emerged with the evolution of the lesser invasive spinal procedures. At the top of that list is the desire to minimize the trauma of surgery. The rest of the objectives, which include reductions of operating time, surgical blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative narcotic medication, convalescence, complication rates, and escalating health care costs, as well as the desire of elderly patients to continue rigorous physical activities, largely depend on the ability to minimize the trauma of surgery. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of the least invasive lumbar decompression, interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw implantation, to minimize surgical trauma without compromising the quality of the treatment outcome, as well as to minimize risk of complications.
Methods
In this case series, 60 patients with diagnoses of degenerative disc disease, degenerative motion segments with stenosis, and spondylolisthesis, in whom nonoperative treatments failed, were treated with endoscopic transforaminal decompression and interbody fusion by 1 surgeon in 2 centers. The outcome measures were as follows: operating time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, scores on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, and postoperative imaging studies. A consecutive series of patients who met the treatment criteria completed VAS forms and Roland-Morris questionnaires preoperatively. Surgical procedures included arthroscopic decompression of the foramina and the discs; endplate preparation and implantation of allograft bone chips and bone morphogenetic protein 2 on absorbable collagen sponge into the disc space; and percutaneous implantation of pedicle screws. Postoperatively, the patients again completed the VAS forms and Roland-Morris questionnaires. Their charts were reviewed for office notes, operative notes, hospital stay, medications, and imaging studies. The latest X-ray and computed tomography scan films were reviewed and analyzed. Patients were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. The literature was reviewed for comparison of outcomes.
Results
Sixty patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 52.8 years. The duration of illness averaged 5 years. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 25 months, with a mean of 12 months. Preoperative diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, degenerative motion segments with stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. The mean time in the operating room was 2 hours 54 minutes. Estimated blood loss averaged 57.6 mL. The duration of the hospital stay averaged 2.6 days. Preoperative back pain and leg pain were significantly reduced (P < .005). Forty-seven imaging studies obtained at the last visit, including X-ray and computed tomography scans, showed solid fusion in 28 patients (59.6%), stable fixation in 17 (36.2%), and osteolysis around the pedicle screws in 2 (4.2%). All patients had improvement of motor function, whereas 2 patients complained of residual numbness. In addition, 8 patients (13%) complained of residual discomfort on extension of the lumbar spine. Two patients had pedicle screw–related complications requiring surgery. A review of the literature showed that endoscopic transforaminal decompression and interbody fusion performed better than open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion/posterior lumbar interbody fusion, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion, with regard to most parameters studied.
Conclusions
The endoscopic transforaminal lumbar decompression, interbody fusion, and percutaneous pedicle screw instrumentation consistently produced satisfactory results in all demographics. It performed better than the alternative procedures for most parameters studied.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.04.001
PMCID: PMC4300894
ETDIF; Arthroscopic; Posterolateral; Interbody; Percutaneous; BMP-2
2.  Access related complications in anterior lumbar surgery performed by spinal surgeons 
European Spine Journal  2012;22(Suppl 1):16-20.
Purpose
Anterior lumbar surgery is a common procedure for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and artificial disc replacement (ADR). Our aim was to study the exposure related complications for anterior lumbar spinal surgery performed by spinal surgeons.
Methods
A retrospective review was performed for 304 consecutive patients who underwent anterior lumbar spinal surgery over 10 years (2001–2010) at our institution. Each patient’s records were reviewed for patients’ demographics, diagnosis, level(s) of surgery, procedure and complications related to access surgery. Patients undergoing anterior lumbar access for tumour resection, infection, trauma and revision surgeries were excluded.
Results
All patients underwent an anterior paramedian retroperitoneal approach from the left side. The mean age of patients was 43 years (10–73; 197 males, 107 females). Indications for surgery were degenerative disc disease (DDD 255), degenerative spondylolisthesis (23), scoliosis (18), iatrogenic spondylolisthesis (5) and pseudoarthrosis (3). The procedures performed were single level surgery—L5/S1 (n = 147), L4/5 (n = 62), L3/4 (n = 7); two levels—L4/5 and L5/S1 (n = 74), L3/4 and L4/5 (n = 4); three levels—L3/4, L4/5, L5/S1 (n = 5); four levels—L2/3, L3/4, L4/5, L5/S1 (n = 5). The operative procedures were single level ADR (n = 131), a single level ALIF (n = 87) with or without posterior fusion, two levels ALIF (n = 54), two levels ADR (n = 14), a combination of ADR/ALIF (n = 10), three levels ALIF (n = 1), three levels ADR/ALIF/ALIF (n = 1), ADR/ADR/ALIF (n = 2), four levels ALIF (n = 1) and finally 3 patients underwent a four level ADR/ADR/ALIF/ALIF. The overall complication rate was 61/304 (20 %). This included major complications (6.2 %)—venous injury requiring suture repair (n = 14, 4.6 %) and arterial injury (n = 5 [1.6 %], 3 repaired, 2 thrombolysed). Minor complications (13.8 %) included venous injury managed without repair (n = 5, 1.6 %), infection (n = 13, 4.3 %), incidental peritoneal opening (n = 12, 3.9 %), leg oedema (n = 2, 0.6 %) and others (n = 10, 3.3 %). We had no cases of retrograde ejaculation.
Conclusion
We report a very thorough and critical review of our anterior lumbar access surgeries performed mostly for DDD and spondylolisthesis at L4/5 and L5/S1 levels. Vascular problems of any type (24/304, 7.8 %) were the most common complication during this approach. The incidence of major venous injury requiring repair was 14/304 (4.6 %) and arterial injury 5/304 (1.6 %). The requirement for a vascular surgeon with the vascular injury was 9/304 (3 %; 5 arterial injuries; 4 venous injuries). This also suggests that the majority of the major venous injuries were repaired by the spinal surgeon (10/14, 71 %). Our results are comparable to other studies and support the notion that anterior access surgery to the lumbar spine can be performed safely by spinal surgeons. With adequate training, spinal surgeons are capable of performing this approach without direct vascular support, but they should be available if required.
doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2616-1
PMCID: PMC3578511  PMID: 23250515
Anterior lumbar; Vascular injury; Complications
3.  Artificial Discs for Lumbar and Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease –Update 
Executive Summary
Objective
To assess the safety and efficacy of artificial disc replacement (ADR) technology for degenerative disc disease (DDD).
Clinical Need
Degenerative disc disease is the term used to describe the deterioration of 1 or more intervertebral discs of the spine. The prevalence of DDD is roughly described in proportion to age such that 40% of people aged 40 years have DDD, increasing to 80% among those aged 80 years or older. Low back pain is a common symptom of lumbar DDD; neck and arm pain are common symptoms of cervical DDD. Nonsurgical treatments can be used to relieve pain and minimize disability associated with DDD. However, it is estimated that about 10% to 20% of people with lumbar DDD and up to 30% with cervical DDD will be unresponsive to nonsurgical treatments. In these cases, surgical treatment is considered. Spinal fusion (arthrodesis) is the process of fusing or joining 2 bones and is considered the surgical gold standard for DDD.
Artificial disc replacement is the replacement of the degenerated intervertebral disc with an artificial disc in people with DDD of the lumbar or cervical spine that has been unresponsive to nonsurgical treatments for at least 6 months. Unlike spinal fusion, ADR preserves movement of the spine, which is thought to reduce or prevent the development of adjacent segment degeneration. Additionally, a bone graft is not required for ADR, and this alleviates complications, including bone graft donor site pain and pseudoarthrosis. It is estimated that about 5% of patients who require surgery for DDD will be candidates for ADR.
Review Strategy
The Medical Advisory Secretariat conducted a computerized search of the literature published between 2003 and September 2005 to answer the following questions:
What is the effectiveness of ADR in people with DDD of the lumbar or cervical regions of the spine compared with spinal fusion surgery?
Does an artificial disc reduce the incidence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) compared with spinal fusion?
What is the rate of major complications (device failure, reoperation) with artificial discs compared with surgical spinal fusion?
One reviewer evaluated the internal validity of the primary studies using the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Injuries Group Quality Assessment Tool. The quality of concealment allocation was rated as: A, clearly yes; B, unclear; or C, clearly no. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to evaluate the overall quality of the body of evidence (defined as 1 or more studies) supporting the research questions explored in this systematic review. A random effects model meta-analysis was conducted when data were available from 2 or more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and when there was no statistical and or clinical heterogeneity among studies. Bayesian analyses were undertaken to do the following:
Examine the influence of missing data on clinical success rates;
Compute the probability that artificial discs were superior to spinal fusion (on the basis of clinical success rates);
Examine whether the results were sensitive to the choice of noninferiority margin.
