scholarly journals Vulnerability of the L5 nerve root during anterior lumbar interbody fusion at L5–S1: case series and review of the literature

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. E7
Author(s):  
Ehsan Dowlati ◽  
Hepzibha Alexander ◽  
Jean-Marc Voyadzis

OBJECTIVENerve root injuries associated with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) are uncommonly reported in the literature. This case series and review aims to describe the etiology of L5 nerve root injury following ALIF at L5–S1.METHODSThe authors performed a single-center retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent surgery between 2017 and 2019 who had postoperative L5 nerve root injuries after stand-alone L5–S1 ALIF. They also reviewed the literature with regard to nerve root injuries after ALIF procedures.RESULTSThe authors report on 3 patients with postoperative L5 radiculopathy. All 3 patients had pain that improved. Two of the 3 patients had a neurological deficit, one of which improved.CONCLUSIONSStretch neuropraxia from overdistraction is an important cause of postoperative L5 radiculopathy after L5–S1 ALIF. Judicious use of implants and careful preoperative planning to determine optimal implant sizes are paramount.

Neurosurgery ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 1191-1198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Barnes ◽  
Gerald E. Rodts ◽  
Regis W. Haid ◽  
Brian R. Subach ◽  
Mark R. McLaughlin

Abstract OBJECTIVE With the proliferation of implant types available for use in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) procedures, the choices for surgeons have become increasingly complex. The goal of this study was to retrospectively review a series of 49 patients who underwent PLIF with the use of allograft cylindrical threaded cortical bone dowels (TCBDs) and allograft impacted wedges. Nerve root injury rates, fusion rates, and clinical outcomes of the allograft impacted wedge group are compared with those in the allograft cylindrical TCBD group. METHODS We performed a retrospective chart and radiographic review of 49 patients. Twenty-seven patients underwent PLIF with impacted allograft wedges, and 22 patients underwent PLIF with allograft cylindrical TCBD. Permanent nerve root injury rates, fusion rates, and clinical outcomes were assessed on the basis of a minimum of 1 year of follow-up data in this nonconsecutive series. RESULTS Permanent nerve root injuries in the impacted wedge and TCBD groups were documented with physical examinations conducted pre- and postoperatively. The cylindrical TCBD group showed a 13.6% rate of permanent nerve root injury, and the impacted wedge group demonstrated a 0% rate, and these rates were statistically significant (analysis of variance, P = 0.049). The fusion rate at a mean of 13.9 months of follow-up was 95.4% in patients in whom the cylindrical TCBD was implanted and 88.9% after a mean of 17.4 months of follow-up in patients in whom impacted wedges were used. The fusion rate difference between the TCBD and impacted wedge groups was not significant. The satisfactory outcome rate was 72.7% for the TCBD group and 85.1% for the impacted wedge group, and the impacted wedge group was found to have a significantly higher rate of satisfactory outcomes (P = 0.016, analysis of variance). Analysis of the patient outcomes in the TCBD and impacted wedge groups according to sex, mean length of follow-up, workman's compensation claim rate, and smoking habit yielded no significant difference. CONCLUSION With a minimum of 1 year of follow-up in this nonconsecutive series of 49 patients, a comparison of the use of allograft TCBD versus allograft impacted wedges in PLIF procedures reveals a statistically significant increase in permanent nerve root injury rates with the use of cylindrical TCBD implants as compared with impacted allograft wedges. There is no difference between the two groups in terms of fusion rates, and clinical outcomes with the use of impacted wedges were significantly better.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael M Safaee ◽  
Alexander Tenorio ◽  
Alexander F Haddad ◽  
Bian Wu ◽  
Serena S Hu ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND The treatment of pseudarthrosis after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) can be challenging, particularly when anterior column reconstruction is required. There are limited data on TLIF cage removal through an anterior approach. OBJECTIVE To assess the safety and efficacy of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) as a treatment for pseudarthrosis after TLIF. METHODS ALIFs performed at a single academic medical center were reviewed to identify cases performed for the treatment of pseudarthrosis after TLIF. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, perioperative complications, and 1-yr radiographic data were collected. RESULTS A total of 84 patients were identified with mean age of 59 yr and 37 women (44.0%). A total of 16 patients (19.0%) underwent removal of 2 interbody cages for a total of 99 implants removed with distribution as follows: 1 L2/3 (0.9%), 6 L3/4 (5.7%), 37 L4/5 (41.5%), and 55 L5/S1 (51.9%). There were 2 intraoperative venous injuries (2.4%) and postoperative complications were as follows: 7 ileus (8.3%), 5 wound-related (6.0%), 1 rectus hematoma (1.1%), and 12 medical complications (14.3%), including 6 pulmonary (7.1%), 3 cardiac (3.6%), and 6 urinary tract infections (7.1%). Among 58 patients with at least 1-yr follow-up, 56 (96.6%) had solid fusion. There were 5 cases of subsidence (6.0%), none of which required surgical revision. Two patients (2.4%) required additional surgery at the level of ALIF for pseudarthrosis. CONCLUSION ALIF is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of TLIF cage pseudarthrosis with a favorable risk profile.


