• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.66 no.2
• /
• pp.155-161
• /
• 2023

Objective : To analyze the anatomical location of the ureter in relation to lateral lumbar interbody fusion and evaluate the potential risk of ureteral injury. Methods : One hundred eight patients who performed contrast-enhanced computed tomographic scans were enrolled in this study. The location of the ureter from L2-L3 to L4-L5 was evaluated. The distances between the ureter and psoas muscle, intervertebral disc, and retroperitoneal vessels were also recorded bilaterally. Results : Over 30% of the ureters were close to the working corridor of extreme lumbar interbody fusion at L2-L3. Most of the ureters were close to working corridor of oblique lumbar interbody fusion, especially at L4-L5. The distance from the ureter to the great vessels on the left side was significantly narrowing from L2-L3 to L4-L5 (28.8±9.5 mm, 22.0±8.0 mm, 15.5±8.4 mm), and it was significantly larger than that on the right side (12.3±6.1 mm, 7.4±5.7 mm, 5.4±4.4 mm). Conclusion : Our findings indicate that the location of the ureter varies widely among individuals. To avoid unexpected damage to the ureter, it is imperative to directly visualize it and verify the ureter is not in the surgical pathway during lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

• Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
• /
• v.54 no.3
• /
• pp.203-210
• /
• 2019

The aim of this review was to evaluate minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion on the latest update. Lumbar interbody fusion was introduced recently. This study performed, a literature review of the indications, clinical outcomes, fusion rate, and complications regarding recently highlighted minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion. The indications of lateral lumbar interbody fusion are similar to the conventional anterior and posterior interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. In particular, lateral lumbar interbody fusion is an effective minimally invasive surgery in spinal stenosis, degenerative spondylolisthesis, degenerative adult deformity, degenerative disc disease and adjacent segment disease. In addition, the clinical outcomes and fusion rates of lateral lumbar interbody fusion are similar compared to conventional lumbar fusion. On the other hand, non-specific complications including hip flexor weakness, nerve injury, vascular injury, visceral injury, cage subsidence and pseudohernia have been reported. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion is a very useful minimally invasive surgery because it has advantages over conventional anterior and posterior interbody fusion without many of the disadvantages. Nevertheless, nonspecific complications during lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedure remain a challenge to be improved.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.66 no.1
• /
• pp.33-43
• /
• 2023

Objective : To compare the outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in terms of global sagittal alignment. Methods : From January 2007 to December 2019, 141 adult patients who underwent multilevel interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disorders were enrolled. Regarding the approach, patients were divided into the ALIF (n=23), OLIF (n=60), and TLIF (n=58) groups. Outcomes, including local radiographic parameters and global sagittal alignment, were then compared between the treatment groups. Results : Regarding local radiographic parameters, ALIF and OLIF were superior to TLIF in terms of the change in the anterior disc height (7.6±4.5 mm vs. 6.9±3.2 mm vs. 4.7±2.9 mm, p<0.001), disc angle (-10.0°±6.3° vs. -9.2°±5.2° vs. -5.1°±5.1°, p<0.001), and fused segment lordosis (-14.5°±11.3° vs. -13.8°±7.5° vs. -7.4°±9.1°, p<0.001). However, regarding global sagittal alignment, postoperative lumbar lordosis (-42.5°±9.6° vs. -44.4°±11.6° vs. -40.6°±12.3°, p=0.210), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (7.9°±11.3° vs. 6.7°±11.6° vs. 11.5°±13.0°, p=0.089), and the sagittal vertical axis (24.3±28.5 mm vs. 24.5±34.0 mm vs. 25.2±36.6 mm, p=0.990) did not differ between the groups. Conclusion : Although the anterior approaches were superior in terms of local radiographic parameters, TLIF achieved adequate global sagittal alignment, comparable to the anterior approaches.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.30 no.6
• /
• pp.734-742
• /
• 2001

Objective : To evaluate the role of anterior lumbar interbody fusion in treatment of failed back surgery syndrome, the authors retrospectively analyzed the result of anterior lumbar interbody fusion performed in our institute. Methods : Fifteen FBSS patients due to variable causes have been treated with anterior lumbar interbody fusion in our institute from April 1994 to June 1999. We analyzed clinical changes in 15 patients who were followed up for an average of 23 months. Results : The etiologies of FBSS were post operative discitis(6 cases), post operative instability(3 cases), post operative adhesion(5 cases), and recurrence(1 case). These fifteen FBSS patients were treated with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. The overall treatment outcome was satisfactory(excellent and good) in 11 cases. Three patients were slightly improved, but post operative low back pain was remained. One patient who had underwent nerve root injury due to pedicle screw insertion showed no improvement. Conclusion : We conclude that the anterior lumbar interbody fusion for FBSS seems to be safe and favorable treatment in selective patients, because low incidence of nerve injury risk and post-operative infection.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.40 no.2
• /
• pp.84-89
• /
• 2006

