Neutral hip position for the oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) approach increases the retroperitoneal oblique corridor.
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. METHODS:We recruited 40 consecutive patients who needed diagnostic MRI from the out-patient clinic. MRI scan from L2 to L5 was performed in the supine, right lateral decubitus with hip flexion, and right lateral decubitus with hip in a neutral position. The retroperitoneal oblique corridor (ROC) was measured at the intervertebral disc level and compared. RESULTS:ROC of the hip in neutral position was significantly larger than hip flexion in all levels (p
Project description:BACKGROUND:In the current surgical therapeutic regimen for the degenerative lumbar disease, both oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are gradually accepted. Thus, the objective of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease. METHODS:We conducted an exhaustive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to find the relevant studies about OLIF and LLIF for the degenerative lumbar disease. Random-effects model was performed to pool the outcomes about disc height (DH), fusion, operative blood loss, operative time, length of hospital stays, complications, visual analog scale (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI). RESULTS:56 studies were included in this study. The two groups of patients had similar changes in terms of DH, operative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay and the fusion rate (over 90%). The OLIF group showed slightly better VAS and ODI scores improvement. The incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF was 26.7 and 27.8% respectively. Higher rates of nerve injury and psoas weakness (21.2%) were reported for LLIF, while higher rates of cage subsidence (5.1%), endplate damage (5.2%) and vascular injury (1.7%) were reported for OLIF. CONCLUSIONS:The two groups are similar in terms of radiographic outcomes, operative blood loss, operative time and the length of hospital stay. The OLIF group shows advantages in VAS and ODI scores improvement. Though the incidence of perioperative complications of OLIF and LLIF is similar, the incidence of main complications is significantly different.
Project description:To provide applied anatomical evidence of the preoperative assessment of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), the anatomical parameters of the OLIF operative window were observed through computed tomography angiography (CTA). We selected imaging data from 60 adults (30 males, 30 females) who underwent abdominal CTA and T12-S1 vertebral computed tomography (CT) with three-dimensional reconstruction. The OLIF operative windows at the L1-2, L2-3, L3-4, L4-5 and L5-S1 levels were as follows: the vascular window, bare window, psoas major window, ideal operative window, and actual operative window. Each level's actual operative window was statistically analyzed based on an actual operative window of <1 cm and ?1 cm. The vascular window was largest at L4-5 (1.72 ± 0.58 cm). The bare window was largest at L5-S1 (1.59 ± 0.93 cm) and smallest at L3-4 (1.37 ± 0.51 cm). The psoas major window was largest at L3-4 (1.14 ± 0.35 cm) and smallest at L1-2 (0.41 ± 0.34 cm). The ideal operative window was largest at L4-5 (3.74 ± 0.36 cm) and smallest at L1-2 (3.23 ± 0.30 cm). The actual operative window was largest at L3-4, followed by L2-3, L4-5, L1-2, and L5-S1, which were 2.51 ± 0.56 cm, 2.28 ± 0.54 cm, 2.01 ± 0.74 cm, 1.80 ± 0.45 cm and 1.59 ± 0.93 cm, respectively (P = 0.000), and the percentages of the actual surgical window were 69%, 66%, 53%, 56% and 43%, respectively. The actual surgical window was <1 cm in 2 cases at L1-2 (3.3%), 4 cases at L4-5 (6.7%), and 17 cases at L5-S1 (28.3%) (11 males and 6 females). The regional anatomy of each level related to OLIF has its own peculiarities, and not all levels are suitable for OLIF. Before OLIF surgery, surgeons should analyze the imaging anatomy and select the appropriate surgical procedures.
