Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian Journal of Neurosurgery 2020; 9(03): 225-229
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1710105
Techniques in Neurosurgery

Clinical Outcomes after Minimally Invasive Trans-Psoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: Four Years’ Multicenter Study

Sheikh Asad
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
,
Arjun Dubey
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
,
Arvind Dubey
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
2   Hobart Brain and Spine Centre, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
,
Chester Sutterlin
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
2   Hobart Brain and Spine Centre, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
3   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The use of minimally invasive transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery for treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis is rapidly increasing in popularity. However, limited data is available regarding its use in adult degenerative lumbar scoliosis surgery. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of adults with degenerative lumbar scoliosis who were treated with minimally invasive LLIF. Thirty-two consecutive patients with adult degenerative scoliosis treated by a single surgeon at two spine centers were followed up for an average of 13.2 months. Interbody fusion was completed using the minimally invasive LLIF technique with supplemental 360 degrees’ posterior instrumentation. Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores were obtained preoperatively and at most recent follow-up. Complications were recorded. The study group demonstrated improvement in clinical outcome scores. ODI scores improved from 36.8 to 23.4 (p < 0.00001). A total of four complications (12%) were recorded, and two patients (6%) required additional surgery. Based on the significant improvement in validated clinical outcome scores, minimally invasive LLIF can be considered an effective procedure in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis.

Keywords

lateral lumbar interbody fusion - scoliosis - trans-psoas


Publication History

Article published online:
21 September 2020

© 2020. Neurological Surgeons’ Society of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 McAfee PC, Regan JJ, Geis WP, Fedder IL. Minimally invasive anterior retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine. Emphasis on the lateral BAK. Spine 1998; 23 (13) 1476-1484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Youssef JA, McAfee PC, Patty CA. et al. Minimally invasive surgery: lateral approach interbody fusion: results and review. Spine 2010; 35 (Suppl. 26) S302-S311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Acosta FL, Liu J, Slimack N, Moller D, Fessler R, Koski T. Changes in coronal and sagittal plane alignment following minimally invasive direct lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease in adults: a radiographic study. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15 (01) 92-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, Uribe JS. Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28 (03) E8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sharma AK, Kepler CK, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP, Huang RC, Sama AA. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic outcomes at 1 year: a preliminary report. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011; 24 (04) 242-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Vanderpool DW, James JI, Wynne-Davies R. Scoliosis in the elderly. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969; 51 (03) 446-455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML. et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250 (02) 187-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cappuccino A, Cornwall GB, Turner AW. et al. Biomechanical analysis and review of lateral lumbar fusion constructs. Spine 2010; 35 (Suppl. 26) S361-S367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dooris AP, Goel VK, Grosland NM, Gilbertson LG, Wilder DG. Load-sharing between anterior and posterior elements in a lumbar motion segment implanted with an artificial disc. Spine 2001; 26 (06) E122-E129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Oliveira L, Marchi L, Coutinho E, Pimenta L. A radiographic assessment of the ability of the extreme lateral interbody fusion procedure to indirectly decompress the neural elements. Spine 2010; 35 (Suppl. 26) S331-S337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Laws CJ, Coughlin DG, Lotx JC, Serhan HA. Hu, SS. Spine 2012; 37: 819-825
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 12 Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR. Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 2006; 6 (04) 435-443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Moro T, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Yaginuma H. An anatomic study of the lumbar plexus with respect to retroperitoneal endoscopic surgery. Spine 2003; 28 (05) 423-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Johnson RD, Valore A, Villaminar A, Comisso M, Balsano M. Pelvic parameters of sagittal balance in extreme lateral interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disc disease. J Clin Neurosci 2013; 20 (04) 576-581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cummock MD, Vanni S, Levi AD, Yu Y, Wang MY. An analysis of postoperative thigh symptoms after minimally invasive transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15 (01) 11-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Knight RQ, Schwaegler P, Hanscom D, Roh J. Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative conditions: early complication profile. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22 (01) 34-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson J. Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases. Spine 2011; 36 (01) 26-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Houten JK, Alexandre LC, Nasser R, Wollowick AL. Nerve injury during the transpsoas approach for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15 (03) 280-284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Moller DJ, Slimack NP, Acosta Jr FL, Koski TR, Fessler RG, Liu JC. Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transpsoas approach-related morbidity. Neurosurg Focus 2011; 31 (04) E4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kepler CK, Sharma AK, Huang RC. et al. Indirect foraminal decompression after lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2012; 16 (04) 329-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Le TV, Baaj AA, Dakwar E. et al. Subsidence of polyetheretherketone intervertebral cages in minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2012; 37 (14) 1268-1273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hollowell JP, Vollmer DG, Wilson CR, Pintar FA, Yoganandan N. Biomechanical analysis of thoracolumbar interbody constructs. How important is the endplate?. Spine 1996; 21 (09) 1032-1036
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kepler CK, Huang RC, Sharma AK. et al. Factors influencing segmental lumbar lordosis after lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. Orthop Surg 2012; 4 (02) 71-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar