scholarly journals Comparison of Stand-Alone, Transpsoas Lateral Interbody Fusion at L3-4 and Cranial vs Transforaminal Interbody Fusion at L3-4 and L4-5 for the Treatment of Lumbar Adjacent Segment Disease

10.14444/5056 ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. 5056
Author(s):  
Deeptee Jain ◽  
Kushagra Verma ◽  
Jeffrey Mulvihill ◽  
Jun Mizutani ◽  
Bobby Tay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Biomechanical Evaluation of Lumbar Lateral Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Disease

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. S181
Author(s):  
Mark Shasti ◽  
Scott J. Koenig ◽  
Luke Brown ◽  
Ehsan Jazini ◽  
Kelley E. Banagan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Biomechanical Evaluation ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Biomechanical evaluation of lumbar lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adjacent segment disease

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 545-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Shasti ◽  
Scott J. Koenig ◽  
Alysa B. Nash ◽  
Shahrzad Bahrami ◽  
Julio J. Jauregui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Disease ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Biomechanical Evaluation ◽  
Lateral Interbody

scholarly journals Minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of rostral adjacent-segment lumbar degenerative stenosis without supplemental pedicle screw fixation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 861-866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Y. Wang ◽  
Ram Vasudevan ◽  
Stefan A. Mindea
Keyword(s):  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Fusion ◽  
Ct Scanning ◽  
Lateral Approach ◽  
Leg Pain ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Object Adjacent-segment degeneration and stenosis are common in patients who have undergone previous lumbar fusion. Treatment typically involves a revision posterior approach, which requires management of postoperative scar tissue and previously implanted instrumentation. A minimally invasive lateral approach allows the surgeon to potentially reduce the risk of these hazards. The technique relies on indirect decompression to treat central and foraminal stenosis and placement of a graft with a large surface area to promote robust fusion and stability in concert with the surrounding tensioned ligaments. The goal in this study was to determine if lateral interbody fusion without supplemental pedicle screws is effective in treating adjacent-segment disease. Methods For a 30-month study period at two institutions, the authors obtained all cases of lumbar fusion with new back and leg pain due to adjacent-segment stenosis and spondylosis failing conservative measures. All patients had undergone minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion from the side of greater leg pain without supplemental pedicle screw fixation. Patients were excluded from the study if they had undergone surgery for a nondegenerative etiology such as infection or trauma. They were also excluded if the intervention involved supplemental posterior instrumented fusion with transpedicular screws. Postoperative metrics included numeric pain scale (NPS) scores for leg and back pain. All patients underwent dynamic radiographs and CT scanning to assess stability and fusion after surgery. Results During the 30-month study period, 21 patients (43% female) were successfully treated using minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion without the need for subsequent posterior transpedicular fixation. The mean patient age was 61 years (range 37–87 years). Four patients had two adjacent levels fused, while the remainder had single-level surgery. All patients underwent surgery without conversion to a traditional open technique, and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein–2 was used in the interbody space in all cases. The mean follow-up was 23.6 months. The mean operative time was 86 minutes, and the mean blood loss was 93 ml. There were no major intraoperative complications, but one patient underwent subsequent direct decompression in a delayed fashion. The leg pain NPS score improved from a mean of 6.3 to 1.9 (p < 0.01), and the back pain NPS score improved from a mean of 7.5 to 2.9 (p < 0.01). Intervertebral settling averaged 1.7 mm. All patients had bridging bone on CT scanning at the last follow-up, indicating solid bony fusion. Conclusions Adjacent-segment stenosis and spondylosis can be treated with a number of different operative techniques. Lateral interbody fusion provides an attractive alternative with reduced blood loss and complications, as there is no need to re-explore a previous laminectomy site. In this limited series a minimally invasive lateral approach provided high fusion rates when performed with osteobiological adjuvants.

scholarly journals Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Lateral Interbody Fusion for Adjacent Segment Degeneration

10.14444/8010 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-81
Author(s):  
Siamak Yasmeh ◽  
James Bernatz ◽  
Eli Garrard ◽  
Miranda Bice ◽  
Seth K. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Radiographic Outcomes ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Biomechanical analysis of lateral interbody fusion strategies for adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 1004-1011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melodie F. Metzger ◽  
Samuel T. Robinson ◽  
Ruben C. Maldonado ◽  
Jeremy Rawlinson ◽  
John Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Adjacent Segment Degeneration ◽  
Biomechanical Analysis ◽  
Adjacent Segment ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

scholarly journals Clinical Evaluation of Microendoscopy-Assisted Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 135
Author(s):  
Tomohide Segawa ◽  
Hisashi Koga ◽  
Masahito Oshina ◽  
Katsuhiko Ishibashi ◽  
Yuichi Takano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Invasive Technique ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lateral Interbody

Background and objectives: Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) is a widely performed, minimally invasive technique to achieve lumbar lateral interbody fusion. However, some complications can arise due to constraints posed by the limited surgical space and visual field. The purpose of this study was to assess the short-term postoperative clinical outcomes of microendoscopy-assisted OLIF (ME-OLIF) compared to conventional OLIF. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively investigated 75 consecutive patients who underwent OLIF or ME-OLIF. The age, sex, diagnosis, and number of fused levels were obtained from medical records. Operation time, estimated blood loss (EBL), and intraoperative complications were also collected. Operation time and EBL were only measured per level required for the lateral procedure, excluding the posterior fixation surgery. The primary outcome measure was assessed using the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ). The secondary outcome measure was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), measured preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Results: This case series consisted of 14 patients in the OLIF group and 61 patients in the ME-OLIF group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the mean operative time and EBL (p = 0.90 and p = 0.50, respectively). The perioperative complication rate was 21.4% in the OLIF group and 21.3% in the ME-OLIF group (p = 0.99). In both groups, the postoperative JOABPEQ, EQ-5D, and ODI scores improved significantly (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Although there was no significant difference in clinical results between the two surgical methods, the results suggest that both are safe surgical methods and that microendoscopy-assisted OLIF could serve as a potential alternative to the conventional OLIF procedure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document