Summary of Findings
The literature search yielded 140 citations. Of these, 1 Cochrane systematic review, 1 RCT, and 10 case series were included in this review. Unpublished data from an RCT reported in the grey literature were obtained from the manufacturer of the device. The search also yielded 8 health technology assessments evaluating ADR that are also included in this review.
Six of the 8 health technology assessments concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of either lumbar or cervical ADR. The results of the remaining 2 assessments (one each for lumbar and cervical ADR) led to a National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance document supporting the safety and effectiveness of lumbar and cervical ADR with the proviso that an ongoing audit of all clinical outcomes be undertaken owing to a lack of long-term outcome data from clinical trials.
Regarding lumbar ADR, data were available from 2 noninferiority RCTs to complete a meta-analysis. The following clinical, health systems, and adverse event outcome measures were synthesized: primary outcome of clinical success, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, pain VAS scores, patient satisfaction, duration of surgery, amount of blood loss, length of hospital stay, rate of device failure, and rate of reoperation.
The meta-analysis of overall clinical success supported the noninferiority of lumbar ADR compared with spinal fusion at 24-month follow-up. Of the remaining clinical outcome measures (ODI, pain VAS scores, SF-36 scores [mental and physical components], patient satisfaction, and return to work status), only patient satisfaction and scores on the physical component scale of the SF-36 questionnaire were significantly improved in favour of lumbar ADR compared with spinal fusion at 24 months follow-up. Blood loss and surgical time showed statistical heterogeneity; therefore, meta-analysis results are not interpretable. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in patients receiving the ADR compared with controls. Neither the number of device failures nor the number of neurological complications at 24 months was statistically significantly different between the ADR and fusion treatment groups. However, there was a trend towards fewer neurological complications at 24 months in the ADR treatment group compared with the spinal fusion treatment group.
Results of the Bayesian analyses indicated that the influence of missing data on the outcome measure of clinical success was minimal. The Bayesian model indicated that the probability for ADR being better than spinal fusion was 79%. The probability of ADR being noninferior to spinal fusion using a -10% noninferiority bound was 92%, and using a -15% noninferiority bound was 94%. The probability of artificial discs being superior to spinal fusion in a future trial was 73%.
Six case series were reviewed, mainly to characterize the rate of major complications for lumbar ADR. The Medical Advisory Secretariat defined a major complication as any reoperation; device failure necessitating a revision, removal or reoperation; or life-threatening event. The rates of major complications ranged from 0% to 13% per device implanted. Only 1 study reported the rate of ASD, which was detected in 2 (2%) of the 100 people 11 years after surgery.
There were no RCT data available for cervical ADR; therefore, data from 4 case series were reviewed for evidence of effectiveness and safety. Because data were sparse, the effectiveness of cervical ADR compared with spinal fusion cannot be determined at this time.
The rate of major complications was assessed up to 2 years after surgery. It was found to range from 0% to 8.1% per device implanted. The rate of ASD is not reported in the clinical trial literature.
The total cost of a lumbar ADR procedure is $15,371 (Cdn; including costs related to the device, physician, and procedure). The total cost of a lumbar fusion surgery procedure is $11,311 (Cdn; including physicians’ and procedural costs).
Conclusions
Lumbar Artificial Disc Replacement
Since the 2004 Medical Advisory Secretariat health technology policy assessment, data from 2 RCTs and 6 case series assessing the effectiveness and adverse events profile of lumbar ADR to treat DDD has become available. The GRADE quality of this evidence is moderate for effectiveness and for short-term (2-year follow-up) complications; it is very low for ASD.
The effectiveness of lumbar ADR is not inferior to that of spinal fusion for the treatment of lumbar DDD. The rates for device failure and neurological complications 2 years after surgery did not differ between ADR and fusion patients. Based on a Bayesian meta-analysis, lumbar ADR is 79% superior to lumbar spinal fusion.
The rate of major complications after lumbar ADR is between 0% and 13% per device implanted. The rate of ASD in 1 case series was 2% over an 11-year follow-up period.
Outcome data for lumbar ADR beyond a 2-year follow-up are not yet available.
Cervical Artificial Disc Replacement
Since the 2004 Medical Advisory Secretariat health technology policy assessment, 4 case series have been added to the body of evidence assessing the effectiveness and adverse events profile of cervical ADR to treat DDD. The GRADE quality of this evidence is very low for effectiveness as well as for the adverse events profile. Sparse outcome data are available.
Because data are sparse, the effectiveness of cervical ADR compared with spinal fusion cannot be determined at this time.
The rate of major complications was assessed up to 2 years after surgery; it ranged from 0% to 8.1% per device implanted. The rate of ASD is not reported in the clinical trial literature.
PMCID: PMC3379529  PMID: 23074480
4.  Minimally invasive 360° instrumented lumbar fusion 
European Spine Journal  2000;9(Suppl 1):S051-S056.
A retrospective preliminary study was undertaken of combined minimally invasive instrumented lumbar fusion utilizing the BERG (balloon-assisted endoscopic retroperitoneal gasless) approach ¶anteriorly, and a posterior small-incision approach with translaminar screw fixation and posterolateral ¶fusion. The study aimed to quantify the clinical and radiological results using this combined technique. The traditional minimally invasive approach to the anterior lumbar spine involves gas insufflation and provides reliable access only to L5-S1 and in some cases L4-5. A gas-mediated approach yields many technical drawbacks to performing spinal surgery. A minimally invasive posterior approach involving suprafascial pedicle screw instrumentation has been developed, but without widespread use. Translaminar facet fixation may be a viable alternative to transpedicular fixation in a 360° instrumented fusion model. Past studies have shown open 360° instrumented lumbar fusion yields high arthrodesis rates. The study examined the cases of 46 patients who underwent successful 360° instrumented lumbar fusion using a combined minimally invasive approach. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at one or two levels was performed through the BERG approach; a gasless retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine allowing the use ¶of standard anterior instrumentation. Posteriorly, all patients underwent successful decompression, translaminar fixation, and posterolateral fusion at one or two levels through ¶one small (2.5–5.0 cm) incision. Results showed mean hospital stay of 2.02 days; mean combined blood loss was 255 cc; and mean pain relief was 56%, with 75.5% of patients reporting good, excellent, or total pain relief. Forty-two of 46 patients (93.2%) achieved a solid fusion ¶24 months after surgery. A total of 47% of all patients working prior to surgery returned to work following surgery. The study showed that minimally invasive 360° instrumented lumbar fusion, when performed utilizing these approaches, yields a high rate of solid arthrodesis (93.3%), good pain relief, short hospital stays, low blood losses, accelerated rehabilitation, and a quick return to the workforce. The BERG approach offers technical advantages over the traditional gas-mediated laparoscopic approach to the anterior lumbar spine.
doi:10.1007/PL00010022
PMCID: PMC3611432
Key words Minimally Invasive; 360° lumbar fusion; Combined ¶anteroposterior; Gasless endoscopy; Translaminar fixation
5.  The use of a retractor system (SynFrame) for open, minimal invasive reconstruction of the anterior column of the thoracic and lumbar spine 
European Spine Journal  2001;10(5):396-402.
Abstract.
In 65 consecutive cases of trauma (n=55), pseudo-arthrosis (n=4) and metastasis (n=6), anterior reconstruction of the thoracic and lumbar spine was performed using a new minimal invasive but open access procedure. No operation had to be changed into an open procedure. The thoracolumbar junction was approached by a left-sided mini-thoracotomy (n=50), the thoracic spine by a right-sided mini-thoracotomy (n=8) and the lumbar spine by a left sided mini-retroperitoneal approach (n=7), using a new table-mounted retractor system called SynFrame (Stratec Medical, Switzerland). The anterior column was reconstructed using a variety of materials: autologous tricortical crest (n=11), autologous spongiosa (n=12), allografts (n=4) and cages (n=38). The mean overall operating time was 170 min (range 90–295 min); the time of surgery varied, depending on the spine pathology and the magnitude of the intervention in the anterior part of the spine. Mean overall blood loss was 912 ml, and only 7 out of the 65 patients needed blood transfusions. There were neither intra- nor postoperative complications related to the minimal access in particular, nor visceral/vascular complications. No intercostal neuralgia, no post-thoracotomy pain syndromes, no superficial or deep wound infections and no deep venous thromboses occurred. Four cases of pseudo-obstruction were treated conservatively. In this study, we describe the new minimal access technology to the anterior part of the thoracal and lumbar spine on the basis of 65 cases completed within 1 year. This open, but minimal invasive, access technology offers, in our view, additional advantages to the "pure" endoscopic procedures of spinal surgery.
doi:10.1007/s005860100330
PMCID: PMC3611521  PMID: 11718193
Minimal invasive spine surgery Reconstruction Anterior column Retractor
6.  Long-term results of pediculo-body fixation and posterolateral fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis 
European Spine Journal  2009;18(Suppl 1):151-155.
