Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in revision surgery for restenosis after posterior decompression
- PMID: 32871574
- DOI: 10.3171/2020.6.FOCUS20361
Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in revision surgery for restenosis after posterior decompression
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of revision interbody fusion surgery between lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with propensity score (PS) adjustments and to investigate the efficacy of indirect decompression with LLIF in previously decompressed segments on the basis of radiological assessment.
Methods: A retrospective study of patients who underwent revision surgery for recurrence of neurological symptoms after posterior decompression surgery was performed. Postoperative complications and operative factors were evaluated and compared between LLIF and PLIF/TLIF. Moreover, postoperative improvement in cross-sectional areas (CSAs) in the spinal canal and intervertebral foramen was evaluated in LLIF cases.
Results: A total of 56 patients (21 and 35 cases of LLIF and PLIF/TLIF, respectively) were included. In the univariate analysis, the LLIF group had significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03) and neurological deficits (p = 0.042), whereas the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), surgical site infections (SSIs) (p = 0.02), and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p < 0.001). After PS adjustments, the LLIF group still showed significantly more endplate injuries (p = 0.03), and the PLIF/TLIF group demonstrated significantly more dural tears (p < 0.001), EBL (p < 0.001), and operating time (p = 0.04). The PLIF/TLIF group showed a trend toward a higher incidence of SSI (p = 0.10). There was no statistically significant difference regarding improvement in the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores between the 2 surgical procedures (p = 0.77). The CSAs in the spinal canal and foramen were both significantly improved (p < 0.001).
Conclusions: LLIF is a safe, effective, and less invasive procedure with acceptable complication rates for revision surgery for previously decompressed segments. Therefore, LLIF can be an alternative to PLIF/TLIF for restenosis after posterior decompression surgery.
Keywords: ASA-PS = American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System; CCI = Charlson Comorbidity Index; CSA = cross-sectional area; EBL = estimated blood loss; JOA = Japanese Orthopaedic Association; LLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusion; PLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusion; PS = propensity score; SSI = surgical site infection; TLIF = transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; indirect decompression; lateral lumbar interbody fusion; perioperative complications; restenosis; revision surgery.
Similar articles
-
Approach-based Comparative and Predictor Analysis of 30-day Readmission, Reoperation, and Morbidity in Patients Undergoing Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the ACS-NSQIP Dataset.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019 Mar 15;44(6):432-441. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002850. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019. PMID: 30138253
-
Indirect Decompression Using Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Restenosis after an Initial Decompression Surgery.Asian Spine J. 2020 Jun;14(3):305-311. doi: 10.31616/asj.2019.0194. Epub 2020 Jan 8. Asian Spine J. 2020. PMID: 31906613 Free PMC article.
-
Indirect decompression via oblique lateral interbody fusion for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study with direct decompression transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion.Spine J. 2021 Jun;21(6):963-971. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.025. Epub 2021 Feb 2. Spine J. 2021. PMID: 33540124
-
Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature.Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Oct;39(4):E4. doi: 10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15278. Neurosurg Focus. 2015. PMID: 26424344
-
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (Direct Lateral Interbody Fusion/Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion) versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery in Spinal Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review.World Neurosurg. 2023 Mar;171:10-18. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.12.033. Epub 2022 Dec 12. World Neurosurg. 2023. PMID: 36521760
Cited by
-
Influence of rapid recovery nutritional support on functional recovery and hospitalization duration in patients undergoing minimally invasive lumbar surgery.Am J Transl Res. 2023 Dec 15;15(12):7023-7034. eCollection 2023. Am J Transl Res. 2023. PMID: 38186983 Free PMC article.
-
Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Osteobiologics for Lumbar Fusion.Asian Spine J. 2022 Dec;16(6):1022-1033. doi: 10.31616/asj.2022.0435. Epub 2022 Dec 27. Asian Spine J. 2022. PMID: 36573302 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of Cage Placement on Vertebral Endplate Cyst Formation and Bone Union in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Global Spine J. 2025 Apr 28:21925682251339109. doi: 10.1177/21925682251339109. Online ahead of print. Global Spine J. 2025. PMID: 40293858 Free PMC article.
-
Single-position prone transpsoas fusion for the treatment of lumbar adjacent segment disease: early experience of twenty-four cases across three tertiary medical centers.Eur Spine J. 2022 Sep;31(9):2255-2261. doi: 10.1007/s00586-022-07255-2. Epub 2022 May 19. Eur Spine J. 2022. PMID: 35590015
-
Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Techniques, Pearls and Pitfalls.Asian Spine J. 2020 Oct;14(5):730-741. doi: 10.31616/asj.2020.0485. Epub 2020 Oct 14. Asian Spine J. 2020. PMID: 33108838 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical