Original ArticleThe Safety and Efficacy of Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Adjacent Segment Disease in a Cohort of 44 Patients
Introduction
Lumbar fusions are a mainstay of treatment offered by spinal surgeons in the United States for a variety of spinal pathology. Fusions were first described by the Greeks in the 5th century BC, and these crude procedures laid the foundation for the techniques that we have today.1 In the more recent past, lumbar fusions have exponentially increased in the United States over the past several decades.2, 3, 4 An unintended consequence of these fusions, however, is the development of adjacent segment disease (ASD) as they alter the biomechanics of the spine. Regrettably, these fusion masses create increasing biomechanical stress on motion segments above and below the constructs, which is likely leading to ASD.5, 6, 7, 8
It is well documented in the literature that the typical treatment for ASD is posterior decompression with extension of hardware and fusion.9, 10, 11, 12, 13 However, as with any revision surgery, there is significant morbidity to the patient, and it is more technically difficult for the surgeon to define planes secondary to scar tissue in addition to previous hardware. There are multiple studies evaluating the high blood loss, incidence of dural injury, surgical site infections, and perioperative complication rates in those patients undergoing posterior approach revision surgery.9, 10, 11, 12, 13
A potential alternative to the posterior approach is the lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), which was first described by Ozgur et al.14 It is a less invasive retroperitoneal approach that traverses the psoas muscle to reach diseased spinal levels. An obvious advantage of this approach is the avoidance of dissecting through a previous incision with adherent scar tissue to place a sizeable interbody into the disk space facilitating indirect decompression of neural elements.15 In the literature, there are a few articles describing the stand-alone LLIF for the treatment of ASD. In particular, Louie et al.16 described their experience with 25 patients. To add to the growing body of literature on the utility and safety of LLIF for ASD, the purpose of our study was to describe our experience with the stand-alone LLIF for ASD, with what is to our knowledge the largest known cohort.
Section snippets
Patient Population and Study Design
After receiving institutional review board approval (IRB# Pro00023643), we compiled a series of all patients who underwent transpsoas LLIF for ASD at a single academic tertiary care referral center between 2012 and 2019. To identify these patients, we reviewed case request orders for the keywords, “lateral lumbar interbody fusion” and “extreme lateral interbody fusion.” Then, with review of operating room radiographs, patients were excluded if there was no previous hardware or if the laterally
Results
During the specified time period, we identified 44 patients who underwent LLIF for ASD between 6 different board-certified neurologic surgeons at our center. The baseline characteristics of these patients are outlined in Table 1. The median age in our population was 65 years (interquartile range, 58.5–73; range, 32–83). At the time of surgery, 12 patients (27.3%) were current smokers, 3 (6.8%) were former smokers, and 29 (65.9%) had never smoked. In patients' index cases, there was a median 2
Discussion
Our findings confirm previous reports that stand-alone LLIF is a safe and appropriate treatment for ASD in what is to our knowledge the largest cohort of such described patients.16,17 In our series, 91% of patients experienced significant improvement of their back, radicular, and claudication pains. Some 47% of patients who developed new-onset non-pain-related neurologic complaints experienced complete resolution after stand-alone LLIF. During follow-up, only 1 patient (2.2%) required a
Conclusions
To our knowledge, this is the largest cohort study of patients to date evaluating stand-alone LLIF for ASD. Our patient outcomes show this is a safe and effective operation with a low risk of morbidity for patients with ASD following previous posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion. A future study analyzing patients with longer follow-up time may be helpful in confirming the long-term success of LLIF in treating ASD.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ryan Screven: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Elliot Pressman: Methodology, Validation, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Gautam Rao: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - review & editing, Visualization. Thomas B. Freeman: Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing, Visualization,
References (39)
- et al.
Spinal fusion surgery: a historical perspective
J Orthop
(2017) - et al.
National trends in the surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative disc disease: United States, 2000 to 2009
Spine J
(2015) - et al.
Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis
Spine J
(2011) - et al.
Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease
Spine J
(2013) - et al.
Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis associated low-back and leg pain over two years
World Neurosurg
(2012) - et al.
Hidden blood loss during posterior spine fusion surgery
Spine J
(2013) - et al.
Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion
Spine J
(2006) - et al.
Stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration following previous lumbar fusion
Spine J
(2018) - et al.
Adjacent segment disease in the lumbar spine following different treatment interventions
Spine J
(2013) - et al.
A comparison of perioperative charges and outcome between open and mini-open approaches for anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion
J Clin Neurosci
(2012)
Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of complication rates
Spine J
Nerve injury after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 919 treated levels with identification of risk factors
Spine J
Elimination of subsidence with 26-mm-wide cages in extreme lateral interbody fusion
World Neurosurg
United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Lumbar adjacent segment degeneration and disease after arthrodesis and total disc arthroplasty
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
ISSLS Prize winner: long-term follow-up suggests spinal fusion is associated with increased adjacent segment disc degeneration but without influence on clinical outcome: results of a combined follow-up from 4 randomized controlled trials
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Long-term complications in adult spinal deformity patients having combined surgery a comparison of primary to revision patients
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Factors predicting hospital stay, operative time, blood loss, and transfusion in patients undergoing revision posterior lumbar spine decompression, fusion, and segmental instrumentation
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Cited by (6)
Is Standalone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Enough?
2023, Clinical Spine SurgeryAdjacent Segment Disease after Spinal Fusion
2023, JBJS ReviewsImpact of cage position on biomechanical performance of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis
2022, BMC Musculoskeletal DisordersWhen to Consider Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Is There a Role for a Comeback with New Implants?
2022, International Journal of Spine Surgery
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that the article content was composed in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.