Grob et al. (Eur Spine J 5:281–285, 1996) illustrated a new fixation technique in inveterate cases of grade 2–3 spondylolisthesis (degenerative or spondylolytic): a fusion without reduction of the spondylolisthesis. Fixation of the segment was achieved by two cancellous bone screws inserted bilaterally through the pedicles of the lower vertebra into the body of the upper slipped vertebra. Since 1998 we have been using this technique according to the authors’ indications: symptomatic spondylolisthesis with at least 25% anterior slippage and advanced disc degeneration. Afterwards this technique was used also in spondylolisthesis with low reduction of the disc height and slippage less than 25%. In every case we performed postero-lateral fusion and fixation with two AO 6.5 Ø thread 16 mm cancellous screws. From 1998 to 2002 we performed 62 fusions for spondylolisthesis with this technique: 28 males (45.16%) and 34 females (54.84%), mean age 45 years (14–72 years). The slipped vertebra was L5 in 57 cases (92%), L4 in 2 cases (3.2%), L3 in 1 case (1.6%), combined L4 and L5 in 2 cases (3.2%). In all cases there was an ontogenetic spondylolisthesis with lysis. Lumbar pain was present in 22 patients and lumbar-radicular pain was present in 40 patients. The mean preoperative VAS was 6.2 (range 5–8) for lumbar pain, and 5.5 (range 4–7) for leg pain. The fusion area was L5–S1 in 53 cases (85.5%), L3–L4 in 1 case (1.6%), L4–S1 in 8 cases (12.9%). A decompression of the spinal canal by laminectomy was performed in 33 procedures (53%). When possible a bone graft was done from the removed neural arc, and from the posterior iliac crest in the other cases. The mean blood loss was about 254 ml (100–1,000). The mean operative time was 75 min (range 60–90). The results obtained by computerized analysis at follow-up at least 5 years after surgery showed a significant improvement in preoperative symptoms. The patients were asymptomatic in 52 cases (83.9%); strained-back pain was present in 8 cases (12.9%), and there was persistent lumbar-radicular pain in 2 cases (3.2%). The mean ODI score was 2.6%, the mean VAS back pain was 1.3, the mean VAS leg pain 0.7. Some complications were observed: a nerve root compression by a screw invasion of intervertebral foramen, resolved by screw removal; an iliac artery compression by a lateral exit screw from pediculo, resolved by screw removal; a deep iliac vein phlebitis with thrombosis caused by external compression due to a wrong intraoperative position, treated by medicine. Two cases of synthesis mobilization and two cases of broken screws was detected. No cases of pseudoarthrosis and immediate or late superficial or deep infection were observed. The analysis of the long-term results of the spondylolisthesis surgical treatment with direct pediculo-body screw fixation and postero-lateral fusion gave a very satisfactory response. The technique is reliable in allowing an optimal primary stability, creating the best biomechanical conditions to obtain a solid fusion.
doi:10.1007/s00586-009-0997-6
PMCID: PMC2899605  PMID: 19444490
Spondylolisthesis; Spinal fusion; Back pain; Radicular pain
7.  MIS Fusion of the SI Joint: Does Prior Lumbar Spinal Fusion Affect Patient Outcomes? 
Background:
Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain is a challenging condition to manage as it can mimic discogenic or radicular low back pain, and present as low back, hip, groin and/or buttock pain. Patients may present with a combination of lumbar spine and SI joint symptoms, further complicating the diagnosis and treatment algorithm [1-3]. SI joint pain after lumbar spinal fusion has been reported in the literature. Both clinical and biomechanical studies show the SI joint to be susceptible to increased motion and stress at the articular surface with up to 40-75% of patients developing significant SI joint degeneration after 5 years.
In a recent case series study of 50 patients who underwent minimally invasive SI joint arthrodesis, 50% had undergone previous lumbar spinal fusion and 18% had symptomatic lumbar spine pathology treated conservatively [4].
The purpose of this study is to determine if history of previous lumbar fusion or lumbar pathology affects patient outcomes after MIS SI joint fusion surgery.
Methods:
We report on 40 patients with 24 month follow up treated with MIS SI joint fusion using a series of triangular porous plasma coated titanium implants (iFuse, SI-Bone, Inc. San Jose, CA). Outcomes using a numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain were obtained at 3-, 6-, 12- and 24 month follow up intervals. Additionally, patient satisfaction was collected at the latest follow up interval. Patients were separated into 3 cohorts: 1) underwent prior lumbar spine fusion (PF), 2) no history of previous lumbar spine fusion (NF), 3) no history of previous lumbar spine fusion with symptomatic lumbar spine pathology treated conservatively (LP). A repeated measures analysis of variance (rANOVA) was used to determine if the change in NRS pain scores differed across timepoints and subgroups. A decrease in NRS by 2 points was deemed clinically significant [5].
Results:
Mean age was 54 (±13) years and varied slightly but not statistically between groups. All subgroups experienced a clinically and statistically significant reduction in pain at all time points (mean change >2 points, p<0.001). There was a statistically significant effect of cohort (p=0.045), with the NF cohort (no prior lumbar spinal fusion) having a somewhat greater decrease in pain (by approximately 1 point) compared to the other 2 groups (PF and LP).Patient reported satisfaction by cohort was: 89% (NF), 92% (PF) and 63% (LP).Overall satisfaction rate was 87%.
Discussion and Conclusion:
Patients with SI joint pain, regardless of prior lumbar spine fusion history, show significant improvement in pain after minimally invasive SI joint fusion. The presence of symptomatic lumbar spine pathology potentially confounds the treatment affect, as patients may not be able to discriminate between symptoms arising from the SI joint and the lumbar spine. These patients expressed a lower satisfaction with surgery. Patients without other confounding lumbar spine pathology and who have not undergone previous spine surgery tend to be younger and experience a greater reduction in pain.
doi:10.2174/1874325001307010163
PMCID: PMC3664440  PMID: 23730380
Sacroiliac (SI) joint; lumbar fusion; minimally invasive surgery; MIS arthrodesis.
8.  Multilevel extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) and osteotomies for 3-dimensional severe deformity: 25 consecutive cases 
Background
This is a retrospective review of 25 patients with severe lumbar nerve root compression undergoing multilevel anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation for deformity. The objective is to analyze the outcomes and clinical results from anterior interbody fusions performed through a lateral approach and compare these with traditional surgical procedures.
Methods
A consecutive series of 25 patients (78 extreme lateral interbody fusion [XLIF] levels) was identified to illustrate the primary advantages of XLIF in correcting the most extreme of the 3-dimensional deformities that fulfilled the following criteria: (1) a minimum of 40° of scoliosis; (2) 2 or more levels of translation, anterior spondylolisthesis, and lateral subluxation (subluxation in 2 planes), causing symptomatic neurogenic claudication and severe spinal stenosis; and (3) lumbar hypokyphosis or flat-back syndrome. In addition, the majority had trunks that were out of balance (central sacral vertical line ≥2 cm from vertical plumb line) or had sagittal imbalance, defined by a distance between the sagittal vertical line and S1 of greater than 3 cm. There were 25 patients who had severe enough deformities fulfilling these criteria that required supplementation of the lateral XLIF with posterior osteotomies and pedicle screw instrumentation.
Results
In our database, with a mean follow-up of 24 months, 85% of patients showed evidence of solid arthrodesis and no subsidence on computed tomography and flexion/extension radiographs. The complication rate remained low, with a perioperative rate of 2.4% and postoperative rate of 12.2%. The lateral listhesis and anterior spondylolisthetic subluxation were anatomically reduced with minimally invasive XLIF. The main finding in these 25 cases was our isolation of the major indication for supplemental posterior surgery: truncal decompensation in patients who are out of balance by 2 cm or more, in whom posterior spinal osteotomies and segmental pedicle screw instrumentation were required at follow up. No patients were out of sagittal balance (sagittal vertical line <3 cm from S1) postoperatively. Segmental instrumentation with osteotomies was also more effective for restoration of physiologic lumbar lordosis compared with anterior stand-alone procedures.
