Variability in the size of the retroperitoneal oblique corridor: A magnetic resonance imaging-based analysis

Background: A minimally invasive approach to the L2-S1 disc spaces through a single, left-sided, retroperitoneal oblique corridor has been previously described. However, the size of this corridor varies, limiting access to the disc space in certain patients. Here, the authors retrospectively reviewed lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 300 patients to better define the size and variability of the retroperitoneal oblique corridor. Methods: Lumbar spine MRI from 300 patients was reviewed. The size of the retroperitoneal oblique corridor from L2-S1 was measured. It was defined as the (1) distance between the medial aspect of the aorta and the lateral aspect of the psoas muscle from L2-L5 and (2) the distance between the midpoint of the L5-S1 disc and the medial aspect of the nearest major vessel on the left at L5-S1. In addition, the rostral-caudal location of the iliac bifurcation was measured. Results: The size of the retroperitoneal oblique corridor at L2/3, L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1 was, respectively, 17.3 ± 6.4 mm, 16.2 ± 6.3 mm, 14.8 ± 7.8 cm, and 13.0 ± 8.3 mm. The incidence of corridor size <1 cm at L2/3, L3/4, L4/5, and L5/S1 was 10.3%, 16.0%, 30.0%, and 39.3%, respectively. The iliac bifurcation was most commonly found behind the L4 vertebral body (n = 158, 52.67%) followed by the L4/5 disc space (n = 74, 24.67%). Conclusion: The size of the retroperitoneal oblique corridor diminishes in a rostral-caudal direction, often limiting access to the L4/5 and L5/S1 disc spaces.

[1]  Juan S. Uribe,et al.  Femoral nerve and lumbar plexus injury after minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: electrodiagnostic prognostic indicators and a roadmap to recovery , 2018, Neurosurgical Review.

[2]  S. Salzmann,et al.  Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion—Outcomes and Complications , 2017, Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.

[3]  K. Sairyo,et al.  Complications Associated With Lateral Interbody Fusion: Nationwide Survey of 2998 Cases During the First 2 Years of Its Use in Japan , 2017, Spine.

[4]  S. Ohtori,et al.  Insidious intraoperative ureteral injury as a complication in oblique lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a case report , 2017, BMC Research Notes.

[5]  R. Hynes,et al.  Technical description of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and evaluation of complication and fusion rates. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[6]  Jin-Sung Kim,et al.  Ventral Dural Injury After Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion. , 2017, World neurosurgery.

[7]  N. Epstein Extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion: Do the cons outweigh the pros? , 2016, Surgical neurology international.

[8]  Daniel A. Fung,et al.  Retroperitoneal oblique corridor to the L2-S1 intervertebral discs: an MRI study. , 2016, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[9]  M. Peterson,et al.  Dynamically evoked, discrete-threshold electromyography in the extreme lateral interbody fusion approach. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.