STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PURPOSE: To compare intraoperative endplate injury cases and no injury cases in consecutive series and to identify predisposing factors for intraoperative endplate injury. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Unintended endplate violation and subsequent cage subsidence is an intraoperative complication of extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF). It is still unknown whether it is derived from inexperienced surgical technique or patients' inherent problems. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n=102; mean age, 69.0±0.8 years) underwent XLIF at 201 levels at a single institute. Preoperative and immediately postoperative radiographs were compared and cases with intraoperative endplate injury were identified. Various parameters were reviewed in each patient and compared between the injury and no injury groups. RESULTS: Twenty one levels (10.4%) had signs of intraoperative endplate injury. The injury group had a significantly higher rate of females (p=0.002), lower bone mineral density (BMD) (p=0.02), higher rate of polyetheretherketone as cage material (p=0.04), and taller cage height (p=0.03) compared with the no injury group. Multivariate analysis indicated that a T-score of BMD as a negative (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.27–0.93; p=0.03) and cage height as a positive (odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–3.17; p=0.03) were predisposing factors for intraoperative endplate injury. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative endplate injury is correlated significantly with reduced BMD and taller cage height. Precise evaluation of bone quality and treatment for osteoporosis might be important and care should be taken not to choose excessively taller cage.
Bone Density ; Bone-Implant Interface ; Causality* ; Female ; Humans ; Intraoperative Complications ; Multivariate Analysis ; Osteoporosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Spine

Methods: This retrospective study included 35 patients (mean age, 72.8±8.0 years; male, 10; female, 25) who underwent lumbosacral fixation using SAI screws with at least 2 years of follow-up. SAI screw loosening and L5–S bony fusion were assessed using computed tomography. The period for which the screws appeared loose and the risk factors for SAI screw loosening were investigated 2 years after surgery. Results: A total of 70 SAI screws and 70 S1 pedicle screws were inserted. Loosening was observed 0.5, 1, and 2 years after surgery in 17 (24.3%), 35 (50.0%), and 35 (50.0%) SAI screws, respectively. Bony fusion rate at L5–S was significantly lower in patients with SAI screw loosening than in those without screw loosening (65.0% vs. 93.3%, p =0.048). The score for SAI screw contact with the iliac cortical bone and the bony fusion rate at L5–S were significantly lower in the loosening group than in the non-loosening group (1.8±0.5 vs. 2.2±0.3, p <0.001, respectively). Postoperative pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis was significantly higher in the loosening group than in the non-loosening group (7.9°±15.4° vs. 0.5°±8.7°, p =0.02, respectively). Conclusions SAI screw loosening is closely correlated with pseudoarthrosis at L5–S. Appropriate screw insertion and optimal lumbar lordosis restoration are important to prevent postoperative complications related to SAI screws.

