Matteo Formica1, Andrea Zanirato2, Luca Cavagnaro2, Marco Basso2, Stefano Divano2, Lamberto Felli2, Carlo Formica3. 1. Clinica Ortopedica-IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Martino-IST, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy. dott.formica@gmail.com. 2. Clinica Ortopedica-IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria San Martino-IST, Istituto Nazionale per la Ricerca sul Cancro, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, GE, Italy. 3. GSpine4-IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, MI, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To evaluate clinical outcomes and complications of extreme lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) in spinal revision surgery comparing our data with the available literature evidence about other fusion techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients underwent revision surgery with XLIF as interbody fusion technique. Demographic, comorbidity, surgical data, clinical results, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: 36 patients, with a minimum follow-up of 28 ± 11.5 months, were included in the analysis. 41 levels were fused with XLIF. The mean number of previous spine surgery was 1.5 ± 0.7. Mean improvement in back pain and leg pain on VAS was 5.6 ± 1.4 (p < 0.01) and 3.5 ± 2 (p < 0.01), respectively. Mean improvement in the ODI score was 30.3 ± 7.3 (p < 0.01). 1 vertebral endplate fracture during interbody space preparation was reported during lateral approach. 5 patients (13.8%) complained quadriceps weakness and anterior thigh hypoesthesia fully recovered after 3 months from surgery, and in one case, a transient contralateral radiculopathy was observed. No implant failure was detected at final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: XLIF is a reasonably safe and effective fusion technique in revision surgery that allows valid arthrodesis avoiding scarred tissue created by previous surgical approaches. Especially, XLIF reduces the risk of nerve root lesions, postoperative radiculitis, and durotomies compared to posterior fusion techniques.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To evaluate clinical outcomes and complications of extreme lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF) in spinal revision surgery comparing our data with the available literature evidence about other fusion techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients underwent revision surgery with XLIF as interbody fusion technique. Demographic, comorbidity, surgical data, clinical results, and intraoperative and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: 36 patients, with a minimum follow-up of 28 ± 11.5 months, were included in the analysis. 41 levels were fused with XLIF. The mean number of previous spine surgery was 1.5 ± 0.7. Mean improvement in back pain and leg pain on VAS was 5.6 ± 1.4 (p < 0.01) and 3.5 ± 2 (p < 0.01), respectively. Mean improvement in the ODI score was 30.3 ± 7.3 (p < 0.01). 1 vertebral endplate fracture during interbody space preparation was reported during lateral approach. 5 patients (13.8%) complained quadriceps weakness and anterior thigh hypoesthesia fully recovered after 3 months from surgery, and in one case, a transient contralateral radiculopathy was observed. No implant failure was detected at final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: XLIF is a reasonably safe and effective fusion technique in revision surgery that allows valid arthrodesis avoiding scarred tissue created by previous surgical approaches. Especially, XLIF reduces the risk of nerve root lesions, postoperative radiculitis, and durotomies compared to posterior fusion techniques.
Entities:
Keywords:
Complications; Extreme lateral interbody fusion; Failed back surgery; Lateral lumbar interbody fusion; Spinal revision surgery
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: Samuel S Bederman; Vu H Le; Sohrab Pahlavan; Douglas P Kiester; Nitin N Bhatia; Vedat Deviren Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2012-12-10
Authors: M Formica; E Quarto; A Zanirato; L Mosconi; M Lontaro-Baracchini; M Alessio-Mazzola; L Felli Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: M Formica; D Vallerga; A Zanirato; L Cavagnaro; M Basso; S Divano; L Mosconi; E Quarto; G Siri; L Felli Journal: Musculoskelet Surg Date: 2020-01-01
Authors: Carol S Palackdkharry; Stephanie Wottrich; Erin Dienes; Mohamad Bydon; Michael P Steinmetz; Vincent C Traynelis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Timothy Y Wang; Vikram A Mehta; Eric W Sankey; Christopher I Shaffrey; Khoi D Than; William R Taylor; John Pollina; Luiz Pimenta; Muhammad M Abd-El-Barr Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 2.721
Authors: Joe Iwanaga; Emre Yilmaz; Tamir Tawfik; Amir Abdul-Jabbar; Marc Vetter; Marc Moisi; Koichi Watanabe; Koh-Ichi Yamaki; R Shane Tubbs; Rod J Oskouian Journal: Cureus Date: 2018-01-29
Authors: Emre Yilmaz; Joe Iwanaga; Marc Moisi; Ronen Blecher; Amir Abdul-Jabbar; Tamir Tawfik; Rod J Oskouian; R Shane Tubbs Journal: Cureus Date: 2018-01-29