Advertisement

Single position circumferential fusion improves operative efficiency, reduces complications and length of stay compared with traditional circumferential fusion

Published:November 13, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.11.002

      ABSTRACT

      BACKGROUND CONTEXT

      Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with percutaneous posterior screw fixation are two techniques used to address degenerative lumbar pathologies. Traditionally, these anterior-posterior (AP) surgeries involve repositioning the patient from the supine or lateral decubitus position to prone for posterior fixation. To reduce operative time (OpTime) and subsequent complications of prolonged anesthesia, single-position lumbar surgery (SPLS) is a novel, minimally invasive alternative performed entirely from the lateral decubitus position.

      PURPOSE

      Assess the perioperative safety and efficacy of single position AP lumbar fusion surgery (SPLS).

      STUDY DESIGN

      Multicenter retrospective cohort study.

      PATIENT SAMPLE

      Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group.

      OUTCOME MEASURES

      Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL.

      METHODS

      Patients undergoing primary ALIF and/or LLIF surgery with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 were included over a 4-year period. Patients were classified as either traditional repositioned “Flip” surgery or SPLS. Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, EBL, LOS, perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included LL, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL. All measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at p < .05. Propensity matching was completed where demographic differences were found.

      RESULTS

      Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group. Age, gender, BMI, and CCI were similar between groups. Levels fused (1.47 SPLS vs 1.52 Flip, p = .468) and percent cases including L5-S1 (31% SPLS, 35% Flip, p = .405) were similar between cohorts. SPLS significantly reduced OpTime (103 min vs 306 min, p < .001), EBL (97 vs 313 mL, p < .001), LOS (1.71 vs 4.12 days, p < .001), and fluoroscopy radiation dosage (32 vs 88 mGy, p < .001) compared to Flip. Perioperative complications were similar between cohorts with the exception of postoperative ileus, which was significantly lower in the SPLS group (0% vs 5%, p < .001). There was no significant difference in wound, vascular injury, neurological complications, or Venous Thrombotic Event. There was no significant difference found in 90-day return to operating room (OR).