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is no available literature for comparison on muscle atrophy between the "stand-alone" oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and regular OLIF (i.e., combined with percutaneous pedicle screws fixation (PPSF) in patients with spondylolisthesis). This study aimed to identify changes in back muscle atrophy between the two surgeries. METHODS:This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent OLIF or OLIF+PPSF at Beijing Jishuitan Hospital and Shanghai ChangZheng Hospital between 07/2014 and 10/2017. Computed tomography (CT) was used to measure functional cross-sectional area (FCSA) and fat infiltration percentage (FIP) of the multifidus and erector spinae before and 24?months after surgery. RESULT:There were no differences in FCSA and FIP between OLIF (n?=?32) and OLIF+PPSF (n?=?41) groups before surgery. In the OLIF group, the multifidus and erector spinae FCSA and FIP did not change at 24?months (FCSA: multifidus: from 8.59?±?1.76 to 9.39?±?1.74?cm2, P?=?0.072; erector spinae: from 13.32?±?1.59 to 13.55?±?1.31?cm2, P?=?0.533) (FIP: multifidus: from 15.91?±?5.30% to 14.38?±?3.21%, P?=?0.721; erector spinae: from 11.63?±?3.05% to 11.22?±?3.12%, P?=?0.578). In the OLIF+PPSF group, the multifidus and erector spinae FCSA decreased (multifidus: from 7.72?±?2.69 to 5.67?±?1.71?cm2, P?<?0.001; erector spinae: from 12.60?±?2.04 to 10.15?±?1.82?cm2, P?<?0.001), while the FIP increased (multifidus: from 16.13?±?7.01% to 49.38?±?20.54%, P?<?0.001; erector spinae: from 11.93?±?3.22% to 22.60?±?4.99%, P?<?0.001). The differences of FCSA and FIP between the two groups at 24?months were significant (all P?<?0.001). The patients in the standalone OLIF group had better VAS back pain, and JOA scores than the patients in the OLIF combined group (all P?<?0.05) at 1?week and 3?months after surgery. There were two cases (4.9%) of adjacent segment degeneration in the OLIF combined group, while there was no case in the OLIF alone group. CONCLUSIONS:Standalone OLIF had better clinical outcomes at 1 week and 3 months than OLIF+PPSF in patients with spondylolisthesis. OLIF may not result in paraspinal muscle atrophy at 24?months after surgery.
Project description:BACKGROUND:To compare standalone oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) vs. OLIF combined with posterior bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (OLIF combined) for the treatment of lumbar spondylolisthesis. METHODS:This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent standalone OLIF or combined OLIF between 07/2014 and 08/2017 at two hospitals in China. Direct decompressions were not performed. Visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), satisfaction rate, anterior/posterior disc heights (DH), foraminal height (FH), foraminal width (FW), cage subsidence, cage retropulsion, fusion rate, and complications were analyzed. All imaging examinations were read independently by two physicians and the mean measurements were used for analysis. RESULTS:A total of 73 patients were included: 32 with standalone OLIF and 41 with combined OLIF. The total complication rate was 25.0% with standalone OLIF and 26.8% with combined OLIF. There were no differences in VAS and ODI scores by 2?years of follow-up, but the scores were better with standalone OLIF at 1?week and 3?months (P?<?0.05). PDH and FW was smaller in the combined OLIF group compared with the standalone OLIF group before and after surgery (all P?<?0.05). There were significant differences in FH before surgery and at 1?week and 3?months between the two groups (all P?<?0.05), but the difference disappeared by 2?years (P?=?0.111). Cage subsidence occurred in 7.3% (3/41) and 7.3% (3/41) of the patients at 3 and 24?months, respectively, in the combined OLIF group, compared with 6.3% (2/32) and 15.6% (5/32), respectively, in the standalone OLIF group at the same time points (P?=?0.287). There was no cage retropulsion in both groups at 2?years. The fusion rate was 85.4%(35/41) in the combined OLIF group and 84.4% (27/32) in the standalone OLIF group at 3?months(P?=?0.669). At 24?months, the fusion rate was 100.0% in the combined OLIF group and 93.8% (30/32) in the standalone OLIF group (P?=?0.066). CONCLUSION:Standalone OLIF may achieve equivalent clinical and radiological outcomes than OLIF combined with fixation for spondylolisthesis. The rate of complications was similar between the two groups. Patients who are osteoporotic might be better undergoing combined rather than standalone OLIF. The possibilty of proof lies within a future prospective study, preferably an RCT.
