2017
DOI: 10.21037/jss.2017.09.02
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

L5/S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion technique

Abstract: Figure 4Postoperative X-ray (day 1) and CT scan (3 months) demonstrating excellent implant position, restoration of disc height and focal lordosis.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the iliac crest and abnormal sagittal angle at the L5-S1 level result in a decreased ability to restore foraminal height and lumbar lordosis when compared to other levels [ 18 - 19 ]. The ALIF is particularly suited to the L5-S1 level due to easier vascular access below the bifurcation of the aorta and inferior vena cava and the ability to place a large, lordotic cage following discectomy [ 20 - 21 ]. However, as an anterior approach, it often requires an access surgeon, and the patient must be repositioned for posterior instrumentation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the iliac crest and abnormal sagittal angle at the L5-S1 level result in a decreased ability to restore foraminal height and lumbar lordosis when compared to other levels [ 18 - 19 ]. The ALIF is particularly suited to the L5-S1 level due to easier vascular access below the bifurcation of the aorta and inferior vena cava and the ability to place a large, lordotic cage following discectomy [ 20 - 21 ]. However, as an anterior approach, it often requires an access surgeon, and the patient must be repositioned for posterior instrumentation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The anterior approach requires access through the abdomen using a retroperitoneal approach, with the potential risk of vascular and visceral injuries, and retrograde ejaculation [25]. This approach can be technically challenging and increasingly an access surgeon is used for safe and adequate exposure [26]. The main concern with the posterior fusion approaches (PLIF and TLIF) is the extent of neural retraction required, with the potential for nerve root injury, dural tears, epidural bleeding and subsequent epidural fibrosis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This anterior approach is well established for lumbar spinal interbody fusion surgery or lumbar disk replacement, with indications including degenerative disk disease, spondylolisthesis, and correction of scoliosis. [11][12][13] The anterior approach has advantages over posterior lumbar surgery as there is no breach of the paraspinal musculature, no resection of the posterior bony neural arch, and no manipulation of the cauda equina nerve roots and thecal sac. The risk of iatrogenic injury to these structures is thus greatly reduced.…”
Section: Image Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%