Conclusions
This retrospective study supports the finding that clinical outcomes (coronal/sagittal alignment) improve postoperatively after minimally invasive surgery with multilevel XLIF procedures and are improved compared with larger extensile thoracoabdominal anterior scoliosis procedures.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsp.2012.10.001
PMCID: PMC4300965
XLIF; Deformity; Scoliosis; Three column osteotomy
9.  Harvesting local cylinder autograft from adjacent vertebral body for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: surgical technique, operative feasibility and preliminary clinical results 
European Spine Journal  2006;15(9):1352-1359.
Autogenous iliac crest has long served as the gold standard for anterior lumbar arthrodesis although added morbidity results from the bone graft harvest. Therefore, femoral ring allograft, or cages, have been used to decrease the morbidity of iliac crest bone harvesting. More recently, an experimental study in the animal showed that harvesting local bone from the anterior vertebral body and replacing the void by a radio-opaque β-tricalcium phosphate plug was a valid concept. However, such a concept precludes theoretically the use of posterior pedicle screw fixation. At one institution a consecutive series of 21 patients underwent single- or multiple-level circumferential lumbar fusion with anterior cages and posterior pedicle screws. All cages were filled with cancellous bone harvested from the adjacent vertebral body, and the vertebral body defect was filled with a β-tricalcium phosphate plug. The indications for surgery were failed conservative treatment of a lumbar degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to report on the surgical technique, operative feasibility, safety, benefits, and drawbacks of this technique with our primary clinical experience. An independent researcher reviewed all data that had been collected prospectively from the onset of the study. The average age of the patients was 39.9 (26–57) years. Bone grafts were successfully harvested from 28 vertebral bodies in all but one patient whose anterior procedure was aborted due to difficulty in freeing the left common iliac vein. This case was converted to a transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF). There was no major vascular injury. Blood loss of the anterior procedure averaged 250 ml (50–350 ml). One tricalcium phosphate bone plug was broken during its insertion, and one endplate was broken because of wrong surgical technique, which did not affect the final outcome. One patient had a right lumbar plexopathy that was not related to this special technique. There was no retrograde ejaculation, infection or pseudoarthrosis. One patient experienced a deep venous thrombosis. At the last follow up (mean 28 months) all patients had a solid lumbar spine fusion. At the 6-month follow up, the pain as assessed on the visual analog scale (VAS) decreased from 6.9 to 4.5 (33% decrease), and the Oswestry disability index (ODI) reduced from 48.0 to 31.7 with a 34% reduction. However, at 2 years follow up there was a trend for increase in the ODI (35) and VAS (5). The data in this study suggest that harvesting a cylinder of autograft from the adjacent vertebral body is safe and efficient. Filling of the void defect with a β-tricalcium phosphate plug does not preclude the use of posterior pedicle screw stabilization.
doi:10.1007/s00586-006-0100-5
PMCID: PMC2438563  PMID: 16598484
Lumbar fusion; β-Tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP); Cage; Pedicle screw
10.  Impact of total disc arthroplasty on the surgical management of lumbar degenerative disc disease: Analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2008 
Background:
Spinal fusion is the most rapidly increasing type of lumbar spine surgery for various lumbar degenerative pathologies. The surgical treatment of lumbar spine degenerative disc disease may involve decompression, stabilization, or arthroplasty procedures. Lumbar disc athroplasty is a recent technological advance in the field of lumbar surgery. This study seeks to determine the clinical impact of anterior lumbar disc replacement on the surgical treatment of lumbar spine degenerative pathology. This is a retrospective assessment of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS).
Methods:
The NIS was searched for ICD-9 codes for lumbar and lumbosacral fusion (81.06), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (81.07), and posterolateral lumbar fusion (81.08), as well as for procedure codes for revision fusion surgery in the lumbar and lumbosacral spine (81.36, 81.37, and 81.38). To assess lumbar arthroplasty, procedure codes for the insertion or replacement of lumbar artificial discs (84.60, 84.65, and 84.68) were queried. Results were assayed from 2000 through 2008, the last year with available data. Analysis was done using the lme4 package in the R programming language for statistical computing.
Results:
A total of nearly 300,000 lumbar spine fusion procedures were reported in the NIS database from 2000 to 2008; assuming a representative cross-section of the US health care market, this models approximately 1.5 million procedures performed over this time period. In 2005, the first year of its widespread use, there were 911 lumbar arthroplasty procedures performed, representing 3% of posterolateral fusions performed in this year. Since introduction, the number of lumbar spine arthroplasty procedures has consistently declined, to 653 total procedures recorded in the NIS in 2008. From 2005 to 2008, lumbar arthroplasties comprised approximately 2% of lumbar posterolateral fusions. Arthroplasty patients were younger than posterior lumbar fusion patients (42.8 ± 11.5 vs. 55.9 ± 15.1 years, P < 0.0000001). The distribution of arthroplasty procedures was even between academic and private urban facilities (48.5% and 48.9%, respectively). While rates of posterolateral lumbar spine fusion steadily grew during the period (OR 1.06, 95% CI: 1.05-1.06, P < 0.0000001), rates of revision surgery and anterior spinal fusion remained static.
Conclusions:
The impact of lumbar arthroplasty procedures has been minimal. Measured as a percentage of more common lumbar posterior arthrodesis procedures, lumbar arthroplasty comprises only approximately 2% of lumbar spine surgeries performed in the United States. Over the first 4 years following the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, the frequency of lumbar disc arthroplasty has decreased while the number of all lumbar spinal fusions has increased.
doi:10.4103/2152-7806.85980
PMCID: PMC3205497  PMID: 22059134
Artificial disc; lumbar spinal fusion; total disc replacement
11.  Mid-range outcomes in 64 consecutive cases of multilevel fusion for degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine 
Orthopedic Reviews  2010;2(1):e3.
In the treatment of multilevel degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine, spondylodesis plays a controversial role. Most patients can be treated conservatively with success. Multilevel lumbar fusion with instrumentation is associated with severe complications like failed back surgery syndrome, implant failure, and adjacent segment disease (ASD). This retrospective study examines the records of 70 elderly patients with degenerative changes or instability of the lumbar spine treated between 2002 and 2007 with spondylodesis of more than two segments. Sixty-four patients were included; 5 patients had died and one patient was lost to follow-up. We evaluated complications, clinical/radiological outcomes, and success of fusion. Flexion-extension and standing X-rays in two planes, MRI, and/or CT scans were obtained pre-operatively. Patients were assessed clinically using the Oswestry disability index (ODI) and a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Surgery performed was dorsolateral fusion (46.9%) or dorsal fusion with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF; 53.1%). Additional decompression was carried out in 37.5% of patients. Mean follow-up was 29.4±5.4 months. Average patient age was 64.7±4.3 years. Clinical outcomes were not satisfactory for all patients. VAS scores improved from 8.6±1.3 to 5.6±3.0 pre- to post-operatively, without statistical significance. ODI was also not significantly improved (56.1±22.3 pre- and 45.1±26.4 post-operatively). Successful fusion, defined as adequate bone mass with trabeculation at the facets and transverse processes or in the intervertebral segments, did not correlate with good clinical outcomes. Thirty-five of 64 patients (54%) showed signs of pedicle screw loosening, especially of the screws at S1. However, only 7 of these 35 (20%) complained of corresponding back pain. Revision surgery was required in 24 of 64 patients (38%). Of these, indications were adjacent segment disease (16 cases), pedicle screw loosening (7 cases), and infection (one case). At follow-up of 29.4 months, patients with radiographic ASD had worse ODI scores than patients without (54.7 vs. 36.6; P<0.001). Multilevel fusion for degenerative disease still has a high rate of complications, up to 50%. The problem of adjacent segment disease after fusion surgery has not yet been solved. This study underscores the need for strict indication guidelines to perform lumbar spine fusion of more than two levels.
doi:10.4081/or.2010.e3
PMCID: PMC3143945  PMID: 21808698
lumbar spine; multilevel fusion; complication; degenerative disease; adjacent segment disease; implant loosening; topping off.
12.  The dynamic neutralization system for the spine: a multi-center study of a novel non-fusion system 
European Spine Journal  2002;11(Suppl 2):S170-S178.
Abstract.
