| Literature DB >> 32867737 |
Vit Kotheeranurak1, Weerasak Singhatanadgige2, Chindarat Ratanakornphan3, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol2, Richard A Hynes4, Worawat Limthongkul5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prepsoas lateral approach for spinal fusion, oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), is considered one of the minimally invasive spinal fusion methods and is gaining popularity due to improved outcomes with copious supporting evidence. To date, no publication has studied the various positions of the left hip in actual patients which might affect the retroperitoneal oblique corridor (ROC). The study aimed to find the relevancy of the left hip position and the size of ROC.Entities:
Keywords: Hip position; MRI; OLIF; Oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion; ROC; Retroperitoneal oblique corridor
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32867737 PMCID: PMC7461341 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03592-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1The retroperitoneal oblique corridor (ROC) measured in the three different positions; supine position: ROCS a, the right lateral decubitus with the left hip in flexion: ROCHF b, and the right lateral decubitus with the left hip neutral: ROCHN c. Noted the differences in left psoas morphologies and thickness
Fig. 2Demonstration of manually delineated of the left psoas cross-sectional area (line), the anterior 1/3 of the left psoas muscle (two-headed arrow) and the posterior 1/3 of the left psoas muscle (dotted two-headed arrow)
Retroperitoneal oblique corridor (ROC) according to lumbar levels (mm)
| ROCS | ROCHF | ROCHN | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L2/3 | 14.8 ± 1.3 | 13.0 ± 0.9 | 16.8 ± 1.4 | 0.021* |
| L3/4 | 14.3 ± 2.2 | 13.1 ± 1.3 | 16.2 ± 0.9 | 0.036* |
| L4/5 | 13.5 ± 1.3 | 12.8 ± 1.8 | 15.4 ± 1.0 | 0.019* |
* indicates p < 0.05, statistical significance
ROC retroperitoneal oblique corridor in supine
ROC retroperitoneal oblique corridor in right lateral decubitus with hip flexion
ROC retroperitoneal oblique corridor in right lateral decubitus with hip in neutral
There were statistical differences between ROCHN compared to the ROCS, and ROCHF at all levels (p < 0.05) but no significant difference of ROC between all levels (p = 0.22).
Relative psoas cross-sectional area (PCA) according to lumbar levels (mm2)
| PCAS | PCAHF | PCAHN | |
|---|---|---|---|
| L2/3 | 572.6 ± 28.9 | 584.8 ± 42.6 | 530.6 ± 32.1* |
| L3/4 | 917.3 ± 34.2 | 964.6 ± 32.5 | 870.9 ± 21.9* |
| L4/5 | 1180.9 ± 33.7 | 1123.2 ± 22.7 | 1065.6 ± 42.2* |
* indicates p < 0.05
PCA relative psoas cross-sectional area in supine
PCA relative psoas cross-sectional area in right lateral decubitus with hip flexion
PCA relative psoas cross-sectional area in right lateral decubitus with hip in neutral
There were statistical differences between PCAHN compared to the PCAS and PCAHF at all levels (p < 0.05).
Anterior 1/3 of psoas thickness (APT) according to lumbar levels (mm)
| APTS | APTHF | APTHN | |
|---|---|---|---|
| L2/3 | 14.9 ± 2.1 | 15.9 ± 3.7 | 13.6 ± 4.3 |
| L3/4 | 23.2 ± 4.8 | 23.8 ± 4.9 | 20.2 ± 5.9* |
| L4/5 | 30.9 ± 7.2 | 32.2 ± 2.1 | 28.4 ± 2.7* |
* indicates p < 0.05
APT anterior 1/3 of psoas thickness in supine
APT anterior 1/3 of psoas thickness in right lateral decubitus with hip flexion
APT anterior 1/3 of psoas thickness in right lateral decubitus with hip in neutral
There were statistical differences between APTHN compared to the APTS and APTHF at L3/4 and L4/5 (p < 0.05).