Brad Waddell1, David Briski2, Rabah Qadir1, Gustavo Godoy1, Allison Howard Houston1, Ernest Rudman3, Joseph Zavatsky4. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA. 2. The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA. 3. Department of Radiology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA. 4. Department of Orthopedics, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA ; The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is not associated with many of the complications seen in other interbody fusion techniques. This study used computed tomography (CT) scans, the radiographic gold standard, to assess interbody fusion rates achieved utilizing the LLIF technique in high-risk patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent LLIF between January 2008 and July 2013. Forty-nine patients underwent nonstaged or staged LLIF on 119 levels with posterior correction and augmentation. Per protocol, patients received CT scans at their 1-year follow-up. Of the 49 patients, 21 patients with LLIF intervention on 54 levels met inclusion criteria. Two board-certified musculoskeletal radiologists and the senior surgeon (JZ) assessed fusion. RESULTS: Of the 21 patients, 6 patients had had previous lumbar surgery, and the cohort's comorbidities included osteoporosis, diabetes, obesity, and smoking, among others. Postoperative complications occurred in 12 (57.1%) patients and included anterior thigh pain and weakness in 6 patients, all of which resolved by 6 months. Two cases of proximal junctional kyphosis occurred, along with 1 case of hardware pullout. Two cases of abdominal atonia occurred. By CT scan assessment, each radiologist found fusion was achieved in 53 of 54 levels (98%). The radiologists' findings were in agreement with the senior surgeon. CONCLUSION: Several studies have evaluated LLIF fusion and reported fusion rates between 88%-96%. Our results demonstrate high fusion rates using this technique, despite multiple comorbidities in the patient population. Spanning the ring apophysis with large LLIF cages along with supplemental posterior pedicle screw augmentation can enhance stability of the fusion segment and increase fusion rates.
BACKGROUND: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is not associated with many of the complications seen in other interbody fusion techniques. This study used computed tomography (CT) scans, the radiographic gold standard, to assess interbody fusion rates achieved utilizing the LLIF technique in high-risk patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent LLIF between January 2008 and July 2013. Forty-nine patients underwent nonstaged or staged LLIF on 119 levels with posterior correction and augmentation. Per protocol, patients received CT scans at their 1-year follow-up. Of the 49 patients, 21 patients with LLIF intervention on 54 levels met inclusion criteria. Two board-certified musculoskeletal radiologists and the senior surgeon (JZ) assessed fusion. RESULTS: Of the 21 patients, 6 patients had had previous lumbar surgery, and the cohort's comorbidities included osteoporosis, diabetes, obesity, and smoking, among others. Postoperative complications occurred in 12 (57.1%) patients and included anterior thigh pain and weakness in 6 patients, all of which resolved by 6 months. Two cases of proximal junctional kyphosis occurred, along with 1 case of hardware pullout. Two cases of abdominal atonia occurred. By CT scan assessment, each radiologist found fusion was achieved in 53 of 54 levels (98%). The radiologists' findings were in agreement with the senior surgeon. CONCLUSION: Several studies have evaluated LLIF fusion and reported fusion rates between 88%-96%. Our results demonstrate high fusion rates using this technique, despite multiple comorbidities in the patient population. Spanning the ring apophysis with large LLIF cages along with supplemental posterior pedicle screw augmentation can enhance stability of the fusion segment and increase fusion rates.
Authors: Jessica M Ho; Peleg J Ben-Galim; Bradley K Weiner; Lauren E Karbach; Charles A Reitman; Michael H Heggeness; John A Hipp Journal: Spine J Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Cyrus Caroom; Jessica M Tullar; E Garrison Benton; Jason R Jones; Christopher D Chaput Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Benjamin K Potter; Brett A Freedman; Eric G Verwiebe; Jordan M Hall; David W Polly; Timothy R Kuklo Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2005-08
Authors: John K Birknes; Andrew P White; Todd J Albert; Christopher I Shaffrey; James S Harrop Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Justin S Smith; Christopher I Shaffrey; Sigurd Berven; Steven Glassman; Christopher Hamill; William Horton; Stephen Ondra; Frank Schwab; Michael Shainline; Kai-Ming Fu; Keith Bridwell Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Ankur S Narain; Fady Y Hijji; Jonathan S Markowitz; Krishna T Kudaravalli; Kelly H Yom; Kern Singh Journal: Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med Date: 2017-12
Authors: Alexander O Aguirre; Mohamed A R Soliman; Shady Azmy; Asham Khan; Patrick K Jowdy; Jeffrey P Mullin; John Pollina Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Kevin Phan; Ya Ruth Huo; Jarred A Hogan; Joshua Xu; Alexander Dunn; Samuel K Cho; Ralph J Mobbs; Patrick McKenna; Trichy Rajagopal; Farhaan Altaf Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2016-06
Authors: Jamal N Shillingford; Joseph L Laratta; Joseph M Lombardi; John D Mueller; Meghan Cerpa; Hemant P Reddy; Comron Saifi; Charla R Fischer; Ronald A Lehman Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2018-03