Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2017.0296

Does the Access Angle Change the Risk of Approach-Related Complications in Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion? An MRI Study  

Huang, Chunneng (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine)
Xu, Zhengkuan (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine)
Li, Fangcai (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine)
Chen, Qixin (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society / v.61, no.6, 2018 , pp. 707-715 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective : To investigate the potential risk of approach-related complications at different access angles in minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Methods : Eighty-six axial magnetic resonance images were obtained to analyze the risk of approach-related complications. The access corridor were simulated at different access angles and the potential risk of neurovascular structure injury was evaluated when the access corridor touching or overlapping the corresponding structures at each angle. Furthermore, the safe corridor length was measured when the corridor width was 18 and 22 mm. Results : When access angle was $0^{\circ}$, the potential risk of ipsilateral nerve roots injury was 54.7% at L4-L5. When access angle was $45^{\circ}$, the potential risk of abdominal aorta, contralateral nerve roots or central canal injury at L4-L5 was 79.1%, 74.4%, and 30.2%, respectively. The length of the 18 mm-wide access corridor was largest at $0^{\circ}$ and it could reach 44.5 mm at L3-L4 and 46.4 mm at L4-L5. While the length of the 22 mm-wide access corridor was 42.3 mm at L3-L4 and 44.1 mm at L4-L5 at $0^{\circ}$. Conclusion : Changes in the access angle would not only affect the ipsilateral neurovascular structures, but also might adversely influence the contralateral neural elements. It should be also noted to surgeons that alteration of the access angle changed the corridor length.
Keywords
Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion; Access angle; Access corridor; Approach-related complications; Magnetic resonance images;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Banagan K, Gelb D, Poelstra K, Ludwig S : Anatomic mapping of lumbar nerve roots during a direct lateral transpsoas approach to the spine: a cadaveric study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36 : E687-E691, 2011   DOI
2 Beckman JM, Vincent B, Park MS, Billys JB, Isaacs RE, Pimenta L, et al. : Contralateral psoas hematoma after minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion: a multicenter review of 3950 lumbar levels. J Neurosurg Spine 26 : 50-54, 2017   DOI
3 Berjano P, Balsano M, Buric J, Petruzzi M, Lamartina C : Direct lateral access lumbar and thoracolumbar fusion: preliminary results. Eur Spine J 21 Suppl 1 : S37-S42, 2012   DOI
4 Chang J, Kim JS, Jo H : Ventral dural injury after oblique lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 98 : 881.e1-881.e4, 2017   DOI
5 Fujibayashi S, Kawakami N, Asazuma T, Ito M, Mizutani J, Nagashima H, et al. : Complications associated with lateral interbody fusion: nationwide survey of 2998 cases during the first two years of its use in Japan. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42 : 1478-1484, 2017   DOI
6 Guerin P, Obeid I, Gille O, Bourghli A, Luc S, Pointillart V, et al. : Safe working zones using the minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: a morphometric study. Surg Radiol Anat 33 : 665-671, 2011   DOI
7 He L, Kang Z, Tang WJ, Rong LM : A MRI study of lumbar plexus with respect to the lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 24 : 2538-2545, 2015   DOI
8 Hijji FY, Narain AS, Bohl DD, Ahn J, Long WW, DiBattista JV, et al. : Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of complication rates. Spine J 17 : 1412-1419, 2017   DOI
9 Kepler CK, Bogner EA, Herzog RJ, Huang RC : Anatomy of the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus with respect to the surgical approach for lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 20 : 550-556, 2011   DOI
10 Kim JS, Choi WS, Sung JH : 314 minimally invasive oblique lateral interbody fusion for L4-5: clinical outcomes and perioperative complications. Neurosurgery 63 Suppl 1 : 190-191, 2016
11 Le TV, Baaj AA, Dakwar E, Burkett CJ, Murray G, Smith DA, et al. : Subsidence of polyetheretherketone intervertebral cages in minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37 : 1268-1273, 2012   DOI
12 Marchi L, Abdala N, Oliveira L, Amaral R, Coutinho E, Pimenta L : Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 19 : 110-118, 2013   DOI
13 Moller DJ, Slimack NP, Acosta FL Jr, Koski TR, Fessler RG, Liu JC : Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transpsoas approachrelated morbidity. Neurosurg Focus 31 : E4, 2011
14 Molloy S, Butler JS, Benton A, Malhotra K, Selvadurai S, Agu O : A new extensile anterolateral retroperitoneal approach for lumbar interbody fusion from L1 to S1: a prospective series with clinical outcomes. Spine J 16 : 786-791, 2016   DOI
15 O'Brien J, Haines C, Dooley ZA, Turner AW, Jackson D : Femoral nerve strain at L4-L5 is minimized by hip flexion and increased by table break when performing lateral interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39 : 33-38, 2014   DOI
16 Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR : Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6 : 435-443, 2006   DOI
17 Taher F, Hughes AP, Lebl DR, Sama AA, Pumberger M, Aichmair A, et al. : Contralateral motor deficits after lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 38 : 1959-1963, 2013   DOI
18 Papanastassiou ID, Eleraky M, Vrionis FD : Contralateral femoral nerve compression: An unrecognized complication after extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF). J Clin Neurosci 18 : 149-151, 2011   DOI
19 Phan K, Maharaj M, Assem Y, Mobbs RJ : Review of early clinical results and complications associated with oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). J Clin Neurosci 31 : 23-29, 2016   DOI
20 Regev GJ, Haloman S, Chen L, Dhawan M, Lee YP, Garfin SR, et al. : Incidence and prevention of intervertebral cage overhang with minimally invasive lateral approach fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35 : 1406-1411, 2010   DOI
21 Assina R, Majmundar NJ, Herschman Y, Heary RF : First report of major vascular injury due to lateral transpsoas approach leading to fatality. J Neurosurg Spine 21 : 794-798, 2014   DOI
22 Yusof MI, Nadarajan E, Abdullah MS : The morphometric study of l3-L4 and L4-L5 lumbar spine in Asian population using magnetic resonance imaging: feasibility analysis for transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39 : E811-E816, 2014   DOI
23 Abe K, Orita S, Mannoji C, Motegi H, Aramomi M, Ishikawa T, et al. : Perioperative complications in 155 patients who underwent oblique lateral interbody fusion surgery: perspectives and indications from a retrospective, multicenter survey. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42 : 55-62, 2017   DOI
24 Ahmadian A, Deukmedjian AR, Abel N, Dakwar E, Uribe JS : Analysis of lumbar plexopathies and nerve injury after lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: diagnostic standardization. J Neurosurg Spine 18 : 289-297, 2013   DOI
25 Aichmair A, Fantini GA, Garvin S, Beckman J, Girardi FP : Aortic perforation during lateral lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 28 : 71-75, 2015   DOI
26 Anand N, Rosemann R, Khalsa B, Baron EM : Mid-term to long-term clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive correction and fusion for adults with scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 28 : E6, 2010