Search Results (36)

Objective: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of dynamic rod stabilization with and without transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar instability. Specifically, we evaluated the prognostic value of hybrid systems in reducing adjacent segment disease (ASD), enhancing fusion rates, and improving functional outcomes. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 62 patients treated between 2019 and 2022. Group 1 (n = 34) underwent dynamic rod stabilization alone, while Group 2 (n = 28) received dynamic stabilization combined with TLIF. Radiological assessments included disk height index (DHI) and fusion rates. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain at baseline, 12, and 24 months. Statistical analysis was performed using Jamovi^® software (version 2.4.1). Results: The hybrid group (dynamic + TLIF) demonstrated significantly higher anterior fusion rates (p < 0.001) and greater improvement in VAS scores for back (p = 0.005) and leg pain (p < 0.001) at 12 months. Although operative time was longer (p = 0.002), there was no significant difference in hospital stay (p = 0.635). No significant differences were observed in ASD development (p = 0.11) or pseudoarthrosis (p = 0.396). The hybrid group maintained better lumbar lordosis and higher adjacent segment DHI. Conclusions: Hybrid dynamic stabilization combined with TLIF provides superior clinical outcomes and fusion rates compared to dynamic stabilization alone, without significantly increasing the risk of ASD. These findings support the use of hybrid constructs as a balanced strategy for treating degenerative lumbar instability. Full article

Background: Lateral lumbar or thoracic interbody fusion (LLIF) is increasingly considered for anterior column reconstruction and restoring segmental lordosis in degenerative, infectious, or deformity conditions. Reports about using LLIF with expandable interbody spacers for spine trauma are scarce. Methods: In this retrospective, single-center observational cohort study, we reviewed all patients treated by an expandable LLIF interbody spacer (ELSA^® Expandable Integrated LLIF Spacer, Globus Medical Inc) for trauma indication at our spine center between September 2018 and January 2024. The primary outcome measures were fusion rate at 12 months, change in segmental sagittal Cobb angle, and clinical outcome according to the MacNab criteria. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and complications. Results: We identified n = 21 patients with a mean age of 48.3 (standard deviation (SD) 15.7), 47.6% were female. LLIF was mostly performed at T11/12 (n = 4; 19.1%) and T12/L1 (n = 10; 47.5%). Indications were AO Spine type A2 (n = 4, 19.1%), A3 (n = 14; 66.7%) or A4 fractures (n = 3; 14.3%) with ligamentous (B2-type) in eight (38.1%) and hyperextension (B3-type) injury in one patient (4.8%). Surgery included the release of the anterior longitudinal ligament in four cases (19.1%). Intraoperative AEs were noted in n = 1 (4.8%), postoperative AEs in n = 3 (14.3%) at discharge, n = 4 (19.1%) at three, and n = 2 (9.5%) at twelve months. Segmental sagittal Cobb angle changed from 1.3° (preoperative) to 13.3° at twelve months (p < 0.001). Functional outcome was excellent/good in n = 15 (71.4%; four missing) at 12 months. The fusion rate at the LLIF level was 100% at the 12-month follow-up. Conclusions: LLIF with expandable interbody spacers for spine trauma (off-label use) is safe, promotes solid fusion (100% fusion rate at 12 months), and enables correction of sagittal segmental Cobb angle (mean improvement of 12°), with good or excellent clinical outcomes in most patients (71.4%). Full article

Background/Objectives: While anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-established treatment for degenerative lumbar spine pathology, the timing and pace of postoperative recovery remain poorly defined. Understanding these temporal trends is clinically important for setting patient expectations and optimizing postoperative care. Methods: This retrospective single-institution study evaluated functional recovery in patients undergoing primary, single-level stand-alone (SA) ALIF, or with percutaneous posterior instrumentation (PI). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and the SF-12 Physical Component Score (PCS), were assessed preoperatively and at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID), global rating change (GRC), and return-to-activity milestones were also analyzed. Results: A total of 143 patients were included (90 SA; 53 PI). PROMs showed significant improvement through 1 year. VAS-back improved by 2 weeks, while ODI and SF12 PCS initially worsened but improved after 6 weeks. By 6 months, over half of the cohort achieved MCID, with continued gains through 1 year. Most patients returned to driving and work, and over 90% discontinued narcotics. Recovery trajectories were comparable between groups, despite early delays in the instrumented cohort. Conclusions: These findings provide time-specific recovery benchmarks that can guide surgical decision-making, patient education, and expectations around functional milestones. Full article

The traditional bilateral pedicle screw system has been used for the treatment of various lumbar spine conditions including advanced degenerative disc disease. However, there is an ongoing need to develop more effective and less invasive techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare the traditional bilateral pedicle screw system (BPSS) with the novel reverse transdiscal screw system (RTSS) for lumbar disc degenerative disease. A 3D solid lumbar L1–L5 spine model was developed and validated based on a human CT scan. Fusions were simulated at L3–L4. The first scenario comprised a transforaminal lumbar interbody cage in combination with the bilateral pedicle screw-rod system (BPSS-TLIF). In the second scenario, the same TLIF cage was combined with reverse L3–L4 transdiscal screws (RTSS-TLIF). Testing parameters included range of motion (ROM) in three orthogonal axes, hardware (cage and screw) stress, and shear load resistance. The ROM of the surgical model was reduced by approximately 90% compared to the intact model at the fused level. The RTSS model demonstrated less ROM compared to the BPSS model at the fused level for all loading conditions. Overall, the RTSS model exhibited lower stress on both screws and cage compared with the BPSS model in all biomechanical testing conditions. The RTSS model also exhibited higher anterior and posterior shear load resistance than the BPSS model. In conclusion, the RTSS model proved superior to the BPSS model in all respects. These findings indicate that the RTSS could serve as a feasible option for patients undergoing lumbar fusion, especially for adjacent segment disease, potentially enhancing surgical outcomes for disc degeneration. Full article

Background/Objectives: Despite recent advances in minimally invasive extrapleural lateral approaches, oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) at the upper lumbar level is often difficult and limited to optimal reconstruction. We aimed to compare the radiological outcomes and approach-related complications of OLIF between the upper (L1–2 or L2–3) and lower (L3–4 or L4–5) levels. Methods: This study is a retrospective review of OLIF in the upper (n = 63) and lower (n = 60) lumbar level groups. Radiological parameters included the anterior/posterior disc height, coronal/sagittal disc angle, cage position, cage subsidence, and fusion rate at a postoperative 1-year follow-up. Approach-related complications including pleural/peritoneal lacerations, neurovascular injury, and other organ injuries were examined. Results: The baseline radiological parameters were similar between the two groups (all p > 0.05). At 1-year postoperatively, the anterior disc height (ADH) was significantly greater in the lower-level group (p = 0.031), while no significant differences were observed in the posterior disc height, coronal/sagittal disc angle, cage anterior position, or cage subsidence rate (all p > 0.05). The fusion rates were 97.9% and 95.0% at the upper and lower lumbar levels, respectively (p = 0.146). During OLIF at the upper lumbar level, chest tube insertion due to pleural laceration was observed in 11 (17.5%) cases. One case (1.2%) of segmental artery injury and two cases (3.2%) of pseudo-hernia were attributed to iliohypogastric nerve injury. Conclusions: Although the extrapleural approach in OLIF at the upper lumbar level is often limited, the radiological outcomes were comparable to those of OLIF at the lower lumbar level. Full article

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the radiographic results, mechanical complications, and clinical outcomes between anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusion at L5–S1 (ALIF51 and PLIF51 groups, respectively) using a matched cohort of patients undergoing long fusion for adult spinal deformity (ASD). Methods: Patients who underwent hybrid surgery of ≥5-level fusion to the pelvis with a minimum follow-up duration of 2 years were included. The baseline characteristics of the groups were controlled using a propensity score matching analysis. The radiographic results, mechanical complications such as proximal junctional kyphosis/failure and metal failure, and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Results: In total, 79 patients were assigned to each group with comparable baseline data, except for a higher frequency of anterior column realignment procedures in the PLIF51 group than in the ALIF51 group (49.4% vs. 31.6%). At the last follow-up, L5–S1 segmental lordosis (SL) was significantly greater in the ALIF51 group than in the PLIF51 group (12.1° vs. 7.3°, p < 0.001). The final C7–sagittal vertical axis (SVA) was significantly smaller in the ALIF51 group than in the PLIF51 group (25.4 mm vs. 35.5 mm, p = 0.032). However, other global sagittal parameters were comparable between the groups. The mechanical complication rates, including metal failure at L5–S1, and the final clinical outcomes were comparable between the groups. Conclusions: ALIF51 has modest advantages over PLIF51 in terms of better restoring L5–S1 SL and C7–SVA with avoiding more invasive procedures above the L5–S1 levels. Other sagittal parameters, mechanical complication rates, and clinical outcomes did not differ between the groups. Full article

The anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lumbar disc arthroplasty (LDA) procedures are both commonly performed to improve the quality of life and pain in people with lower back pain. However, few recent studies have compared 30-day complications on a large scale. The objectives of this study were to compare the 30-day complications seen after ALIF and LDA and identify risk factors for these complications. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried between the years 2012–2021 (10 years in total) for records of patients who underwent either ALIF or LDA as a primary procedure. Patients in each group underwent a 1:1 propensity match for age, gender, BMI, ASA status, diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension requiring medication, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), inpatient/outpatient status, smoking status, and bleeding disorders. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine significant differences in complications and risk factors between these cohorts. A total of 1218 propensity-matched subjects, with 609 receiving ALIF and 609 receiving LDA, were included in the analyses of this study. The incidence of extended length of stay (LOS) (>4 days) was higher in the ALIF cohort compared to the LDA cohort (14.6% vs. 4.76%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that subjects who underwent LDA had lower odds (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.457; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.283–0.738, p = 0.001) of experiencing extended LOS compared to the ALIF cohort. Longer operative times increased the odds of prolonged LOS in both cohorts. The results of this study suggest that ALIF is associated with longer LOS than LDA when baseline demographic data are controlled. Further, longer operative times increase the odds that subjects receiving either ALIF or LDA will experience a prolonged LOS. Besides extended LOS, ALIF and LDA produce a relatively similar 30-day complication profile. Full article

Objective: Return to work after spinal surgery is a crucial factor in the recovery process. It can contribute not only to physical rehabilitation but also to psychological well-being. This study aims to evaluate the rate of return to work following elective lumbar spine surgery and identify predictors that predict failure of return to work. Methods: Adult patients who underwent anterior lumbar interbody fusion at two medical centers were retrospectively identified. A standardized telephone interview was conducted for the final analysis to assess the clinical outcomes of these patients. Results: Out of a total of 159 patients, 104 were of working age at the time of the elective surgery. Data were missing for 35 patients, who were thus excluded from the analysis. All patients had a minimum follow-up period of one year. After surgery, 75% of the patients returned to work within a median time of 3 months. Quality of life, back pain, leg pain, and ODI scores, as well as self-reported satisfaction, were significantly better in patients who returned to work (p < 0.05). Tobacco use and previous musculoskeletal surgery were significant predictive factors of failure to return to work. None of the patients who were unemployed prior to surgery returned to work. Conclusions: Our study reveals that 75% of patients returned to work within three months after surgery. The most significant predictor of failure to return to work is being unemployed before surgery. Additionally, preoperative education about postoperative behavior and physical activity could potentially increase the rate. Full article

Background: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior spinal fusion (PSF) play pivotal roles in restoring lumbar lordosis in spinal surgery. There is an ongoing debate between combined single-position surgery and traditional prone-position PSF for optimizing segmental lumbar lordosis. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 59 patients who underwent ALIF in the supine position followed by PSF in the prone position at a single institution. Cobb angles were measured preoperatively, post-ALIF, and post-PSF using X-ray imaging. One-way repeated measures ANOVA and post-hoc analyses with Bonferroni adjustment were employed to compare mean Cobb angles at different time points. Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated to assess the magnitude of changes. Sample size calculations were performed to ensure statistical power. Results: The mean segmental Cobb angle significantly increased from preoperative (32.2 ± 13.8 degrees) to post-ALIF (42.2 ± 14.3 degrees, Cohen’s d: −0.71, p < 0.0001) and post-PSF (43.6 ± 14.6 degrees, Cohen’s d: −0.80, p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between Cobb angles after ALIF and after PSF (Cohen’s d: −0.10, p = 0.14). The findings remained consistent when Cobb angles were analyzed separately for single-screw and double-screw ALIF constructs. Conclusions: Both supine ALIF and prone PSF significantly increased segmental lumbar lordosis compared to preoperative measurements. The negligible difference between post-ALIF and post-PSF lordosis suggests that supine ALIF followed by prone PSF can be an effective approach, providing flexibility in surgical positioning without compromising lordosis improvement. Full article