2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. E6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Shriver ◽  
Jack J. Xie ◽  
Erik Y. Tye ◽  
Benjamin P. Rosenbaum ◽  
Varun R. Kshettry ◽  
...  

OBJECT Lumbar microdiscectomy and its various minimally invasive surgical techniques are seeing increasing popularity, but a systematic review of their associated complications has yet to be performed. The authors sought to identify all prospective clinical studies reporting complications associated with lumbar open microdiscectomy, microendoscopic discectomy (MED), and percutaneous microdiscectomy. METHODS The authors conducted MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase database searches for randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies reporting complications associated with open, microendoscopic, or percutaneous lumbar microdiscectomy. Studies with fewer than 10 patients and published before 1990 were excluded. Overall and interstudy median complication rates were calculated for each surgical technique. The authors also performed a meta-analysis of the reported complications to assess statistical significance across the various surgical techniques. RESULTS Of 9504 articles retrieved from the databases, 42 met inclusion criteria. Most studies screened were retrospective case series, limiting the number of studies that could be included. A total of 9 complication types were identified in the included studies, and these were analyzed across each of the surgical techniques. The rates of any complication across the included studies were 12.5%, 13.3%, and 10.8% for open, MED, and percutaneous microdiscectomy, respectively. New or worsening neurological deficit arose in 1.3%, 3.0%, and 1.6% of patients, while direct nerve root injury occurred at rates of 2.6%, 0.9%, and 1.1%, respectively. Hematoma was reported at rates of 0.5%, 1.2%, and 0.6%, respectively. Wound complications (infection, dehiscence, orseroma) occurred at rates of 2.1%, 1.2%, and 0.5%, respectively. The rates of recurrent disc complications were 4.4%, 3.1%, and 3.9%, while reoperation was indicated in 7.1%, 3.7%, and 10.2% of operations, respectively. Meta-analysis calculations revealed a statistically significant higher rate of intraoperative nerve root injury following percutaneous procedures relative to MED. No other significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS This review highlights complication rates among various microdiscectomy techniques, which likely reflect real-world practice and conceptualization of complications among physicians. This investigation sets the framework for further discussions regarding microdiscectomy options and their associated complications during the informed consent process.


2020 ◽  
Vol 140 ◽  
pp. 114-118
Author(s):  
Sidney Roberts ◽  
Ram Alluri ◽  
Hannah Hageman Licari ◽  
Jihoon T. Choi ◽  
Jeffrey C. Wang ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, does not provide a separate mechanism for rating spinal nerve injuries as extremity impairment; radiculopathy was reflected in the spinal rating process in Chapter 17, The Spine and Pelvis. Certain jurisdictions, such as the Federal Employee Compensation Act (FECA), rate nerve root injury as impairment involving the extremities rather than as part of the spine. This article presents an approach to rate spinal nerve impairments consistent with the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, methodology. This approach should be used only when a jurisdiction requires ratings for extremities and precludes rating for the spine. A table in this article compares sensory and motor deficits according to the AMA Guides, Sixth and Fifth Editions; evaluators should be aware of changes between editions in methodology used to assign the final impairment. The authors present two tables regarding spinal nerve impairment: one for the upper extremities and one for the lower extremities. Both tables were developed using the methodology defined in the sixth edition. Using these tables and the process defined in the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, evaluators can rate spinal nerve impairments for jurisdictions that do not permit rating for the spine and require rating for radiculopathy as an extremity impairment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document