Project description:PURPOSE: The main aim of this paper was to report reproducible method of lumbar spine access via a lateral retroperitoneal route. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of the technical aspects and clinical outcomes of six patients who underwent lateral multilevel retroperitoneal interbody fusion with psoas muscle retraction technique. The main goal was to develop a simple and reproducible technique to avoid injury to the lumbar plexus. RESULTS: Six patients were operated at 15 levels using psoas muscle retraction technique. All patients reported improvement in back pain and radiculopathy after the surgery. The only procedure-related transient complication was weakness and pain on hip flexion that resolved by the first follow-up visit. CONCLUSIONS: Psoas retraction technique is a reliable technique for lateral access to the lumbar spine and may avoid some of the complications related to traditional minimally invasive transpsoas approach.
Project description:Introduction Studies document rod fracture in pedicle subtraction osteotomy (PSO) settings where disk spaces were preserved above or adjacent to the PSO. This study compares the multidirectional bending rigidity and fatigue life of PSO segments with or without interbody support. Methods Twelve specimens received bilateral T12-S1 posterior fixation and L3 PSO. Six received extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) cages in addition to PSO at L2-L3 and L3-L4; six had PSO only. Flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation (AR) tests were conducted up to 7.5 Newton-meters (Nm) for groups: (1) posterior fixation, (2) L3 PSO, (3) addition of cages (six specimens). Relative motion across the osteotomy (L2-L4) and entire fixation site (T12-S1) was measured. All specimens were then fatigue tested for 35K cycles. Results Regardingmultiaxial bending, there was a significant 25.7% reduction in AR range of motion across L2-L4 following addition of cages. Regarding fatigue bending, dynamic stiffness, though not significant (p = 0.095), was 22.2% greater in the PSO + XLIF group than in the PSO-only group. Conclusions Results suggest that placement of interbody cages in PSO settings has a potential stabilizing effect, which is modestly evident in the acute setting. Inserting cages in a second-stage surgery remains a viable option and may benefit patients in terms of recovery but additional clinical studies are necessary to confirm this.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a well-known complication after interbody fusion. Pedicle screw-rod revision possesses sufficient strength and rigidity. However, is a surgical segment with rigid fixation necessary for ASD reoperation? This study aimed to investigate the biomechanical effect of different instrumentation on lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for ASD treatment. METHODS:A validated L2~5 finite element (FE) model was modified for simulation. ASD was considered the level cranial to the upper-instrumented segment (L3/4). Bone graft fusion in LLIF with bilateral pedicle screw (BPS) fixation occurred at L4/5. The ASD segment for each group underwent a) LLIF + posterior extension of BPS, b) PLIF + posterior extension of BPS, c) LLIF + lateral screw, and d) stand-alone LLIF. The L3/4 range of motion (ROM), interbody cage stress and strain, screw-bone interface stress, cage-endplate interface stress, and L2/3 nucleus pulposus of intradiscal pressure (NP-IDP) analysis were calculated for comparisons among the four models. RESULTS:All reconstructive models displayed decreased motion at L3/4. Under each loading condition, the difference was not significant between models a and b, which provided the maximum ROM reduction (73.8 to 97.7% and 68.3 to 98.4%, respectively). Model c also provided a significant ROM reduction (64.9 to 77.5%). Model d provided a minimal restriction of the ROM (18.3 to 90.1%), which exceeded that of model a by 13.1 times for flexion-extension, 10.3 times for lateral bending and 4.8 times for rotation. Model b generated greater cage stress than other models, particularly for flexion. The maximum displacement of the cage and the peak stress of the cage-endplate interface were found to be the highest in model d under all loading conditions. For the screw-bone interface, the stress was much greater with lateral instrumentation than with posterior instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS:Stand-alone LLIF is likely to have limited stability, particularly for lateral bending and axial rotation. Posterior extension of BPS can provide reliable stability and excellent protective effects on instrumentation and endplates. However, LLIF with the use of an in situ screw may be an alternative for ASD reoperation.