Various forms of lumbar instability require a surgical stabilization. As an alternative to fusion, a mobile, dynamic stabilization restricting segmental motion would be advantageous in various indications, allowing greater physiological function and reducing the inherent disadvantages of rigid instrumentation and fusion. The dynamic neutralization system for the spine (Dynesys) is a pedicle screw system for mobile stabilization, consisting of titanium alloy screws connected by an elastic synthetic compound, controlling motion in any plane (non-fusion system). This prospective, multi-center study evaluated the safety and efficacy of Dynesys in the treatment of lumbar instability conditions, evaluating pre- and post-operative pain, function, and radiological data on a consecutive series of 83 patients. Indications consisted of unstable segmental conditions, mainly combined with spinal stenosis (60.2%) and with degenerative discopathy (24.1%), in some cases with disc herniation (8.4%), and with revision surgery (6.0%). Thirty-nine patients additionally had degenerative spondylolisthesis, and 30 patients had undergone previous lumbar surgery. In 56 patients instrumentation was combined with direct decompression. The mean age at operation was 58.2 (range 26.8–85.3) years; the mean follow-up time was 38.1 months (range 11.2–79.1 months). There were nine complications unrelated to the implant, and one due to a screw malplacement. Four of them required an early surgical reintervention. Additional lumbar surgery in the follow-up period included: implant removal and conversion into spinal fusion with rigid instrumentation for persisting pain in three cases, laminectomy of an index segment in one case and screw removal due to loosening in one case. In seven cases, radiological signs of screw loosening were observed. In seven cases, adjacent segment degeneration necessitated further surgery. Mean pain and function scores improved significantly from baseline to follow-up, as follows: back pain scale from 7.4 to 3.1, leg pain scale from 6.9 to 2.4, and Oswestry Disability Index from 55.4% to 22.9%. These study results compare well with those obtained by conventional procedures; in addition to which, mobile stabilization is less invasive than fusion. Long-term screw fixation is dependent on correct screw dimension and proper screw positioning. The natural course of polysegmental disease in some cases necessitates further surgery as the disease progresses. Dynamic neutralization proved to be a safe and effective alternative in the treatment of unstable lumbar conditions.
doi:10.1007/s00586-002-0438-2
PMCID: PMC3611570  PMID: 12384741
Lumbar spine Surgical treatment Non-fusion Instrumentation Instability
13.  Outcome of single level instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion using corticocancellous laminectomy bone chips 
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics  2011;45(6):500-503.
Background:
Interbody fusion surgery has been considered by many to be a treatment of choice for instability in lumbar degenerative disc disease. A posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) has the advantages of spinal canal decompression, anterior column reconstruction, and reduction of the sagittal slips from a single posterior approach. The PLIF using double cage was a standard practice till many studies reported comparable results and lesser complications with single cage. Iliac crest was considered as an appropriate source of bone graft until comparable spinal fusion rates using local bone graft and cage emerged. Till date, there has been no report of corticocancellous laminectomy bone chips alone being used for spinal fusion. In this paper, we present radiologic results of single level instrumented PLIF, where in only corticocancellous laminectomy bone chips were used as a fusion device.
Materials and Methods:
It is a retrospective cohort study of 35 consecutive patients, who underwent single level instrumented PLIF surgery, wherein only locally obtained bone chips was used for spinal fusion. The average follow-up was 26 months. The indications for the surgery were as follows: 19 patients had disc herniations, with back pain of instability type, normal disc height on radiology. Ten patients had grade 1 spondylolisthesis, with significant back pain and translational instability on radiography. Three patients were redo spine surgeries, and three patients had healed spondylodiscitis with significant back pain and instability. All patients were regularly followed up and decision of spinal fusion or no fusion was taken at 2 years using modified criteria of Lee.
Results:
Of total 35 patients, there were 24 males and 11 females, with a mean age of 41 years. There were 16 patients with definitive fusion, 15 patients with probable fusion, 04 patients with possible pseudoarthrosis, and no patient had definitive pseudoarthrosis. The mean time for fusion to occur was 18 months. The average loss of disc height, over 2 year follow up, was only 3 mm in 8 patients. Three patients had a localized kyphosis of more than 3° at the fusion level. The average blood loss was 356 ml and average operating time was 150 min.
Conclusion:
Corticocancellous laminectomy bone chips alone can be used as a means of spinal fusion in patients with single level instrumented PLIF. This has got a good fusion rate.
doi:10.4103/0019-5413.87117
PMCID: PMC3227352  PMID: 22144741
Corticocancellous laminectomy bone chips; Interbody cage; posterior lumbar interbody fusion
14.  Outcome of minimally invasive surgery in the management of tuberculous spondylitis 
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics  2012;46(2):159-164.
Introduction:
With the advancement of instrumentation and minimally access techniques in the field of spine surgery, good surgical decompression and instrumentation can be done for tuberculous spondylitis with known advantage of MIS (minimally invasive surgery). The aim of this study was to assess the outcome of the minimally invasive techniques in the surgical treatment of patients with tuberculous spondylodiscitis.
Materials and Methods:
23 patients (Group A) with a mean age 38.2 years with single-level spondylodiscitis between T4-T11 treated with video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) involving anterior debridement and fusion and 15 patients (Group B) with a mean age of 32.5 years who underwent minimally invasive posterior pedicle screw instrumentation and mini open posterolateral debridement and fusion were included in study. The study was conducted from Mar 2003 to Dec 2009 duration. The indication of surgery was progressive neurological deficit and/or instability. The patients were evaluated for blood loss, duration of surgery, VAS scores, improvement in kyphosis, and fusion status. Improvement in neurology was documented and functional outcome was judged by oswestry disability index (ODI).
Results:
The mean blood loss in Group A (VATS category) was 780 ml (330-1180 ml) and the operative time averaged was 228 min (102-330 min). The average preoperative kyphosis in Group A was 38° which was corrected to 30°. Twenty-two patients who underwent VATS had good fusion (Grade I and Grade II) with failure of fusion in one. Complications occurred in seven patients who underwent VATS. The mean blood loss was 625 ml (350-800 ml) with an average duration of surgery of 255 min (180-345 min) in the percutaneous posterior instrumentation group (Group B). The average preoperative segmental (kyphosis) Cobb's angle of three patients with thoracic TB in Group B was 41.25° (28-48°), improved to 14.5°(11°- 21°) in the immediate postoperative period (71.8% correction). The average preoperative segmental kyphosis in another 12 patients in Group B with lumbar tuberculosis of 20.25° improved to –12.08° of lordosis with 32.33° average correction of deformity. Good fusion (Grade I and Grade II) was achieved in 14 patients and Grade III fusion in 1 patient in Group B. One patient suffered with pseudoarthrosis/doubtful fusion with screw loosening in the percutaneous group.
Conclusion:
Good fusion rate with encouraging functional results can be obtained in caries spine with minimally invasive techniques with all the major advantages of a minimally invasive procedures including reduction in approach-related morbidity.
doi:10.4103/0019-5413.93680
PMCID: PMC3308656  PMID: 22448053
Minimally invasive spine surgery; tuberculous spondylodiscitis; video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery
15.  The importance of the anterior longitudinal ligament in lumbar disc arthroplasty: 36-Month follow-up experience in extreme lateral total disc replacement 
Background
Current total disc replacement (TDR) for lumbar spine requires an anterior approach for implantation but presents inherent limitations, including risks to the abdominal structures, as well as resection of the anterior longitudinal ligament. By approaching the spine laterally, it is possible to preserve the stabilizing ligaments, which are a natural restraint to excessive rotations and translations, and thereby help to minimize facet stresses. This less invasive approach also offers a biomechanical advantage of placement of the device over the ring apophysis bilaterally; importantly, it also offers a greater opportunity for safer revision surgery, if necessary, by avoiding scarring of the anterior vasculature. We present the clinical and radiologic results of a lateral TDR device from a prospective single-center study.
Methods
A new metal-on-metal TDR device designed for implantation through a true lateral, retroperitoneal, transpsoatic approach (extreme lateral interbody fusion) was implanted in 36 patients with discography-confirmed 1- or 2-level degenerative disc disease. Clinical (pain and function) and radiographic (range of motion) outcome assessments were prospectively collected preoperatively, postoperatively, and serially up to a minimum of 36 months’ follow-up.
