» Articles » PMID: 35446693

Towards a More Realistic Appraisal of Complications Following Staged Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Single Institution Series

Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Objectives: With steadily increasing implementation of far lateral approaches in spine surgery, surgeons can utilize the advantages of different approaches synergistically to ensure an optimal patient outcome. Our single institution study aimed to assess the complication rates of patients who underwent a lateral interbody fusion as the index procedure and additional anterior or posterior instrumentation as part of a planned staged surgical reconstruction effort.

Methods: This study was approved by our institutional review board (STUDY2021000113). We included 576 patients who received a lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) as the index procedure followed by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) between 2016 and 2020. Primary outcomes were complications identified during the initial inpatient stay, which were categorized into approach-related and secondary complications. Secondary outcomes tracked up to 6 years post-surgery.

Results: The overall complication rate was 19.2% (10.5% approach related, 8.7% secondary complications). Significant intraoperative hemorrhage (mean 659.3 mL vs 131.4 mL, < .01) was the most common approach related complication with an incidence of 4%, followed by temporary hip flexor weakness in 2.6%. A permanent (femoral) nerve damage was verified in 1 patient. The most common secondary complication was impaired wound healing in 12 patients (2.1%). We identified a 7.1% (41 of 576 patients) rate of revision surgery, on average after 372 days (±34 days).

Conclusions: We recorded an overall complication rate of 19.2% for staged adult deformity corrective surgeries utilizing far lateral interbody fusions at several lumbar levels followed by a more comprehensive posterior surgical reconstruction.

Citing Articles

Defining cage subsidence in anterior, oblique, and lateral lumbar spine fusion approaches: a systematic review of the literature.

Aguirre A, Soliman M, Kuo C, Kassay A, Parmar G, Kruk M Neurosurg Rev. 2024; 47(1):332.

PMID: 39009745 DOI: 10.1007/s10143-024-02551-5.

References
1.
Matur A, Mejia-Munne J, Plummer Z, Cheng J, Prestigiacomo C . The History of Anterior and Lateral Approaches to the Lumbar Spine. World Neurosurg. 2020; 144:213-221. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2020.09.083. View

2.
Epstein N . Many Intraoperative Monitoring Modalities Have Been Developed To Limit Injury During Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF/MIS XLIF): Does That Mean XLIF/MIS XLIF Are Unsafe?. Surg Neurol Int. 2020; 10:233. PMC: 6911673. DOI: 10.25259/SNI_563_2019. View

3.
Zeng Z, Xu Z, He D, Zhao X, Ma W, Ni W . Complications and Prevention Strategies of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Technique. Orthop Surg. 2018; 10(2):98-106. PMC: 6594526. DOI: 10.1111/os.12380. View

4.
Yilmaz E, von Glinski A, Ishak B, Abdul-Jabbar A, Blecher R, OLynnger T . Outcome After Extreme Lateral Transpsoas Approach: Corpectomies Versus Interbody Fusion. World Neurosurg. 2019; 131:e170-e175. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.07.102. View

5.
Shah M, Kolb B, Yilmaz E, Halalmeh D, Moisi M . Comparison of Lumbar Laminectomy Alone, Lumbar Laminectomy and Fusion, Stand-alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Stand-alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Review of the Literature. Cureus. 2019; 11(9):e5691. PMC: 6823012. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.5691. View