Objective : The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of two methods for stabilization and fusion : Postero-Lateral Fusion [PLF, pedicle screw fixation with bone graft] and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion [PLIF, cage insertion] for spinal stenosis and recurred disc herniation except degenerative spondylolisthesis. Methods : Seventy one patients who underwent PLF [n=36] or PLIF [n=35] between 1997 and 2001 were evaluated prospectively. These two groups were compared for the change of interbody space, the range of segmental angle, the angle of lumbar motion, and clinical outcomes by Prolo scale. Results : The mean follow-up period was 32.6 months. The PLIF group showed statistically significant increase of the interbody space after surgery. However, the difference in the change of interbody space between two groups was insignificant [P value=0.05]. The range of segmental angle was better in the PLIF group, but the difference in the change of segmental angle was not statistically significant [P value=0.0l7]. Angle of lumbar motion was similar in the two groups. Changes of Prolo economic scale were not statistically significant [P value=0.193]. The PLIF group showed statistically significant improvement in Prolo functional scale [P value=0.003]. In Prolo economic and functional scale, there were statistically significant relationships between follow-up duration [P value<0.001]. change of interbody space [P value<0.001], and range of segmental angle [P value<0.001]. Conclusion : Results of this study indicate that PLIF is superior to PLF in interbody space augmentation and clinical outcomes by Prolo functional scale. Analysis of clinical outcomes showed significant relationships among various factors [fusion type, follow-up duration, change of interbody space, and range of segmental angle]. Therefore, the authors recommend instrumented PLIF to offer better clinical outcomes in patients who needed instrumented lumbar fusion for spinal stenosis and recurred disc herniation.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.56 no.6
• /
• pp.469-474
• /
• 2014

Objective : The use of direct lumbar interbody fusion (DLIF) has gradually increased; however, no studies have directly compared DLIF and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). We compared DLIF and TLIF on the basis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods : A retrospective review was performed on the medical records and radiographs of 98 and 81 patients who underwent TLIF and DLIF between January 2011 and December 2012. Clinical outcomes were compared with a visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). The preoperative and postoperative disc heights, segmental sagittal/coronal angles, and lumbar lordosis were measured on radiographs. Fusion rates, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay, and complications were assessed. Results : DLIF was superior to TLIF regarding its ability to restore disc height, foraminal height, and coronal balance (p<0.001). As the extent of surgical level increased, DLIF displayed significant advantages over TLIF considering the operative time and EBL. However, fusion rates at 12 months post-operation were lower for DLIF (87.8%) than for TLIF (98.1%) (p=0.007). The changes of VAS and ODI between the TLIF and DLIF were not significantly different (p>0.05). Conclusion : Both DLIF and TLIF are less invasive and thus good surgical options for treating degenerative lumber diseases. DLIF has higher potential in increasing neural foramina and correcting coronal balance, and involves a shorter operative time and reduced EBL, in comparison with TLIF. However, DLIF displayed a lower fusion rate than TLIF, and caused complications related to the transpsoas approach.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.37 no.5
• /
• pp.340-344
• /
• 2005

Objective: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion(PLIF), the current leading method of pedicle screw fixation combined with interbody fusion via posterior route, sometimes requires too much destruction of the facet joint than expected especially for the patient with a narrow spine. On the other hand, tranforaminal lumbar interbody fusion(TLIF) technique provides potential advantages over PLIF and can be chosen as a better surgical alternative to more traditional fusion methods in certain surgical conditions. Methods: From October 1999, 99 PLIF and 29 TLIF procedures were done for the patients with spinal stenosis and instability. Radiological data including the interpedicular distance and the size of the pedicles as well as the clinical parameters were collected retrospectively. The degree of resection of the inferior articular process was compared with the interpedicular distance in each patient who received PLIF. Results: No significant differences were found between PLIF and TLIF regarding the operation time, blood loss, duration of hospital stay, or short term postoperative clinical result. There were no complication with TLIF, but PLIF resulted in 9(9.1%) complications. During PLIF procedure, all patients(n=24) except one with the interpedicular distance shorter than 27mm required near complete or complete resection of the inferior articular processes, whereas only 6(31.5%) of 19 patients with the interpedicular distances longer than 30mm required the similar extent of resection. Conclusion: TLIF is better than PLIF in terms of the complication rate. The patient who had narrow interpedicular distance(<27mm) might be better candidate for TLIF.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.59 no.3
• /
• pp.276-281
• /
• 2016