Results
Between December 2005 and December 2006, 36 surgeries were performed in 16 men and 20 women (mean age, 42.6 years). These included 15 single-level TDR procedures at L3-4 or L4-5, 3 2-level TDR procedures spanning L3-4 and L4-5, and 18 hybrid procedures (anterior lumbar interbody fusion) at L5-S1 and TDR at L4-5 (17) or L3-4 (1). Operative time averaged 130 minutes, with mean blood loss of 60 mL and no intraoperative complications. Postoperative X-rays showed good device placement, with restoration of disc height, foraminal volume, and sagittal balance. All patients were up and walking within 12 hours of surgery, and all but 9 were discharged the next day (7 of those 9 were hybrid TDR–anterior lumbar interbody fusion cases). Postoperatively, 5 of 36 patients (13.8%) had psoas weakness and 3 of 36 (8.3%) had anterior thigh numbness, with both symptoms resolving within 2 weeks. Of the 36 patients, 4 (11%) had postoperative facet joint pain, all in hybrid cases. Visual analog scale pain scores and Oswestry Disability Index scores improved by 74.5% and 69.2%, respectively, from preoperatively to 3-year follow-up. Range of motion at 3 years postoperatively averaged 8.1°. Signals of heterotopic ossification were present in 5 patients (13.9%), and 2 patients (5.5%) were considered to have fusion after 36 months.
Conclusions
The clinical and radiographic results of a laterally placed TDR have shown maintenance of pain relief and functional improvement over a long-term follow-up period. The benefits of the lateral access—minimal morbidity, avoidance of mobilization of the great vessels, preservation of the anterior longitudinal ligament, biomechanically stable orientation, and broader revision options—promote a new option for motion-preservation procedures.
doi:10.1016/j.ijsp.2011.09.002
PMCID: PMC4300872
Arthroplasty; Total disc replacement; XLIF; Minimally invasive; Lateral approach
16.  Simultaneously anterior decompression and posterior instrumentation by extrapleural retroperitoneal approach in thoracolumbar lesions 
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics  2010;44(4):409-416.
Background:
Anterior decompression with posterior instrumentation when indicated in thoracolumbar spinal lesions if performed simultaneously in single-stage expedites rehabilitation and recovery. Transthoracic, transdiaphragmatic approach to access the thoracolumbar junction is associated with significant morbidity, as it violates thoracic cavity; requires cutting of diaphragm and a separate approach, for posterior instrumentation. We evaluated the clinical outcome morbidity and feasibility of extrapleural retroperitoneal approach to perform anterior decompression and posterior instrumentation simultaneously by single “T” incision outcome in thoracolumbar spinal trauma and tuberculosis.
Patients and Methods:
Forty-eight cases of tubercular spine (n = 25) and fracture of the spine (n = 23) were included in the study of which 29 were male and 19 female. The mean age of patients was 29.1 years. All patients underwent single-stage anterior decompression, fusion, and posterior instrumentation (except two old traumatic cases) via extrapleural retroperitoneal approach by single “T” incision. Tuberculosis cases were operated in lateral position as they were stabilized with Hartshill instrumentation. For traumatic spine initially posterior pedicle screw fixation was performed in prone position and then turned to right lateral position for anterior decompression by same incision and approach. They were evaluated for blood loss, duration of surgery, superficial and deep infection of incision site, flap necrosis, correction of the kyphotic deformity, and restoration of anterior and posterior vertebral body height.
Results:
In traumatic spine group the mean duration of surgery was 269 minutes (range 215–315 minutes) including the change over time from prone to lateral position. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 918 ml (range 550–1100 ml). The preoperative mean ASIA motor, pin prick and light touch score improved from 63.3 to 74.4, 86 to 94.4 and 86 to 96 at 6 month of follow-up respectively. The mean preoperative loss of the anterior vertebral height improved from 44.7% to 18.4% immediate postoperatively and was 17.5% at final follow-up at 1 year. The means preoperative kyphus angle also improved from 23.3° to 9.3° immediately after surgery, which deteriorated to 11.5° at final follow-up. One patient developed deep wound infection at the operative site as well as flap necrosis, which needed debridement and removal of hardware. Five patients had bed sore in the sacral region, which healed uneventfully. In tubercular spine (n=25) group, mean operating time was approximately 45 minutes less than traumatic group. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 1100 ml (750–2200 ml). The mean preoperative kyphosis was corrected from 55° to 23°. Wound healing occurred uneventful in 23 cases and wound dehiscence occurred in only 2 cases. Nine out of 11 cases with paraplegia showed excellent neural recovery while 2 with panvertebral disease showed partial neural recovery. None of the patients in both groups required intensive unit care.
Conclusions:
Simultaneous exposure of both posterior and anterior column of the spine for posterior instrumentation and anterior decompression and fusion in single stage by extra pleural retroperitoneal approach by “T” incision in thoracolumbar spinal lesions is safe, an easy alternative with reduced morbidity as chest and abdominal cavities are not violated, ICU care is not required and diaphragm is not cut.
doi:10.4103/0019-5413.69315
PMCID: PMC2947728  PMID: 20924482
Extra pleural retroperitoneal approach; thoracolumbar spine; spinal trauma; tuberculosis of spine
17.  Mini-Open Approach for Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion 
Asian Spine Journal  2014;8(4):491-497.
Study Design
Retrospective analysis.
Purposes
To introduce the mini-open lateral approach for the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and to investigate the advantages, technical pitfalls and complications by providing basic knowledge on extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) or direct lumbar interbody fusion (DLIF).
Overview of Literature
Recently, minimally invasive lateral approach for the lumbar spine is revived and receiving popularity under the name of XLIF or DLIF by modification of mini-open method when using the sequential tubular dilator and special expandable retractor system.
Methods
Seventy-four patients who underwent surgery by the mini-open lateral approach from September 2000 to April 2008 with various disease entities were included. Blood losses, operation times, incision sizes, postoperative time to mobilization, length of hospital stays, technical problems and complications were all analyzed.
Results
The blood losses and operation times of patients who underwent simple ALIF were 61.2 mL and 86 minutes for one level, 107 mL and 106 minutes for two levels, 250 mL and 142.8 minutes for three levels, and 400 mL and 190 minutes for four levels of fusion. The incision sizes were on average 4.5 cm for one level, 6.3 cm for two levels, 8.5 cm for three levels and 10.0 cm for four levels of fusion. The complications were retroperitoneal hematoma (2 cases), pneumonia (1 case) and transient lumbosacral plexus palsy (3 cases).
Conclusions
Trials of mini-open lateral approach would be helpful before the trial of XLIF or DLIF. However, special attention is required for complications such as transient lumbosacral plexus palsy.
doi:10.4184/asj.2014.8.4.491
PMCID: PMC4149993  PMID: 25187867
Lumbar spine; Mini-open lateral approach; Interbody fusion
18.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using one diagonal fusion cage with transpedicular screw/rod fixation 
European Spine Journal  2003;12(2):173-177.
Abstract.
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using threaded cages has gained wide popularity for lumbosacral spinal disease. Our biomechanical tests showed that PLIF using a single diagonal cage with unilateral facetectomy does add a little to spinal stability and provides equal or even higher postoperative stability than PLIF using two posterior cages with bilateral facetectomy. Studies also demonstrated that cages placed using a posterior approach did not cause the same increase in spinal stiffness seen with pedicle screw instrumentation, and we concluded that cages should not be used posteriorly without other forms of fixation. On the other hand, placement of two cages using a posterior approach does have the disadvantage of risk to the bilateral nerve roots. We therefore performed a prospective study to determine whether PLIF can be accomplished by utilizing a single diagonal fusion cage with the application of supplemental transpedicular screw/rod instrumentation. Twenty-seven patients underwent a PLIF using one single fusion cage (BAK, Sulzer Spine-Tech, Minneapolis, MN, USA) inserted posterolaterally and oriented anteromedially on the symptomatic side with unilateral facetectomy and at the same level supplemental fixation with a transpedicular screw/rod system. The internal fixation systems included 12 SOCON spinal systems (Aesculap AG, Germany) and 15 TSRH spinal systems (Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA). The inclusion criteria were grade 1 to 2 lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis, lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis, and recurrent lumbar disc herniations with instability. Patients had at least 1 year of low back pain and/or unilateral sciatica and a severely restricted functional ability in individuals aged 28–55 years. Patients with more than grade 2 spondylolisthesis or adjacent-level degeneration were excluded from the study. Patients were clinically assessed prior to surgery by an independent assessor; they were then reassessed at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months postoperatively by the same assessor and put into four categories: excellent, good, fair, and poor. Operative time, blood loss, hospital expense, and complications were also recorded. All patients achieved successful radiographic fusion at 2 years, and this was achieved at 1 year in 25 out of 27 patients. At 2 years, clinical results were excellent in 15patients, good in 10, fair in 1, and poor in 1. Regarding complications, one patient had a postoperative motor and sensory deficit of the nerve root. Reoperation was required in one patient due to migration of pedicle screws. No implant fractures or deformities occurred in any of the patients. PLIF using diagonal insertion of a single threaded cage with supplemental transpedicular screw/rod instrumentation enables sufficient decompression and solid interbody fusion to be achieved with minimal invasion of the posterior spinal elements. It is a clinically safer, easier, and more economical means of accomplishing PLIF.
doi:10.1007/s00586-001-0376-4
PMCID: PMC3784842  PMID: 12709855
Lumbar Fusion cage Implant Transpedicular screw Interbody
19.  A minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine instabilities 
European Spine Journal  2011;20(Suppl 1):41-45.