Lumbar fusion surgery for treating degenerative spinal diseases has undergone significant advancements in recent years. In addition to posterior instrumentation, anterior interbody fusion techniques have been developed along with various cages for interbody fusion. Recently, expandable cages capable of altering height, lordotic angle, and footprint within the disc space have garnered significant attention. In this manuscript, we review the current status, clinical outcomes, and future prospects of expandable cages for lumbar interbody fusion based on the existing literature. Expandable cages are suitable for minimally invasive spinal surgeries. Small-sized cages can be inserted and subsequently expanded to a larger size within the disc space. While expandable cages generally demonstrate superior clinical outcomes compared to static cages, some studies have suggested comparable or even poorer outcomes with expandable cages than static cages. Careful interpretation through additional long-term follow-ups is required to assess the utility of expandable cages. If these shortcomings are addressed and the advantages are further developed, expandable cages could become suitable surgical instruments for minimally invasive spinal surgeries. Full article

Background/Objectives: Lateral spine surgery offers effective minimally invasive deformity correction, but traditional approaches often involve separate anterior, lateral, and posterior procedures. The prone lateral technique streamlines this process by allowing single-position access for lateral and posterior surgery, potentially benefiting from the lordosing effect of prone positioning. While previous studies have compared prone lateral to direct lateral for adult degenerative diseases, this retrospective review focuses on the outcomes of adult deformity patients undergoing prone lateral interbody fusion. Methods: Ten adult patients underwent single-position prone lateral surgery for spine deformity correction, with a mean follow-up of 18 months. Results: Results showed significant improvements: sagittal vertical axis decreased by 2.4 cm, lumbar lordosis increased by 9.1°, pelvic tilt improved by 3.3°, segmental lordosis across the fusion construct increased by 12.2°, and coronal Cobb angle improved by 6.3°. These benefits remained consistent over the follow-up period. Correlational analysis showed a positive association between improvements in PROs and SVA and SL. When compared to hybrid approaches, prone lateral yielded greater improvements in SVA. Conclusions: Prone lateral surgery demonstrated favorable outcomes with reasonable perioperative risks. However, further research comparing this technique with standard minimally invasive lateral approaches, hybrid, and open approaches is warranted for a comprehensive evaluation. Full article

Lumbar interbody fusion procedures have seen a significant evolution over the years, with various approaches being developed to address spinal pathologies and instability, including posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). LLIF, a pivotal technique in the field, initially emerged as extreme/direct lateral interbody fusion (XLIF/DLIF) before the development of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). To ensure comprehensive circumferential stability, LLIF procedures are often combined with posterior stabilization (PS) using pedicle screws. However, achieving this required repositioning of the patient during the surgical procedure. The advent of single-position surgery (SPS) has revolutionized the procedure by eliminating the need for patient repositioning. With SPS, LLIF along with PS can be performed either in the lateral or prone position, resulting in significantly reduced operative time. Ongoing research endeavors are dedicated to further enhancing LLIF procedures making them even safer and easier. Notably, the integration of robotic technology into SPS has emerged as a game-changer, simplifying surgical processes and positioning itself as a vital asset for the future of spinal fusion surgery. This literature review aims to provide a succinct summary of the evolutionary trajectory of lumbar interbody fusion techniques, with a specific emphasis on its recent advancements. Full article

Introduction: Whether a combined anterior–posterior (AP) approach offers additional benefits over the posterior-only (P) approach in adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery remains unknown. In a cohort of patients undergoing ASD surgery, we compared the combined AP vs. the P-only approach in: (1) preoperative/perioperative variables, (2) radiographic measurements, and (3) postoperative outcomes. Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study was performed for patients undergoing ASD surgery from 2009 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were ≥5-level fusion, sagittal/coronal deformity, and 2-year follow-up. The primary exposure was the operative approach: a combined AP approach or P alone. Postoperative outcomes included mechanical complications, reoperation, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID), defined as 30% of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Multivariable linear regression was controlled for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Results: Among 238 patients undergoing ASD surgery, 34 (14.3%) patients underwent the AP approach and 204 (85.7%) underwent the P-only approach. The AP group consisted mostly of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) at L5/S1 (73.5%) and/or L4/L5 (38.0%). Preoperatively, the AP group had more previous fusions (64.7% vs. 28.9%, p < 0.001), higher pelvic tilt (PT) (29.6 ± 11.6° vs. 24.6 ± 11.4°, p = 0.037), higher T1 pelvic angle (T1PA) (31.8 ± 12.7° vs. 24.0 ± 13.9°, p = 0.003), less L1-S1 lordosis (−14.7 ± 28.4° vs. −24.3 ± 33.4°, p < 0.039), less L4-S1 lordosis (−25.4 ± 14.7° vs. 31.6 ± 15.5°, p = 0.042), and higher sagittal vertical axis (SVA) (102.6 ± 51.9 vs. 66.4 ± 71.2 mm, p = 0.005). Perioperatively, the AP approach had longer operative time (553.9 ± 177.4 vs. 397.4 ± 129.0 min, p < 0.001), more interbodies placed (100% vs. 17.6%, p < 0.001), and longer length of stay (8.4 ± 10.7 vs. 7.0 ± 9.6 days, p = 0.026). Radiographically, the AP group had more improvement in T1PA (13.4 ± 8.7° vs. 9.5 ± 8.6°, p = 0.005), L1-S1 lordosis (−14.3 ± 25.6° vs. −3.2 ± 20.2°, p < 0.001), L4-S1 lordosis (−4.7 ± 16.4° vs. 3.2 ± 13.7°, p = 0.008), and SVA (65.3 ± 44.8 vs. 44.8 ± 47.7 mm, p = 0.007). These outcomes remained statistically significant in the multivariable analysis controlling for age, BMI, and previous fusion. Postoperatively, no significant differences were found in mechanical complications, reoperations, or MCID of PROMs. Conclusions: Preoperatively, patients undergoing the combined anterior–posterior approach had higher PT, T1PA, and SVA and lower L1-S1 and L4-S1 lordosis than the posterior-only approach. Despite increased operative time and length of stay, the anterior–posterior approach provided greater sagittal correction without any difference in mechanical complications or PROMs. Full article

Purpose: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of spine procedures performed in an ambulatory spine surgery unit in Poland. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 318 patients who underwent ambulatory spine surgery between 2018 and 2021, with procedures including microdiscectomy (MLD), anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), endoscopic interbody fusion (endoLIF), posterior endoscopic cervical discectomy (PECD), interlaminar endoscopic lumbar discectomy IELD, and transforaminal endoscopic lumbar discectomy (TELD). Patient data were analyzed for pre-operative and post-operative visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Results: The findings indicated that outpatient techniques were safe and effective, with a 2.83% complication rate. All procedures significantly improved VAS scores under short-term observation, and core outcome measurement index (COMI) scores under long-term observation. Conclusions: Ambulatory spine surgery represents a relatively new approach in Poland, with only a select few centers currently offering this type of service. Outpatient spine surgery is a safe, effective, and cost-effective option for patients requiring basic spine surgeries. Full article

Introduction: Hemivertebrae are a common defect of vertebral formation, potentially resulting in debilitating congenital scoliosis and necessitating highly traumatic surgery. Virtual surgical planning (VSP) and 3D-printed patient-specific implants (PSIs) have increasingly been applied to complex spinal surgery, and offer a range of potential benefits. Research Question: We report the use of 3D-printed PSIs and VSP as part of a two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for the management of lateral hemivertebra and congenital scoliosis. Material and Methods: A 53-year-old male with chronic low-back pain, due to L4 hemivertebra and mild congenital scoliosis, presented with new-onset leg pain. CT revealed L4/5 and L5/S1 degeneration and foraminal stenosis. Given the complex anatomy and extensive multi-level osteophytosis, 3D-printed PSIs were designed, manufactured, and implanted as part of a two-level ALIF. Results: Excellent implant fit was achieved intraoperatively, confirmed via postoperative imaging. VSP assisted with navigating challenging bony and vascular anatomy. Three-month postoperative imaging demonstrated construct stability, early signs of bony fusion, with implant placement, spinal curvature, and disc height corrections closely matching the VSP. Clinically, the patient’s pain and functional impairment had effectively resolved by nine-month follow up, as demonstrated through subjective and objective measures. Discussion and Conclusions: Virtual surgical planning and 3D-printed PSIs can be useful surgical aids in the management of the often-complex cases involving hemivertebrae and congenital scoliosis. This case of congenital pathology adds to the growing reports of PSI application to a variety of complex spinal pathologies, with analyses showing a close match of the postoperative construct to the preoperative VSP. Full article