      CONCLUSIONS

      SPLS improves operative efficiency in addition to reducing blood loss, LOS and ileus in this large cohort study, while maintaining safety.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Spine Journal
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Castellvi AE
        • Nienke TW
        • Marulanda GA
        • Murtagh RD
        • Santoni BG
        Indirect decompression of lumbar stenosis with transpsoas interbody cages and percutaneous posterior instrumentation.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472: 1784-1791
        • Cho W
        • Sokolowski MJ
        • Mehbod AA
        • Denis F
        • Garvey TA
        • Perl J
        • et al.
        MRI measurement of neuroforaminal dimension at the index and supradjacent levels after anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective study.
        Clin Orthop Surg. 2013; 5: 49-54
        • Hsieh PC
        • Koski TR
        • O'Shaughnessy BA
        • Sugrue P
        • Salehi S
        • Ondra S
        • et al.
        Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2007; 7: 379-386
        • Lang G
        • Perrech M
        • Navarro-Ramirez R
        • Hussain I
        • Pennicooke B
        • Maryam F
        • et al.
        Potential and limitations of neural decompression in extreme lateral interbody fusion-a systematic review.
        World Neurosurg. 2017; 101: 99-113
        • Nomura H
        • Yamashita A
        • Watanabe T
        • Shirasawa K
        Quantitative analysis of indirect decompression in extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior spinal fusion with a percutaneous pedicle screw system for lumbar spinal stenosis.
        J Spine Surg. 2019; 5: 266-272
        • Phillips FM
        • Isaacs RE
        • Rodgers WB
        • Khajavi K
        • Tohmeh AG
        • Deviren V
        • et al.
        Adult degenerative scoliosis treated with XLIF: clinical and radiographical results of a prospective multicenter study with 24-month follow-up.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013; 38: 1853-1861
        • Rao PJ
        • Maharaj MM
        • Phan K
        • Lakshan Abeygunasekara M
        • Mobbs RJ
        Indirect foraminal decompression after anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective radiographic study using a new pedicle-to-pedicle technique.
        Spine J. 2015; 15: 817-824
        • Shin SH
        • Choi WG
        • Hwang BW
        • Tsang YS
        • Chung ER
        • Lee HC
        • et al.
        Microscopic anterior foraminal decompression combined with anterior lumbar interbody fusion.
        Spine J. 2013; 13: 1190-1199
        • Mobbs RJ
        • Loganathan A
        • Yeung V
        • Rao PJ
        Indications for anterior lumbar interbody fusion.
        Orthop Surg. 2013; 5: 153-163
        • Cappuccino A
        • Cornwall GB
        • Turner AW
        • Fogel GR
        • Duong HT
        • Kim KD
        • et al.
        Biomechanical analysis and review of lateral lumbar fusion constructs.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010; 35: S361-S367
        • Madan SS
        • Boeree NR.
        Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion.
        Eur Spine J. 2003; 12: 567-575
        • Nayak AN
        • Gutierrez S
        • Billys JB
        • Santoni BG
        • Castellvi AE
        Biomechanics of lateral plate and pedicle screw constructs in lumbar spines instrumented at two levels with laterally placed interbody cages.
        Spine J. 2013; 13: 1331-1338
        • 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: 435-443
        • Mummaneni PV
        • Haid RW
        • Rodts GE
        Lumbar interbody fusion: state-of-the-art technical advances. Invited submission from the joint section meeting on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves, March 2004.
        J Neurosurg Spine. 2004; 1: 24-30
        • Schofferman J
        • Slosar P
        • Reynolds J
        • Goldthwaite N
        • Koestler M
        A prospective randomized comparison of 270 degrees fusions to 360 degrees fusions (circumferential fusions).
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26: E207-E212
        • Beutler WJ
        • Peppelman Jr, WC
        Anterior lumbar fusion with paired BAK standard and paired BAK Proximity cages: subsidence incidence, subsidence factors, and clinical outcome.
        Spine J. 2003; 3: 289-293
        • Practice Advisory for Perioperative Visual Loss Associated with Spine Surgery 2019
        An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Visual Loss, the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society, and the Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology and Critical Care.
        Anesthesiology. 2019; 130: 12-30
        • Akinci IO
        • Tunali U
        • Kyzy AA
        • Guresti E
        • Sencer A
        • Karasu A
        • et al.
        Effects of prone and jackknife positioning on lumbar disc herniation surgery.
        J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2011; 23: 318-322
        • Alboog A
        • Bae S
        • Chui J
        Anesthetic management of complex spine surgery in adult patients: a review based on outcome evidence.
        Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2019; 32: 600-608
        • Chui J
        • Murkin JM
        • Posner KL
        • Domino KB
        Perioperative peripheral nerve injury after general anesthesia: a qualitative systematic review.
        Anesth Analg. 2018; 127: 134-143
        • DePasse JM
        • Palumbo MA
        • Haque M
        • Eberson CP
        • Daniels AH
        Complications associated with prone positioning in elective spinal surgery.
        World J Orthop. 2015; 6: 351-359
        • Pınar HU
        • Kaşdoğan ZEA
        • Başaran B
        • Çöven İ
        • Karaca Ö
        • Doğan R
        The effect of spinal versus general anesthesia on intraocular pressure in lumbar disc surgery in the prone position: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.
        J Clin Anesth. 2018; 46: 54-58
        • Olsen MA
        • Mayfield J
        • Lauryssen C
        • Polish LB
        • Jones M
        • Vest J
        • et al.
        Risk factors for surgical site infection in spinal surgery.
        J Neurosurg. 2003; 98: 149-155
        • Olsen MA
        • Nepple JJ
        • Riew KD
        • Lenke LG
        • Bridwell KH
        • Mayfield J
        • et al.
        Risk factors for surgical site infection following orthopaedic spinal operations.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90: 62-69
        • Sanfilippo F
        • Spoletini G.
        Perspectives on the importance of postoperative ileus.
        Curr Med Res Opin. 2015; 31: 675-676
        • Voyadzis JM
        • Anaizi AN.
        Minimally invasive lumbar transfacet screw fixation in the lateral decubitus position after extreme lateral interbody fusion: a technique and feasibility study.
        J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 26: 98-106
        • Drazin D
        • Kim TT
        • Johnson JP
        Simultaneous lateral interbody fusion and posterior percutaneous instrumentation: early experience and technical considerations.
        Biomed Res Int. 2015; 2015458284
        • Thomas JA.
        Single-Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixation Allows for Adequate Correction of Spinal Sagittal Imbalance.
        Society for Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery (SMISS) Annual Forum, Las Vegas, NV, USA2016
        • Ziino C
        • Konopka JA
        • Ajiboye RM
        • Ledesma JB
        • Koltsov JCB
        • Cheng I
        Single position versus lateral-then-prone positioning for lateral interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation.
        J Spine Surg. 2018; 4: 717-724
        • Ouchida J
        • Kanemura T
        • Satake K
        • Nakashima H
        • Segi N
        Anatomic evaluation of retroperitoneal organs for lateral approach surgery: a prospective imaging study using computed tomography in the lateral decubitus position.
        Eur Spine J. 2019; 28: 835-841
        • Fineberg SJ
        • Nandyala SV
        • Kurd MF
        • Marquez-Lara A
        • Noureldin M
        • Sankaranarayanan S
        • et al.
        Incidence and risk factors for postoperative ileus following anterior, posterior, and circumferential lumbar fusion.
        Spine J. 2014; 14: 1680-1685
        • Al Maaieh MA
        • Du JY
        • Aichmair A
        • Huang RC
        • Hughes AP
        • Cammisa FP
        • et al.
        Multivariate analysis on risk factors for postoperative ileus after lateral lumbar interbody fusion.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014; 39: 688-694
        • Oikawa Y
        • Eguchi Y
        • Watanabe A
        • Orita S
        • Yamauchi K
        • Suzuki M
        • et al.
        Anatomical evaluation of lumbar nerves using diffusion tensor imaging and implications of lateral decubitus for lateral transpsoas approach.
        Eur Spine J. 2017; 26: 2804-2810
        • Buckland AJ
        • Beaubrun BM
        • Isaacs E
        • Moon J
        • Zhou P
        • Horn S
        • et al.
        Psoas morphology differs between supine and sitting magnetic resonance imaging lumbar spine: implications for lateral lumbar interbody fusion.
        Asian Spine J. 2018; 12: 29-36
        • Schwarz NT
        • Kalff JC
        • Türler A
        • Speidel N
        • Grandis JR
        • Billiar TR
        • et al.
        Selective jejunal manipulation causes postoperative pan-enteric inflammation and dysmotility.
        Gastroenterology. 2004; 126: 159-169
        • Lopez-Picado A
        • Albinarrate A
        • Barrachina B
        Determination of perioperative blood loss: accuracy or approximation?.
        Anesth Analg. 2017; 125: 280-286
        • Kollberg SE
        • Häggström AE
        • Lingehall HC
        • Olofsson B
        Accuracy of visually estimated blood loss in surgical sponges by members of the surgical team.
        Aana j. 2019; 87: 277-284
        • Horowitz JA
        • Jain A
        • Puvanesarajah V
        • Qureshi R
        • Hassanzadeh H
        Risk factors, additional length of stay, and cost associated with postoperative ileus following anterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients.
        World Neurosurg. 2018; 115: e185-e1e9
        • Kiely PD
        • Mount LE
        • Du JY
        • Nguyen JT
        • Weitzman G
        • Memstoudis S
        • et al.
        The incidence and risk factors for post-operative ileus after spinal fusion surgery: a multivariate analysis.
        Int Orthop. 2016; 40: 1067-1074
        • Artinyan A
        • Nunoo-Mensah JW
        • Balasubramaniam S
        • et al.
        Prolonged postoperative ileus-definition, risk factors, and predictors after surgery.
        World J Surg. 2008; 32: 1495-1500
        • Andersen K
        • Thastum M
        • Nørholt SE
        • Blomlöf J
        Relative blood loss and operative time can predict length of stay following orthognathic surgery.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016; 45: 1209-1212
        • English EM
        • Bell S
        • Kamdar NS
        • Swenson CW
        • Wiese H
        • Morgan DM
        Importance of estimated blood loss in resource utilization and complications of hysterectomy for benign indications.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133: 650-657
        • Mahadevan D
        • Challand C
        • Keenan J
        Revision total hip replacement: predictors of blood loss, transfusion requirements, and length of hospitalisation.
        J Orthop Traumatol. 2010; 11: 159-165
        • Wang E
        • Manning J
        • Varlotta CG
        • Woo D
        • Ayres E
        • Abotsi E
        • et al.
        Radiation exposure in posterior lumbar fusion: a comparison of ct image-guided navigation, robotic assistance, and intraoperative fluoroscopy.
        Global Spine Journal. 2020;
        • Hiyama A
        • Katoh H
        • Sakai D
        • Sato M
        • Tanaka M
        • Watanabe M
        Comparison of radiological changes after single- position versus dual- position for lateral interbody fusion and pedicle screw fixation.
        BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019; 20: 601
        • Ashayeri K
        • O'Malley N.
        • Tareen J.
        • Eisen L.
        • Protopsaltis T.
        • Buckland A.
        Robotic-Assisted Pedicle Screw Placement in Circumferential Fusion with Preoperative CT Protocol Reduces Radiation Exposure but Does Not Improve Clinical Outcomes in MIS TLIF and AP Fusions.
        North American Spine Society Annual Meeting, Virtual2019