Percutaneous techniques may be helpful to reduce approach-related morbidity of conventional open surgery. The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of mini-open posterior lumbar interbody fusion for instabilities and degenerative disc diseases. From May 2005 until October 2008, 20 patients affected by monosegmental instability and disc herniation underwent mini-open lumbar interbody fusion combined with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation of the lumbar spine. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Short Form Health Survey-36. The mean follow-up was 24 months. The mean estimated blood loss was 126 ml; the mean length of stay was 5.3 days; the mean operative time was 171 min. At 24-month follow-up, the mean VAS score was 2.1, mean ODI was 27.1%, and mean SF-36 was 85.2%. 80 screws were implanted in 20 patients. 74 screws showed very good position, 5 screws acceptable, and 1 screw unacceptable. A solid fusion was achieved in 17 patients (85%). In our opinion, mini-open TLIF is a valid and safe treatment of lumbar instability and degenerative disc diseases in order to obtain faster return to daily activities.
doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1762-1
PMCID: PMC3087039  PMID: 21445617
Percutaneous pedicle screw; Minimally invasive fusion; Disc herniation
20.  Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Based on Long-Term Analysis of 304 Consecutive Patients 
Spine  2014;39(3):E191-E198.
Long-term prospective outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) is not well studied. This article is a prospective clinical study to examine short-/long-term outcomes of 304 patients undergoing MITLIF. There were statistically significant clinical outcomes after MITLIF surgery, including spinal fusion and decreased postoperative complications.
Study Design.
This was a prospective clinical study that took place in an outpatient spine clinic.
Objective.
To demonstrate the short-/long-term outcomes from a large cohort of patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF).
Summary of Background Data.
Long-term prospective outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive spinal fusion for debilitating back pain has not been well studied.
Methods.
Presenting diagnosis was determined from clinical findings and radiographical (radiograph, magnetic resonance image, computed tomographic scan) evaluations preoperatively. Patients were assessed with outcome measures preoperatively, and postoperatively at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, and annually 2 to 7 years (mean follow-up: 47 mo) final follow-up. The rate of postoperative complications and reoperations at the initial level of MITLIF and adjacent level(s) were followed. Fusion rates were assessed blinded and independently by radiograph.
Results.
Visual analogue scale scores decreased significantly from 7.0 preoperatively to 3.5 at mean 47-month follow-up. Oswestry Disability Index scores declined from 43.1 preoperatively to 28.2 at mean 47-month follow-up. Short-Form 36 mental component scores increased from 43.8 preoperatively to 49.7 at 47-month follow-up. Short-Form 36 physical component scores increased from 30.6 preoperatively to 39.6 at 47-month follow-up (P < 0.05).
Conclusion.
This prospectively collected outcomes study shows long-term statistically significant clinical outcomes improvement after MITLIF in patients with clinically symptomatic spondylolisthesis and degenerative disc disease with or without stenosis. MITLIF resulted in a high rate of spinal fusion and very low rate of interbody fusion failure and/or adjacent segment disease requiring reoperation while reducing postoperative complications.
Level of Evidence: 3
doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000078
PMCID: PMC4047299  PMID: 24150437
lumbar fusion; minimally invasive spine surgery; minimally invasive transforaminal; lumbar interbody fusion, percutaneous pedicle screws; patient outcomes
21.  Complications in lumbar spine surgery: A retrospective analysis 
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics  2013;47(4):340-345.
Background:
Surgical treatment of adult lumbar spinal disorders is associated with a substantial risk of intraoperative and perioperative complications. There is no clearly defined medical literature on complication in lumbar spine surgery. Purpose of the study is to retrospectively evaluate intraoperative and perioperative complications who underwent various lumbar surgical procedures and to study the possible predisposing role of advanced age in increasing this rate.
Materials and Methods:
From 2007 to 2011 the number and type of complications were recorded and both univariate, (considering the patients’ age) and a multivariate statistical analysis was conducted in order to establish a possible predisposing role. 133 were lumbar disc hernia treated with microdiscetomy, 88 were lumbar stenosis, treated in 36 cases with only decompression, 52 with decompression and instrumentation with a maximum of 2 levels. 26 patients showed a lumbar fracture treated with percutaneous or open screw fixation. 12 showed a scoliotic or kyphotic deformity treated with decompression, fusion and osteotomies with a maximum of 7.3 levels of fusion (range 5-14). 70 were spondylolisthesis treated with 1 or more level of fusion. In 34 cases a fusion till S1 was performed.
Results:
Of the 338 patients who underwent surgery, 55 showed one or more complications. Type of surgical treatment (P = 0.004), open surgical approach (open P = 0.001) and operative time (P = 0.001) increased the relative risk (RR) of complication occurrence of 2.3, 3.8 and 5.1 respectively. Major complications are more often seen in complex surgical treatment for severe deformities, in revision surgery and in anterior approaches with an occurrence of 58.3%. Age greater than 65 years, despite an increased RR of perioperative complications (1.5), does not represent a predisposing risk factor to complications (P = 0.006).
Conclusion:
Surgical decision-making and exclusion of patients is not justified only by due to age. A systematic preoperative evaluation should always be performed in order to stratify risks and to guide decision-making for obtaining the best possible clinical results at lower risk, even for elderly patients.
doi:10.4103/0019-5413.114909
PMCID: PMC3745686  PMID: 23960276
Lumbar spine surgery; peroperative/intraoperative complications; revision spinal surgery
22.  Endoscopic discectomy of L5-S1 disc herniation via an interlaminar approach: Prospective controlled study under local and general anesthesia 
Background:
Open discectomy remains the standard method for treatment of lumbar disc herniation, but can traumatize spinal structure and leaves symptomatic epidural scarring in more than 10% of cases. The usual transforaminal approach may be associated with difficulty reaching the epidural space due to anatomical peculiarities at the L5–S1 level. The endoscopic interlaminar approach can provide a direct pathway for decompression of disc herniation at the L5–S1 level. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical results of endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy at the L5–S1 level and compare the technique feasibility, safety, and efficacy under local and general anesthesia (LA and GA, respectively).
Methods:
One hundred twenty-three patients with L5–S1 disc herniation underwent endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy from October 2006 to June 2009 by two spine surgeons using different anesthesia preferences in two medical centers. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back pain and leg pain and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) sores were recorded preoperatively, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Results were compared to evaluate the technique feasibility, safety, and efficacy under LA and GA.
Results:
VAS scores for back pain and leg pain and ODI revealed statistically significant improvement when they were compared with preoperative values. Mean hospital stay was statistically shorter in the LA group. Complications included one case of dural tear with rootlet injury and three cases of recurrence within 1 month who subsequently required open surgery or endoscopic interlaminar lumbar discectomy. There were no medical or infectious complications in either group.
Conclusion:
Disc herniation at the L5–S1 level can be adequately treated endoscopically with an interlaminar approach. GA and LA are both effective for this procedure. However, LA is better than GA in our opinion.
doi:10.4103/2152-7806.82570
PMCID: PMC3130490  PMID: 21748045
General anesthesia; interlaminar approach; local anesthesia; lumbar disc herniation; percutaneous endoscopic discectomy
23.  Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion 
European Spine Journal  2012;21(11):2265-2270.
Study design
Prospective observational cohort study.
Objective
Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes of single-level open versus minimally invasive (MIS) transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at 6 months and 2-year follow-up.
Summary of background data
There is recognition that more data are required to ascertain the benefits and risks of MIS vis-a-vis open TLIF. This study aims to report on one of the largest currently available series comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes of the two procedures with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.