Project description:Oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLLIF) is a novel operation for fusions of the lumbar spine from T12-S1. In OLLIF, the disk is approached from an oblique lateral angle guided by electrophysiological monitoring and biplanar fluoroscopy; the disk space is accessed through Kambin's triangle. We present perioperative, clinical, patient-reported and radiological outcomes from a series of 303 OLLIF procedures on 568 levels performed by the same surgeon. For a single-level OLLIF, mean surgery time was 56.6 ± 37.7 minutes, with a blood loss of 42.2 ± 31.1 mL, fluoroscopy time of 198.8 ± 87.2 seconds and a hospital stay of 2.2 ± 1.7 days. At the one-year follow-up, 10-point pain scale scores improved from 8.6 ± 1.3 to 4.1 ± 3.0 (p < 0.001). Total Oswestry disability index score improved from 56.6% ± 15.3% to 38.6% ± 21.4% (p < 0.001). At the one-year follow-up, 15 (5%) patients had mild nerve root irritation defined as sensory symptoms and motor weakness better than 4/5. Only one patient had neuropraxia due to weakness (3/5). There was one case (0.3%) of superficial wound infection and one case of bleeding into the psoas major. Reoperation within one year was performed for 14 (4.7%) patients. Interbody fusion was achieved in 98.7% of levels. While OLLIF has previously been described, this study is the first to present clinical, patient-reported, and radiological outcomes of OLLIF. Review of the literature shows that OLLIF produces perioperative outcomes, complication rates, and fusion rates that compare favorably with similar procedures. We establish that OLLIF is a safe, efficient and efficacious procedure for fusions of the lumbar spine.
Project description:Tuffier line is a common landmark for spinal anesthesia. The 10th rib line has been suggested as a new landmark to predict the intervertebral levels. We evaluated the accuracy of these 2 anatomic landmarks for identifying the L4-L5 intervertebral space using ultrasonography in elderly patients with hip fracture.Seventy-nine elderly patients scheduled for hip fracture surgery under spinal anesthesia were included. In the lateral decubitus position with the fracture side up, the L4-L5 intervertebral space was identified alternately using Tuffier line, a line drawn between the highest points of both iliac crests, and the 10th rib line. The 10th rib line, an imaginary line that joints the 2 lowest points of the rib cage, passes through the L1-L2 intervertebral space or the body of L2. The L4-L5 intervertebral space was determined by the counting-down method from the 10th rib line. Then, the estimated intervertebral spaces were evaluated using ultrasonography.The L4-L5 intervertebral space was correctly identified in 47 (59%) patients with Tuffier line and 45 (57%) patients with the 10th rib line (P?=?.87). The estimation ratio related to the intervertebral levels was not different between the 2 landmarks (P?=?.40). The wrong identifications of intervertebral level with Tuffier line and the 10th rib line was observed in the following order: L3-L4 intervertebral space: 27% vs 24%, L5-S1 intervertebral space: 9% vs 16%, and L2-L3 intervertebral space: 5% vs 3%, respectively.Tuffier line and the 10th rib line may be unreliable to estimate the intervertebral space for spinal anesthesia in elderly patients with hip fracture.
Project description:Lateral wedge insoles have been used for the treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) and have been shown to reduce loading of the medial compartment of the knee. However, as the entire lower extremity acts as a single kinetic chain, altering the biomechanics of the knee may also have significant effects at the ankles or hips. We aimed to evaluate the effects of lateral wedge orthotics on ankle and hip joints, compared to neutral orthotics, by assessing the changes in joint space width (JSW) during 36 months of continuous use.We prospectively enrolled 109 subjects with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the medial knee according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria. The trial was double blind and patients were randomized to either wedged or neutral orthotic shoe inserts. Hip and ankle JSWs were quantified using plain radiographies at baseline and at 36-months follow-up.45 patients completed the 36 month study. 31 of those who completed the study were using the lateral wedge versus 14 were using neutral orthotics. 2 patients in the wedge group had missing radiographs and were not included in the JSW analyses. There were no significant differences between the wedge and the neutral orthotics groups in the magnitude of JSW change at either the hip or the ankles at 36 month.We found no significant adverse effects of the lateral wedges on ankles or hips. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00076453).