Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Tender, Gabriel C.; Șerban, Daniel; Calina, Niki; Florea, Mihaela; Lasseigne, Lindsay

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71943-6_7

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The minimally invasive LLIF approach has been reported to reduce tissue trauma, operative time, and recovery time. 2 The effects of successful indirect decompression on the neural element have been reported in a number of studies. 8 , 9 It also has been reported that the SA increased by a mean of 2.8° to 9.0° per level through LLIF.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared with the conventional posterior decompression and instrumentation technique, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has been reported with advantages of less blood loss, less complication, quicker return to work. 1 , 2 As the population continues to age, many elder patients cannot endure more invasive posterior approach, and thus LLIF is an alternative option.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Does the Position of Cage Affect the Clinical Outcome of Lateral Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?

Qiao

Feng

Liu

et al. 2020

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design: A retrospective study. Objective: This study aims to identify the ideal cage position in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and to investigate if the posterior instrumentation would affect the indirect decompression. Methods: Patients underwent 2-stage surgeries: stage I was LLIF and stage II was percutaneous pedicle screws fixation after 1 week. Anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), left and right foraminal height (FH), and segmental angle (SA) were measured on lateral computed tomography reconstructions. The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac (CSA) was determined by the outlined area of the thecal sac on a T2-weighted axial magnetic resonance imaging. The patients were subgroups according to the cage position: the anterior (cage located at the anterior 1/3 of disc space) and posterior groups (cage located at the posterior 2/3 of disc space). P values <.05 were considered significant. Results: This study included 46 patients and 71 surgical levels. After stage I LLIF, significant increase in ADH, PDH, bilateral FH was found in both 2 subgroups, as well as the CSA (all Ps < .01). SA increased 2.84° ± 3.2° in the anterior group after stage I LLIF and increased 0.81° ± 3.1° in the posterior group ( P = .013). After stage II surgery, SA was similar between the anterior and posterior groups ( P = .20). Conclusion: The anteriorly placed cage may provide better improvement of anterior disc height and segmental angle after stand-alone LLIF surgery. After the second stage posterior instrumentation, the cage position would not affect the segmental angle or foraminal height.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the Position of Cage Affect the Clinical Outcome of Lateral Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?

Qiao

Feng

Liu

et al. 2020

Global Spine Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Compared with the conventional posterior decompression and instrumentation technique, the lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) has been reported with advantages of less blood loss, less complication, quicker return to work (1,2). As aging of the population, many elder patients cannot endure more invasive posterior approach, and thus LLIF is an alternative option.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the position of cage affect the clinical outcome of lateral interbody fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis?

Qiao

Feng

Liu

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) decompress the neural elements indirectly by increasing the height of disc, instead of resecting the disc or osteophytes herniated to the canal. When performing LLIF, the position of interbody cage is quite important for the outcome of decompression. This study aims to identify the ideal cage position in LLIF and to investigate if the posterior instrumentation would affect the indirect decompression. Methods: This is a retrospective study. Patients underwent 2-stage surgeries: stage I was LLIF and stage II was percutaneous pedicle screws fixation after 1 week. Anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), left and right foraminal height (FH) and segmental angle (SA) were measured on lateral CT reconstructions. The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac (CSA) was determined by the outlined area of the thecal sac on a T2-weighted axial MRI. The patients were subgroups according to the cage position: the anterior (cage located at the anterior 1/3 of disc space) and posterior groups (cage located at the posterior 2/3 of disc space). P-values <0.05 were considered significant. Results: This study included 46 patients and 71 surgical levels. After stage I LLIF, significant increase in ADH, PDH, bilateral FH was found in both 2 subgroups, as well as the CSA (all p<0.01). SA increased 2.84±3.2° in anterior group after stage I LLIF and increased 0.81±3.1° in posterior group (p=0.013). After stage II surgery, SA was similar between anterior and posterior group (p=0.20). CSA showed no difference between the 2 groups. Conclusion: The anteriorly placed cage may provide better improvement of anterior disc height and segmental angle after stand-alone LLIF surgery. After the second stage posterior instrumentation, the cage position would not affect the segmental angle or foraminal height.

show abstract

Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Cited by 2 publications

References 24 publications

Does the Position of Cage Affect the Clinical Outcome of Lateral Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?

Does the Position of Cage Affect the Clinical Outcome of Lateral Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?

Does the position of cage affect the clinical outcome of lateral interbody fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About