Methods
From January 2002 to March 2008, 144 single-level open and MIS TLIF were performed at our centre, with 72 patients in each group. Clinical outcomes were based on patient-reported outcome measures recorded at the Orthopaedic Diagnostic Centre by independent assessors before surgery, at 6 months and 2 years post-operatively. These were visual analogue scores (VAS) for back and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), short form-36 (SF-36), North American Spine Society (NASS) scores for neurogenic symptoms, returning to full function, and patient rating of the overall result of surgery. Radiological fusion based on the Bridwell grading system was also assessed at 6 months and 2 years post-operatively by independent assessors.
Results
In terms of demographics, the two groups were similar in terms of patient sample size, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), spinal levels operated, and all the clinical outcome measures (p > 0.05). Perioperative analysis revealed that MIS cases have comparable operative duration (open: 181.8 min, MIS: 166.4 min, p > 0.05), longer fluoroscopic time (open: 17.6 s, MIS: 49.0 s, p < 0.05), less intra-operative blood loss (open: 447.4 ml, MIS: 50.6 ml, p < 0.05) and no post-operative drainage (open: 528.9 ml, MIS: 0 ml, p < 0.05). MIS patients needed less morphine (open: 33.5 mg, MIS: 3.4 mg, p < 0.05) and were able to ambulate (open: 3.4 days, MIS: 1.2 days, p < 0.05) and be discharged from hospital earlier (open: 6.8 days, MIS: 3.2 days, p < 0.05).
At 6 months, clinical outcome analysis showed both groups improving significantly (>50.0 %) and similarly in terms of VAS, ODI, SF-36, return to full function and patient rating (p > 0.05). Radiological analysis showed similar grade 1 fusion rates (open: 52.2 %, MIS: 59.4 %, p > 0.05) with small percentage of patients developing asymptomatic cage migration (open: 8.7 %, MIS: 5.8 %, p > 0.05). One major complication (open: myocardial infarction, MIS: screw malpositioning requiring subsequent revision) and two minor complications in each group (open: pneumonia and post-surgery anemia, MIS: incidental durotomy and pneumonia) were noted.
At 2 years, continued improvements were observed in both groups as compared to the preoperative state (p > 0.05), with 50.8 % of open and 58 % of MIS TLIF patients returning to full function (p > 0.05). Almost all patients have Grade 1 fusion (open: 98.5 %, MIS: 97.0 %, p > 0.05) with minimal new cage migration (open: 1.4 %, MIS: 0 %, p > 0.05).
Conclusions
MIS TLIF is a safe option for lumbar fusion, and when compared to open TLIF, has similar operative duration, good clinical and radiological outcomes, with additional significant benefits of less perioperative blood loss and pain, earlier rehabilitation, and a shorter hospitalization.
doi:10.1007/s00586-012-2281-4
PMCID: PMC3481101  PMID: 22453894
Lumbar fusion; Open; Minimally invasive; Clinical outcomes
24.  A Radiological Comparison of Anterior Fusion Rates in Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion 
Global Spine Journal  2012;2(4):195-206.
Aim To compare anterior fusion in standalone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using cage and screw constructs and anterior cage–alone constructs with posterior pedicle screw supplementation but without posterior fusion.
Methods Eighty-five patients underwent single- or two-level ALIF procedure for degenerative disk disease or lytic spondylolisthesis (SPL). Posterior instrumentation was performed without posterior fusion in all cases of lytic SPL and when the anterior cage used did not have anterior screw through cage fixation.
Results Seventy (82%) patients had adequate radiological follow-up at a mean of 19 months. Forty patients had anterior surgery alone (24 single level and 16 two levels) and 30 had front-back surgery (15 single level and 15 two levels). Anterior locked pseudarthrosis was only seen in the anterior surgery–alone group when using the STALIF cage (Surgicraft, Worcestershire, UK) (37 patients). This occurred in five of the single-level surgeries (5/22) and nine of the two-level surgeries (9/15). Fusion was achieved in 100% of the front-back group and only 65% (26/40) of the anterior surgery–alone group.
Conclusion Posterior pedicle screw supplementation without posterolateral fusion improves the fusion rate of ALIF when using anterior cage and screw constructs. We would recommend supplementary posterior fixation especially in cases where more than one level is being operated.
doi:10.1055/s-0032-1329892
PMCID: PMC3864421  PMID: 24353968
anterior lumbar interbody fusion; ALIF; locked pseudarthrosis; spondylolisthesis
25.  Endoscopic Foraminal Decompression for Failed Back Surgery Syndrome under local Anesthesia 
Background
The most common causes of failed back surgery are residual or recurrent herniation, foraminal fibrosis and foraminal stenosis that is ignored, untreated, or undertreated. Residual back ache may also be from facetal causes or denervation and scarring of the paraspinal muscles.1–6 The original surgeon may advise his patient that nothing more can be done on the basis of his opinion that the nerve was visually decompressed by the original surgery, supported by improved post-op imaging and follow-up studies such as EMG and conduction velocity studies. Post-op imaging or electrophysiological assessment may be inadequate to explain all the reasons for residual or recurrent symptoms. Treatment of Failed back surgery by repeat traditional open revision surgery usually incorporates more extensive decompression causing increased instability and back pain, therefore necessitating fusion. The authors, having limited their practice to endoscopic MIS surgery over the last 15-20 years, report on their experience gained during that period to relieve pain by endoscopically visualizing and treating unrecognized causative patho-anatomy in FBSS.7
Methods
Thirty consecutive patients with FBSS presenting with back and leg pain that had supporting imaging diagnosis of lateral stenosis and /or residual / recurrent disc herniation, or whose pain complaint was supported by relief from diagnostic and therapeutic injections (Figure 1), were offered percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy and foraminoplasty over a repeat open procedure. Each patient sought consultation following a transient successful, partially successful or unsuccessful open translaminar surgical treatment for disc herniation or spinal stenosis. Endoscopic foraminoplasty was also performed to either decompress the bony foramen for foraminal stenosis, or foraminoplasty to allow for endoscopic visual examination of the affected traversing and exiting nerve roots in the axilla, also known as the “hidden zone” of Macnab (Figure 2).8, 9 The average follow up time was, average 40 months, minimum 12 months. Outcome data at each visit included Macnab, VAS and ODI.
A diagnostic and therapeutic epidural gram may help identify unrecognized lateral recess stenosis underestimated by MRI. An excellent result from a therapeutic block lends excellent prognosis for a more lasting and “permanent” result from transforaminal endoscopic lateral recess decompression.
Kambin's Triangle provides access to the “hidden zone” of Macnab by foraminoplasty. The foramen and lateral recess is decompressed by removing the ventral aspect and tip of the superior articular process to gain access to the axilla between the traversing and exiting nerve. FBSS contains patho-anatomy in the axilla between the traversing and exiting nerve that hides the pain generators of FBSS.
Results
The average pre-operative VAS improved from 7.2 to 4.0, and ODI 48% to 31%. While temporary dysesthesia occurred in 4 patients in the early post-operative period, all were happy, as all received additional relief of their pre-op symptoms. They were also relieved to be able to avoid “open” decompression or fusion surgery.
Conclusions / Level of Evidence 3
The transforaminal endoscopic approach is effective for FBSS due to residual/recurrent HNP and lateral stenosis. Failed initial index surgery may involve failure to recognize patho-anatomy in the axilla of the foramen housing the traversing and the exiting nerve, including the DRG, which is located cephalad and near the tip of SAP.10 The transforaminal endoscopic approach effectively decompresses the foramen and does not further destabilize the spine needing stabilization.11 It also avoids going through the previous surgical site.
Clinical Relevance
Disc narrowing as a consequence of translaminar discectomy and progressive degenerative narrowing and spondylolisthesis (Figure 3) as a natural history of degenerative disc disease can lead to central and lateral stenosis. The MRI may underestimate the degree of stenosis from a bulging or a foraminal disc protrusion and residual lateral recess stenosis. Pain can be diagnosed and confirmed by evocative discography and by clinical response to transforaminal diagnostic and therapeutic steroid injections.12 Foraminal endoscopic decompression of the lateral recess is a MIS technique that does not “burn bridges” for a more conventional approach and it adds to the surgical armamentarium of FBSS.
Cadaver Illustration of Foraminal Stenosis (courtesy of Wolfgang Rauschning). As the disc narrows, the superior articular process impinges on the exiting nerve and DRG, creating lateral recess stenosis, lumbar spondylosis, and facet arthrosis.
doi:10.14444/1022
PMCID: PMC4325507
Failed Back Surgery Syndrome(FBSS); Hidden zone; Foraminal decompression; Recurrent herniation; Lateral stenosis; Foraminal osteophyte

Results 1-25 (976616)