Chirag A Berry1, Dinesh P Thawrani2, Fadi R Makhoul3. 1. Surgery Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 3200 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45220, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 231 Albert Sabin Way, Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA. Electronic address: berrycg@ucmail.uc.edu. 2. Surgery Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 3200 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45220, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 231 Albert Sabin Way, Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA. 3. Surgery Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 3200 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45220, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The oblique prepsoas retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) provides safe access to nearly all lumbar levels. A wide interval between the psoas and aorta allows for a safe and straightforward left-sided oblique approach to the discs above L5. Inclusion of L5-S1 in this approach, however, requires modifications in the technique to navigate the complex and variable vascular anatomy distal to the bifurcation of the great vessels. While different oblique approaches to L5-S1 have been described in the literature, to our knowledge, no previous study has provided guidance for the choice of technique. PURPOSE: Our objectives were to evaluate our early experience with the safety of including L5-S1 in OLIF using 3 different approach techniques, as well as to compare early complications between OLIF with and without L5-S1 inclusion. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Of the 87 patients who underwent lumbar interbody fusion at 167 spinal levels via an OLIF approach, 19 included L5-S1 (group A) and 68 did not (group B). OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics, levels fused, indications, operative time (ORT), estimated blood loss (EBL), vascular ligation, intraoperative blood transfusion, length of stay (LOS), discharge to rehabilitation facility, and complications (intraoperative, early ≤90 days, and delayed >90 days) were retrospectively assessed and compared between the groups. METHODS: A retrospective chart and imaging review of all consecutive patients who underwent OLIF at a single institution was performed. Indications for OLIF included symptomatic lumbar degenerative stenosis, deformity, and spondylolisthesis. The L5-S1 level, when included, was approached via one of the following 3 techniques: (1) a left-sided intrabifurcation approach; (2) left-sided prepsoas approach; and (3) right-sided prepsoas approach. Vascular anatomic variations at the lumbosacral junction were evaluated using the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and a "facet line" was proposed to assess this relationship. A minimum of 6 months of follow-up data were assessed for approach-related morbidities. RESULTS: Demographics and operative indications were similar between the groups. The mean follow-up was 10.8 (6-36) months. ORT was significantly longer in group A than in group B (322 vs. 256.3 min, respectively; p=.001); however, no difference in ORT between the two groups was found in the subanalyses for 2- and 3-level surgeries. Differences in EBL (260 vs. 207.91 cc, p=.251) and LOS (2.76 vs. 2.48 days, p=.491) did not reach statistical significance. Ligation of the iliolumbar vein, segmental veins, median sacral vessels, or any vascular structure, as needed for adequate exposure, was required in 13 (68.4%) patients from group A and 4 (5.9%) from group B (p<.00001). Two patients suffered minor vascular injuries (1 in each group); however, no major vascular injuries were seen. Complications were not significantly different between groups A and B, or between the three approaches to L5-S1, and trended lower in the latter part of the series as the learning curve progressed. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of L5-S1 in OLIF is safe and feasible through three different approaches but likely involves greater operative complexity. In our early experience, inclusion of L5-S1 showed no increase in early complications. This is the first series that reports the use of 3 different oblique approaches to L5-S1. The proposed "facet line" in the preoperative MRI may guide the choice of approach. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The oblique prepsoas retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) provides safe access to nearly all lumbar levels. A wide interval between the psoas and aorta allows for a safe and straightforward left-sided oblique approach to the discs above L5. Inclusion of L5-S1 in this approach, however, requires modifications in the technique to navigate the complex and variable vascular anatomy distal to the bifurcation of the great vessels. While different oblique approaches to L5-S1 have been described in the literature, to our knowledge, no previous study has provided guidance for the choice of technique. PURPOSE: Our objectives were to evaluate our early experience with the safety of including L5-S1 in OLIF using 3 different approach techniques, as well as to compare early complications between OLIF with and without L5-S1 inclusion. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Of the 87 patients who underwent lumbar interbody fusion at 167 spinal levels via an OLIF approach, 19 included L5-S1 (group A) and 68 did not (group B). OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographics, levels fused, indications, operative time (ORT), estimated blood loss (EBL), vascular ligation, intraoperative blood transfusion, length of stay (LOS), discharge to rehabilitation facility, and complications (intraoperative, early ≤90 days, and delayed >90 days) were retrospectively assessed and compared between the groups. METHODS: A retrospective chart and imaging review of all consecutive patients who underwent OLIF at a single institution was performed. Indications for OLIF included symptomatic lumbar degenerative stenosis, deformity, and spondylolisthesis. The L5-S1 level, when included, was approached via one of the following 3 techniques: (1) a left-sided intrabifurcation approach; (2) left-sided prepsoas approach; and (3) right-sided prepsoas approach. Vascular anatomic variations at the lumbosacral junction were evaluated using the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and a "facet line" was proposed to assess this relationship. A minimum of 6 months of follow-up data were assessed for approach-related morbidities. RESULTS: Demographics and operative indications were similar between the groups. The mean follow-up was 10.8 (6-36) months. ORT was significantly longer in group A than in group B (322 vs. 256.3 min, respectively; p=.001); however, no difference in ORT between the two groups was found in the subanalyses for 2- and 3-level surgeries. Differences in EBL (260 vs. 207.91 cc, p=.251) and LOS (2.76 vs. 2.48 days, p=.491) did not reach statistical significance. Ligation of the iliolumbar vein, segmental veins, median sacral vessels, or any vascular structure, as needed for adequate exposure, was required in 13 (68.4%) patients from group A and 4 (5.9%) from group B (p<.00001). Two patients suffered minor vascular injuries (1 in each group); however, no major vascular injuries were seen. Complications were not significantly different between groups A and B, or between the three approaches to L5-S1, and trended lower in the latter part of the series as the learning curve progressed. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of L5-S1 in OLIF is safe and feasible through three different approaches but likely involves greater operative complexity. In our early experience, inclusion of L5-S1 showed no increase in early complications. This is the first series that reports the use of 3 different oblique approaches to L5-S1. The proposed "facet line" in the preoperative MRI may guide the choice of approach. Published by Elsevier Inc.
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: Ghani Haider; Katherine E Wagner; Venita Chandra; Ivan Cheng; Martin N Stienen; Anand Veeravagu Journal: J Neurosurg Case Lessons Date: 2022-06-06