Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2014, 158(1):127-132 | DOI: 10.5507/bp.2012.079

A comparison of complication rate between anterior and lateral approaches to the lumbar spine

Lumir Hrabaleka, Milan Adamusb, Adolf Grygac, Tomas Waneka, Peter Tuceka
a Department of Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc and University Hospital Olomouc, Czech Republic
b Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc and University Hospital Olomouc
c Department of Surgery, Prostejov Hospital, Prostejov

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the complication rate of traditional minimally invasive anterior with the new minimally invasive lateral trans-psoatic retroperitoneal approaches to the intervertebral discs at levels T12-L5.

Methods: A review of all cases of minimally invasive anterior (ALIF) and lateral (XLIF) intervertebral disc surgery at levels T12-L5, treated at the Department of Neurosurgery from January 1996 to September 2011. The ALIF group consisted of 120 and the XLIF group consisted of 88 patients. Preoperative diagnoses were: degenerative disc disease, failed back surgery syndrome, spondylolisthesis, retrolisthesis and posttraumatic disc injury. The surgical steps are described. All surgical intraoperative and postoperative complications directly related to the spinal surgery were prospectively documented. The outcome measure was rate of complications.

Results: In the ALIF group there were no major complications, only 35 minor intra- and postoperative complications in 32 patients (26.6%). The main complication was lumbar post-sympathectomy syndrome in 19 patients (15.8%). In the XLIF group there were 26 complications in 22 patients (25%). One major intraoperative complication was partial and transient injury to the L5 nerve root (1.1%). There were 25 minor postoperative complications in the XLIF group in 21 patients (23.9%), mainly transient pain of the left groin or anterior thigh in 11 patients (12.5%) or numbness in the same dermatomas in 9 patients (10.2%). Statistically there was no difference between the ALIF and XLIF groups in complication rate.

Conclusion: Anterolateral and lateral retroperitoneal minimally invasive approaches to levels T12-L5 disc spaces are safe procedures with only minor complications and one exception. The rate of complications was similar in both groups. In the case of ALIF, the particular complication was post-sympathectomy syndrome. The main complication of XLIF was transient nerve root injury in one patient due to underestimation of the procedure in the outset. Intraoperative neuromonitoring during XLIF surgery is fully recommended.

Keywords: lumbar spine, minimally invasive surgery, complications, interbody fusion

Received: February 11, 2012; Accepted: July 19, 2012; Prepublished online: September 5, 2012; Published: April 1, 2014  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Hrabalek, L., Adamus, M., Gryga, A., Wanek, T., & Tucek, P. (2014). A comparison of complication rate between anterior and lateral approaches to the lumbar spine. Biomedical papers158(1), 127-132. doi: 10.5507/bp.2012.079
Download citation

References

  1. Crock HV. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion: indications for its use and notes on surgical technique. Clin Orthop 1982;165:157-63. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Zdeblick TA, David SM. A prospective comparison of surgical approach for anterior L4-L5 fusion. Spine 2000;25:2682-7. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Mayer HM. A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 1997;22:691-700. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Mayer HM, Wiechert K. Microsurgical anterior approaches to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion and total disc replacement. Neurosurgery 2002;51(Suppl 5):S159-65. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Mehren C, Mayer HM, Siepe C, Grochulla F, Korge A. The minimally invasive anterolateral approach to L2-5. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2010;22:221-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Bergey DL, Villavicencio AT, Goldstein T, Regan JJ. Endoscopic lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine.Spine 2004;29:1681-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Tailor WR. Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion.Spine J 2006;6:435-43. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Pimenta L. Lateral endoscopic transpsoas retroperitoneal approach for lumbar spine surgery. Paper presentation at the VIII. Brazilian Spine Society Meeting 2001. Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
  9. Ito H, Tsuchiya J, Asami G. A new radical operation for Pott´s disease. J Bone Joint Surg 1934;16:499-515.
  10. Mercer W. Spondylolisthesis: with a description of a new method of operative treatment and notes of ten cases. Edinburgh Med J 1936;43:545-72.
  11. Speed K. Spondylolisthesis. Treatment by anterior bone graft. Arch Surg 1938;37:175-89. Go to original source...
  12. Faciszewski T, Winter RB, Lonstein JE, Denis F, Johnson L. The surgical and medical perioperative complications of anterior spinal fusion surgery in the thoracic and lumbar spine in adults. Spine 1995;20:1592-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Rajaraman V, Vingan R, Roth P, Heary RF, Conklin L, Jacobs GB. Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg (Spine 1) 1999;91:60-4. Go to original source...
  14. Tiusanen H, Seitsalo S, Osterman K, Soini J. Anterior interbody lumbar fusion in severe low back pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;324:153-63. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Baker JK, Reardon PR, Reardon MJ, Heggeness MH. Vascular injury in anterior lumbar surgery. Spine 1993;18:2227-30. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  16. Brau SA: Mini-open approach to the spine for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: description of the procedure, results and complications. Spine J 2002;2:216-33. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Westfall SH, Akbarnia BA, Merenda JT, Naunheim KS, Connors RH, Kaminski DL, Weber TR. Exposure of the anterior spine. Technique, complications, and results in 85 patients. Am J Surg 1987;154:700-4. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Inamasu J, Guiot BH. Vascular injury and complication in neurosurgical spine surgery. Acta Neurochir 2006;148:375-87. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Jasani V, Jaffray D. The anatomy of the iliolumbar vein. A cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:1046-9. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Brau SA, Delamarter RB, Schiffman ML, Williams LA, Watkins RG. Left iliac artery thrombosis during anterior lumbar Sumery. Ann Vasc Surg 2004;18:48-51. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Kim JS, Choi KC, Jung B, Lee SH. Thrombosis of left common iliac artery following anterior lumbar interbody fusion: case report and review of literatures. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2009;45:249-52. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  22. Kulkarni SS, Lowery GL, Ross RE, Ravi Sankar K, Lykomitros V. Arterial complications following anterior lumbar interbody fusion: report of eight cases. Eur Spine J 2003;12:48-54. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  23. Schizas C, Foko'o N, Matter M, Romy S, Munting E. Lymphocoele: a rare and little known complication of anterior lumbar surgery. Eur Spine J 2009;18(Suppl 2):S228-31. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. Saraph V, Lerch C, Walochnik N, Bach CM, Krismer M, Wimmer C. Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2004;13:425-31. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  25. Štulík J, Vyskočil T, Bodlák P, Šebesta P, Kryl J, Vojáček J, Pafko P. Poranění velkých cév při předním přístupu k hrudní a bederní páteři. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Čech 2006;73:92-8. Go to PubMed...
  26. Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson J. Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion.Spine 2010;36:26-33. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  27. Uribe JS, Vale FL, Dakwar E. Electromyographic monitoring and its anatomical implications in minimally invasive spine surgery. Spine 2010;35:S368-74. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  28. Knight RQ, Schwaegler P, Hanscom D, Roh J.Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative conditions: early complication profile.J Spinal Disord Tech 2009;22:34-7. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  29. Uribe JS, Arredondo N, Dakwar E, Vale FL. Defining the safe working zones using the minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: an anatomical study. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:260-6. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  30. Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, Uribe JS. Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 2010;28:E8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  31. Oliveira L, Marchi L, Coutinho E, Pimenta L. A radiographic assessment of the ability of the extreme lateral interbody fusion procedure to indirectly decompress the neural elements.Spine 2010;35:S331-7. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...