Medialized, Muscle-Splitting Approach for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technique and Multicenter Perioperative Results

Study Design. Retrospective, multicenter study of perioperative results Objective. The purpose of this study was to describe the surgical technique for medialized posterior lumbar fusion as well as present preliminary complication and treatment results from a multicenter retrospective study. Summary of Background Data. Posterior exposures remain the most commonly performed approaches for spinal fusion. Conventional open posterior exposures, however, have relatively high exposure-related morbidity and postoperative infection rates. Less invasive exposures for transforaminal and anterior (lateral) interbody fusion have been widely used over the past decade, but the need for bilateral posterior exposure has challenged the development of less invasive exposures for direct posterior approaches for lumbar fusion. Methods. Consecutive patients treated with minimally invasive spine (MIS) posterior lumbar interbody fusion with medialized cortical bone trajectory pedicle screw and rod fixation were identified from four sites in the United States. Of the 138 patients identified, 61% of patients were treated for degenerative spondylolisthesis at 167 levels, most commonly at L4–5 (62%). Perioperative treatment, complication, and reoperation data were collected to describe early feasibility of the approach. Results. Mean total operative time was 135 minutes with an average of 236 mL of blood loss. Mean total postoperative length of hospital stay was 2.6 days, with 25% of patients discharged on the same day or within 23 hours of surgery. Total perioperative complication rate in 138 patients was 10.1% (14/138) with three related reoperations. Intraoperative complications included five (3.6%) instances of incidental durotomy, without any progression to persistent cerebrospinal fluid leaks. Nine (6.5%) postoperative complications occurred, including one L5 vertebral body fracture, two pulmonary embolisms, one deep vein thrombosis, one urinary tract infection one instance of urinary retention, two superficial surgical site infections, and one patient with persistent pain at 6 months postoperative. Three (2.2%) reoperations were performed, one for revision of the L5 vertebral body fracture, and two for wound debridement. No instances of postoperative radiculitis or neurological injury were observed. Conclusion. Medialized, muscle-sparing posterior exposures with specialized instrumentation can be performed in patients with degenerative lumbar pathology with low surgical morbidity and blood loss and a short length of postoperative hospital stay. Level of Evidence: 4

[1]  Y. R. Rampersaud,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness and Economic Evaluations of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Posterior or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cop , 2016 .

[2]  S. Ĭnceoğlu,et al.  Cortical and Standard Trajectory Pedicle Screw Fixation Techniques in Stabilizing Multisegment Lumbar Spine with Low Grade Spondylolisthesis , 2015, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[3]  R. Mobbs,et al.  Cortical Bone Trajectory for Lumbar Pedicle Screw Placement: A Review of Published Reports , 2015, Orthopaedic surgery.

[4]  Ho-Joong Kim,et al.  The comparison of pedicle screw and cortical screw in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective randomized noninferiority trial. , 2015, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[5]  D. Garbossa,et al.  Maximal access surgery for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with divergent, cortical bone trajectory pedicle screws: a good option to minimize spine access and maximize the field for nerve decompression. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgical sciences.

[6]  J. Street,et al.  Early clinical results with cortically based pedicle screw trajectory for fusion of the degenerative lumbar spine , 2015, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[7]  Yoshiomi Kobayashi,et al.  Cortical bone trajectory and traditional trajectory—a radiological evaluation of screw-bone contact , 2015, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[8]  J. Jang,et al.  The adaptive changes in muscle coordination following lumbar spinal fusion. , 2015, Human movement science.

[9]  C. Puttlitz,et al.  Pedicle screw placement in the lumbar spine: effect of trajectory and screw design on acute biomechanical purchase. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[10]  P. Berjano,et al.  Minimally invasive PLIF with divergent, cortical trajectory pedicle screws , 2015, European Spine Journal.

[11]  K. Bachus,et al.  Cortical screws used to rescue failed lumbar pedicle screw construct: a biomechanical analysis. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[12]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  Effect of Physiological Loads on Cortical and Traditional Pedicle Screw Fixation , 2014, Spine.

[13]  Haichun Liu,et al.  Protective effects of preserving the posterior complex on the development of adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion: clinical article. , 2013, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[14]  N. Crawford,et al.  Biomechanics of Lumbar Cortical Screw–Rod Fixation Versus Pedicle Screw–Rod Fixation With and Without Interbody Support , 2013, Spine.

[15]  R. Mobbs The “Medio‐Latero‐Superior Trajectory Technique”: an Alternative Cortical Trajectory for Pedicle Fixation , 2013, Orthopaedic surgery.

[16]  M. Fehlings,et al.  Cost-utility analysis of posterior minimally invasive fusion compared with conventional open fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis , 2011, SAS Journal.

[17]  Choll W. Kim,et al.  The current state of minimally invasive spine surgery. , 2011, Instructional course lectures.

[18]  Choll W. Kim,et al.  Scientific Basis of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: Prevention of Multifidus Muscle Injury During Posterior Lumbar Surgery , 2010, Spine.

[19]  F. Zhao,et al.  Comparison of paraspinal muscle injury in one‐level lumbar posterior inter‐body fusion: modified minimally invasive and traditional open approaches , 2010, Orthopaedic surgery.

[20]  F. Zhao,et al.  Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach , 2010, European Spine Journal.

[21]  T. Albert,et al.  Complications associated with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. , 2009, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[22]  Samuel R. Ward,et al.  Passive mechanical properties of the lumbar multifidus muscle support its role as a stabilizer. , 2009, Journal of biomechanics.

[23]  Choll W. Kim,et al.  Nerve Injury to the Posterior Rami Medial Branch During the Insertion of Pedicle Screws: Comparison of Mini-Open Versus Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Insertion Techniques , 2009, Spine.

[24]  R. Vaidya,et al.  Complications in the Use of rhBMP-2 in PEEK Cages for Interbody Spinal Fusions , 2008, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[25]  Motoki Iwasaki,et al.  Surgical complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with total facetectomy in 251 patients. , 2006, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[26]  S. Chung,et al.  Comparison of Multifidus Muscle Atrophy and Trunk Extension Muscle Strength: Percutaneous Versus Open Pedicle Screw Fixation , 2005, Spine.

[27]  Thomas R. Oxland,et al.  Mapping the Structural Properties of the Lumbosacral Vertebral Endplates , 2001, Spine.

[28]  J. R. Parsons,et al.  Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area. , 1993, Spine.

[29]  Lacey E. Bresnahan,et al.  Assessment of Paraspinal Muscle Cross-Sectional Area Following Lumbar Decompression: Minimally Invasive versus Open Approaches. , 2016, Clinical spine surgery.