Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleMinimally Invasive Surgery

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

Deeptee Jain, Kushagra Verma, Jeffrey Mulvihill, Jun Mizutani, Bobby Tay, Shane Burch and Vedat Deviren
International Journal of Spine Surgery August 2018, 5056; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/5056
Deeptee Jain
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kushagra Verma
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeffrey Mulvihill
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jun Mizutani
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bobby Tay
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shane Burch
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Vedat Deviren
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Study Design Retrospective cohort study.

Objective To compare outcomes and complications of stand-alone minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion (LIF) vs revision posterior surgery for the treatment of lumbar adjacent segment disease.

Methods Adults who underwent LIF or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for adjacent segment disease were compared. Exclusion criteria: >grade 1 spondylolisthesis, posterior approach after LIF, and L5/S1 surgery. Patient demographics, estimated blood loss, hospital length of stay, complications, reoperations, health-related quality of life measures, and radiographs were examined. Data were analyzed with the χ2, Wilcoxon signed rank, and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results A total of 17 LIF and 16 TLIF patients were included. Demographics were similar. Follow up was similar (LIF: 22.9 ± 11.8 months vs TLIF: 22.0 ± 4.6 months; P = .86). The LIF patients had significantly less blood loss (LIF: 36 ± 16 mL vs TLIF: 700 ± 767 mL; P < .001) and shorter length of stay (LIF: 2.6 ± 2.9 days vs TLIF: 3.3 ± 0.9 days; P = .001). There were no intraoperative complications. Revision rate was 4 of 17 in LIF and 3 of 16 in TLIF (P = .73). Baseline health-related quality of life and radiographic measurements were similar. In both groups, back and leg pain scores significantly improved, and in LIF, the Owestry Disability Index, and EuroQol-5D significantly improved. The LIF had a significant increase in intervertebral height (LIF: 4.8 ± 2.9 mm, P < .001, TLIF: 1.3 ± 3.4 mm, P = .37), which was significantly greater for LIF than TLIF (P = .002). Similarly, LIF had a significant increase in segmental lordosis (LIF: 5.6° ± 4.9°, P < .001, TLIF: 3.6° ± 8.6°, P = .16), which was not significantly different between groups.

Conclusions Patients with adjacent segment disease may receive significant benefit from stand-alone LIF or TLIF. The LIF offers advantages of less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay.

Level of Evidence 3

  • lateral interbody fusion
  • minimally invasive
  • adjacent segment disease
  • transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Footnotes

  • Disclosures and COI: The authors received no funding for this study and report no conflicts of interest.

  • ©International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery
Next
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 19 (S2)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 19, Issue S2
1 Apr 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
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
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
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
Deeptee Jain, Kushagra Verma, Jeffrey Mulvihill, Jun Mizutani, Bobby Tay, Shane Burch, Vedat Deviren
International Journal of Spine Surgery Aug 2018, 5056; DOI: 10.14444/5056

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
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
Deeptee Jain, Kushagra Verma, Jeffrey Mulvihill, Jun Mizutani, Bobby Tay, Shane Burch, Vedat Deviren
International Journal of Spine Surgery Aug 2018, 5056; DOI: 10.14444/5056
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Lateral Interbody Fusion for Adjacent Segment Degeneration
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparative Review of Lateral and Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique, Outcomes, and Complications
  • Key Considerations in Surgical Decision-Making on the Side of Approach for Lumbar Lateral Transpsoas Interbody Fusion Techniques
  • A Spine Surgeon’s Learning Curve With the Minimally Invasive L5 to S1 Lateral ALIF Surgical Approach: Perioperative Outcomes and Technical Considerations
Show more Minimally Invasive Surgery

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • lateral interbody fusion
  • minimally invasive
  • adjacent segment disease
  • transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire