Lateral Decubitus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the L4-5 Level is a Safe Alternative to Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in 1-2 Level Lateral Decubitus Single Position Surgery.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 41099346.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1097/BRS.0000000000005542.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Retrospective review of prospectively, consecutively enrolled patients. To assess differences in safety, efficiency and alignment between L-ALIF and LLIF at the L4-5 level in lateral single position surgery (L-SPS). The safety of L4-5 access in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) may be limited by psoas, iliac crest and vascular anatomy. Alternatively, lateral decubitus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (L-ALIF) can be used at the L4-5 level during L-SPS. Patients who underwent 1-2 level L-SPS patients including L4-5 were analysed from 7 institutions across 3 countries (Australia, Brazil, USA). Patients were grouped by the L4-5 interbody fusion technique: L-ALIF or LLIF. Demographics, procedural characteristics, complications and sagittal alignment were analysed. Of 511 patients, 72 underwent L4-5 L-ALIF and 439 L4-5 LLIF. L-ALIF patients had more levels fused (1.65 vs.1.25, P<0.001), longer operative time (115.78 vs. 89.08 min, P<0.001) and length of stay (LOS) (2.41 vs. 1.71 d, P<0.001).Propensity matching for demographics and levels fused (72 per group), demonstrated similar operative time (115.78 vs. 115.77 min, P=0.998), LOS (2.41 vs. 1.98 d, P=0.069) and blood loss (138.68 vs. 165.00 mL, P=0.408).L-ALIF patients had less postoperative (4.2% vs. 21.6%, P<0.001) and minor complications (1.4% vs. 15.0%, P=0.001), mainly attributable to less transient thigh dysaesthesia (0.0% vs. 6.4%, P=0.028). Intraoperative complications (2.8% vs. 2.5%, P=0.892), major postoperative complications (2.8% vs. 8.9%, P=0.077), reoperations within 90-days (2.8% vs. 7.1%, P=0.170) and cage revisions (1.4% vs. 1.6%, P=0.896) were similar.L-ALIF more accurately restored L4-S1 regional lordosis (36.1° vs. 29.7°, P=0.017) postoperatively, and enabled larger improvement in L4-5 segmental lordosis (change of 6.8° vs. 1.8°, P<0.001). L-ALIF at L4-5 is a safe alternative to LLIF in L-SPS. Additionally, L4-5 L-ALIF enables more accurate restoration of L4-S1 lordosis and effectively improves L4-5 segmental lordosis.
Anatomy
- lumbar spine