STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study including 179 patients who underwent oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) at one institution. PURPOSE: To report the complications associated with a minimally invasive technique of a retroperitoneal anterolateral approach to the lumbar spine. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Different approaches to the lumbar spine have been proposed, but they are associated with an increased risk of complications and a longer operation. METHODS: A total of 179 patients with previous posterior instrumented fusion undergoing OLIF were included. The technique is described in terms of: the number of levels fused, operative time and blood loss. Persurgical and postsurgical complications were noted. RESULTS: Patients were age 54.1 ± 10.6 with a BMI of 24.8 ± 4.1 kg/m(2). The procedure was performed in the lumbar spine at L1-L2 in 4, L2-L3 in 54, L3-L4 in 120, L4-L5 in 134, and L5-S1 in 6 patients. It was done at 1 level in 56, 2 levels in 107, and 3 levels in 16 patients. Surgery time and blood loss were, respectively, 32.5 ± 13.2 minutes and 57 ± 131 ml per level fused. There were 19 patients with a single complication and one with two complications, including two patients with postoperative radiculopathy after L3-5 OLIF. There was no abdominal weakness or herniation. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive OLIF can be performed easily and safely in the lumbar spine from L2 to L5, and at L1-2 for selected cases. Up to 3 levels can be addressed through a 'sliding window'. It is associated with minimal blood loss and short operations, and with decreased risk of abdominal wall weakness or herniation.
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study including 179 patients who underwent oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) at one institution. PURPOSE: To report the complications associated with a minimally invasive technique of a retroperitoneal anterolateral approach to the lumbar spine. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Different approaches to the lumbar spine have been proposed, but they are associated with an increased risk of complications and a longer operation. METHODS: A total of 179 patients with previous posterior instrumented fusion undergoing OLIF were included. The technique is described in terms of: the number of levels fused, operative time and blood loss. Persurgical and postsurgical complications were noted. RESULTS:Patients were age 54.1 ± 10.6 with a BMI of 24.8 ± 4.1 kg/m(2). The procedure was performed in the lumbar spine at L1-L2 in 4, L2-L3 in 54, L3-L4 in 120, L4-L5 in 134, and L5-S1 in 6 patients. It was done at 1 level in 56, 2 levels in 107, and 3 levels in 16 patients. Surgery time and blood loss were, respectively, 32.5 ± 13.2 minutes and 57 ± 131 ml per level fused. There were 19 patients with a single complication and one with two complications, including two patients with postoperative radiculopathy after L3-5 OLIF. There was no abdominal weakness or herniation. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive OLIF can be performed easily and safely in the lumbar spine from L2 to L5, and at L1-2 for selected cases. Up to 3 levels can be addressed through a 'sliding window'. It is associated with minimal blood loss and short operations, and with decreased risk of abdominal wall weakness or herniation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anterior approach; Interbody fusion; Lumbar spine; Minimally invasive surgery
Authors: Rick C Sasso; Natalie M Best; Praveen V Mummaneni; Thomas M Reilly; Sajjad M Hussain Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: S Samuel Bederman; Hans J Kreder; Iris Weller; Joel A Finkelstein; Michael H Ford; Albert J M Yee Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Sang Ki Chung; Sang Ho Lee; Sang Rak Lim; Dong-Yun Kim; Jee Soo Jang; Ki-Se Nam; Ho Yeon Lee Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2003-10-17 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Luiz Pimenta; Antoine Tohmeh; David Jones; Rodrigo Amaral; Luis Marchi; Leonardo Oliveira; Bruce C Pittman; Hyun Bae Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2018-03
Authors: Christoph Mehren; H Michael Mayer; Christoph Zandanell; Christoph J Siepe; Andreas Korge Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: A Mahatthanatrakul; T Itthipanichpong; C Ratanakornphan; N Numkarunarunrote; W Singhatanadgige; W Yingsakmongkol; W Limthongkul Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: R Bassani; A M Querenghi; R Cecchinato; C Morselli; G Casero; D Gavino; S Brock; C Ferlinghetti Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 3.134