Objective : Although trunk muscles in the lumbar spine preserve spinal stability and motility, little is known about the relationship between trunk muscles and spinal fusion rate. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the correlation between trunk muscles cross sectional area (MCSA) and fusion rate after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using stand-alone cages. Methods : A total of 89 adult patients with degenerative lumbar disease who were performed PLIF using stand-alone cages at L4-5 were included in this study. The cross-sectional area of the psoas major (PS), erector spinae (ES), and multifidus (MF) muscles were quantitatively evaluated by preoperative lumbar magnetic resonance imaging at the L3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1 segments, and bone union was evaluated by dynamic lumbar X-rays. Results : Of the 89 patients, 68 had bone union and 21 did not. The MCSAs at all segments in both groups were significantly different (p<0.05) for the PS muscle, those at L3-4 and L4-5 segments between groups were significantly different (p=0.048, 0.021) for the ES and MF muscles. In the multivariate analysis, differences in the PS MCSA at the L4-5 and L5-S1 segments remained significant (p=0.048, 0.043 and odds ratio=1.098, 1.169). In comparison analysis between male and female patients, most MCSAs of male patients were larger than female's. Fusion rates of male patients (80.7%) were higher than female's (68.8%), too. Conclusion : For PLIF surgery, PS muscle function appears to be an important factor for bone union and preventing back muscle injury is essential for better fusion rate.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.38 no.4
• /
• pp.255-258
• /
• 2005

Objective : Lumbar lordotic curve on L4 to S1 level is important in maintaining spinal sagittal alignment. Although there has been no definite report in lordotic value, loss of lumbar lordotic curve may lead to pathologic change especially in degenerative lumbar disease. This study examines the changes of lumbar lordotic curve after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with wedge shape cage. Methods : We studied 45patients who had undergone posterior lumbar interbody fusion with wedge shape cage and screw fixation due to degenerative lumbar disease. Preoperative and postoperative lateral radiographs were taken and one independent observer measured the change of lordotic curve and height of intervertebral space where cages were placed. Segmental lordotic curve angle was measured by Cobb method. Height of intervertebral space was measured by averaging the sum of anterior, posterior, and midpoint interbody distance. Clinical outcome was assessed on Prolo scale at 1month of postoperative period. Results : Nineteen paired wedge shape cages were placed on L4-5 level and 6 paired same cages were inserted on L5-S1 level. Among them, 18patients showed increased segmental lordotic curve angle. Mean increased segmental lordotic curve angle after placing the wedge shape cages was $1.96^{\circ}$. Mean increased disc height was 3.21mm. No cases showed retropulsion of cage. The clinical success rate on Prolo's scale was 92.0%. Conclusion : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with wedge shape cage provides increased lordotic curve, increased height of intervertebral space, and satisfactory clinical outcome in a short-term period.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• v.63 no.6
• /
• pp.673-680
• /
• 2020

The demineralized bone matrix (DBM) as the bone graft material to increase the fusion rate was widely used in spinal fusion. The current study aimed to compare the fusion rate of DBM to the fusion rate of autograft in lumbar spine fusion via meta-analysis of published literature. After systematic search, comparative studies were selected according to eligibility criteria. Checklist (risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized study) was used to evaluate the risk of bias of the included nonrandomized controlled studies. The corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. We also used subgroup analysis to analyze the fusion rate of posterolateral lumbar fusion and lumbar interbody fusion. Eight studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. These eight studies included 581 patients. Among them, 337 patients underwent spinal fusion surgery using DBM (DBM group) and 204 patients underwent spinal fusion surgery with mainly autologous bone and without using DBM (control group). There was no significant differences of fusion rate between the two groups in posterolateral fusion analysis (risk ratio [RR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90-1.17; p=0.66) and interbody fusion analysis (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.39; p=0.27). Based on the available evidence, the use of DBM with autograft in posterolateral lumbar spine fusion and lumbar interbody fusion showed a slightly higher fusion rate than that of autograft alone; however, there was no statistically different between two groups.