Methods: We retrospectively investigated 52 cases involving lumbar interbody fusions for restenosis with spondylolisthesis after lumbar decompressions; these cases consisted of 15 patients who underwent indirect decompression with LLIF and posterior fixation and 37 patients who underwent the same procedure with PLIF. We compared Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and perioperative complications between groups. The cross-sectional areas of the thecal sac on magnetic resonance imaging were measured before, immediately after, and 2 years after surgery. We conducted statistical analyses using unpaired t -test and Fisher’s exact tests, and a p -value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The operative time was significantly shorter in the LLIF group than in the PLIF group (115.3±33.6 min vs. 186.2±34.2 min, respectively; p <0.001). In addition, the intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the LLIF group than in the PLIF group (58.2±32.7 mL vs. 303.2±140.1 mL, respectively; p <0.001). We found two cases of transient lateral thigh weakness (13.3%) in the LLIF group and five cases of incidental durotomy, one case of deep infection, and one case of neurological deterioration in the PLIF group—resulting in a higher complication incidence (18.9%), although it did not reach (p =0.63). The JOA scores improved significantly in both groups. Conclusions Indirect decompression using LLIF provided acceptable clinical and radiographical outcomes in patients with restenosis with spondylolisthesis after lumbar decompression; no revision-surgery-specific complications were found. Our results suggest that LLIF is a safe and minimally invasive procedure for revision surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case–control study. PURPOSE: To compare surgical invasiveness and radiological outcomes between posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) for degenerative lumbar kyphosis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: LLIF is a minimally invasive interbody fusion technique; however, few reports compared the clinical outcomes of conventional PLIF and LLIF for degenerative lumbar kyphosis. METHODS: Radiographic data for patients who have undergone lumbar interbody fusion (≥3 levels) using PLIF or LLIF for degenerative lumbar kyphosis (lumbar lordosis [LL] <20°) were retrospectively examined. The following radiographic parameters were retrospectively evaluated preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively: segmental lordotic angle, LL, pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), C7 sagittal vertical axis, and T1 pelvic angle. RESULTS: Nineteen consecutive cases with PLIF and 27 cases with LLIF were included. There were no significant differences in patients' backgrounds or preoperative radiographic parameters between the PLIF and the LLIF groups. The mean fusion level was 5.5±2.5 levels and 5.8±2.5 levels in the PLIF and LLIF groups, respectively (p=0.69). Although there was no significant difference in surgical times (p=0.58), the estimated blood loss was significantly greater in the PLIF group (p<0.001). Two years postoperatively, comparing the PLIF and LLIF groups, the segmental lordotic angle achieved (7.4°±7.6° and 10.6°±9.4°, respectively; p=0.03), LL (27.8°±13.9° and 39.2°±12.7°, respectively; p=0.006), PI–LL (19.8°±14.8° and 3.1°±17.5°, respectively; p=0.002), and PT (22.6°±7.1° and 14.2°±13.9°, respectively; p=0.02) were significantly better in the LLIF group. CONCLUSIONS: LLIF provided significantly better sagittal alignment restoration in the context of degenerative lumbar kyphosis, with less blood loss.
Animals ; Humans ; Incidence ; Kyphosis ; Lordosis ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Operative Time ; Retrospective Studies

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned second-stage decompression for postoperative neurological deficit after indirect decompression using lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with posterior fixation. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Indirect lumbar decompression with LLIF has been used as a minimally invasive alternative to direct decompression to treat degenerative lumbar diseases requiring neural decompression. However, evidence on the prevalence of neurological deficits caused by spinal canal stenosis after indirect decompression is limited. METHODS: This study included 158 patients (mean age, 71.13±7.98 years; male/female ratio, 67/91) who underwent indirect decompression with LLIF and posterior fixation. Indirect decompression was performed at 271 levels (mean level, 1.71±0.97). Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors for postoperative neurological deficits. The variables included were age, sex, body mass index, presence of primary diseases, diabetes mellitus, preoperative motor deficit, levels operated on, preoperative severity of lumbar stenosis, and preoperative Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score. RESULTS: Postoperative neurological deficit due to spinal canal stenosis occurred in three patients (1.9%). Spinal stenosis due to hemodialysis (p<0.001), ligament ossification (p<0.001), presence of preoperative motor paralysis (p<0.001), low JOA score (p=0.004), and severe canal stenosis (p=0.02) were significantly more frequent in the paralysis group. CONCLUSIONS: Severe preoperative canal stenosis and neurological deficit were identified as risk factors for postoperative neurological deterioration caused by spinal canal stenosis. Additionally, uncommon diseases, such as spinal stenosis due to hemodialysis and ligament ossification, increased the risk of postoperative neurological deficit; therefore, in such cases, indirect decompression is contraindicated.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Body Mass Index ; Cohort Studies ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Decompression ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Humans ; Ligaments ; Logistic Models ; Orthopedics ; Paralysis ; Prevalence ; Prospective Studies ; Renal Dialysis ; Risk Factors ; Spinal Canal ; Spinal Stenosis

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To identify factors that affect sagittal alignment correction in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD) and to investigate the degree of correction in each condition. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: LIF is a useful procedure for ASD, but the degree of correction can be affected by posterior osteotomy, intraoperative endplate injury, or anterior longitudinal ligament (ALL) rupture. METHODS: Radiographical data for 30 patients who underwent LIF for ASD were examined prospectively. All underwent two-stage surgery (LIF followed by posterior fixation). Radiographical parameters were measured preoperatively, after LIF, and after posterior fixation; these included the segmental lordotic angle, lumbar lordosis (LL), and other sagittal alignment factors. RESULTS: LL was corrected from 16.5°±16.7° preoperatively to 33.4°±13.8° after LIF (p<0.001) and then to 52.1°±7.9° following posterior fixation (p<0.001). At levels where Schwab grade 2 osteotomy was performed, the acquired segmental lordotic angles from the preoperative value to after posterior fixation and from after LIF to after posterior fixation were 19.5°±9.2° and 9.9°±3.9°, respectively. On average, 12.4° more was added than in cases without osteotomy. Endplate injury was identified at 21 levels (19.4%) after LIF, with a mean loss of 3.4° in the acquired segmental lordotic angle (5.3°±8.4° and 1.9°±5.9° without and with endplate injury, respectively). ALL rupture was identified at seven levels (6.5%), and on average 19.3° more was added in these cases between the preoperative and postoperative values than in cases without ALL rupture. CONCLUSIONS: LIF provides adequate sagittal alignment restoration for ASD, but the degree of correction is affected by grade 2 osteotomy, intraoperative endplate injury, and ALL rupture.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study.PURPOSE: We aimed to compare radiologic outcomes between posterior (PLIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in short-level spinal fusion surgeries.OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Although LLIF enables surgeons to insert large lordotic cages, it is unknown whether LLIF more effectively corrects local and global sagittal alignments compared with PLIF in short-level spinal fusion surgeries.METHODS: Radiographic data acquired from patients with lumbar interbody fusion (≤3 levels) using PLIF or LLIF for degenerative lumbar diseases were analyzed. The following radiographic parameters were evaluated preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively: segmental lordotic angle, disk height, lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic tilt (PT), C7 sagittal vertical axis, and thoracic kyphosis (TK).RESULTS: In total, 144 patients with PLIF (193 fused levels) and 101 with LLIF (159 fused levels) were included. Patients’ backgrounds and preoperative radiographic parameters for any level of fusion did not differ significantly between PLIF and LLIF procedures. The LLIF group exhibited significantly greater changes at 1-level fusion compared to the PLIF group in the parameters of segmental lordotic angle (5.1°±5.8° vs. 2.1°±5.0°, p<0.001), disk height (4.2±2.3 mm vs. 2.2±2.0 mm, p<0.001), LL (7.8°±7.6° vs. 3.9°±8.6°, p=0.004), and PI–LL (−6.9°±6.8° vs. −3.6°±10.1°, p=0.03). While, a similar trend was observed regarding 2-level fusion, significantly greater changes were only observed in LL (12.1°±11.1° vs. 4.2°±9.1°, p=0.047) and PI–LL (−11.2°±11.3° vs. −3.0°±9.3°, p=0.043), PT (−6.4°±4.9° vs. −2.5°±5.3°, p=0.049) and TK (7.8°±11.8° vs. −0.3°±9.7°, p=0.047) in the LLIF group at 3-level fusion.CONCLUSIONS: LLIF provides significantly better local sagittal alignment than PLIF in 1- or 2-level fusion cases and improves spinopelvic alignment and local alignment for 3-level fusion cases. Thus, LLIF was demonstrated to be a useful lumbar interbody fusion technique, constituting a powerful tool for achieving sagittal realignment with minimal surgical invasiveness.
Animals ; Case-Control Studies ; Humans ; Kyphosis ; Lordosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Spinal Fusion ; Surgeons