Sagittal Balance Correction Following Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of the Three Approaches

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare three widely used interbody fusion approaches in regard to their ability to correct sagittal balance, including pelvic parameters. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Restoration of sagittal balance in lumbar spine surgery is associated with better postoperative outcomes. Various interbody fusion techniques can help to correct sagittal balance, with no clear consensus on which technique offers the best correction. METHODS: The charts and imaging of patients who have undergone surgery through either open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive TLIF (MIS TLIF), or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) were retrospectively reviewed. The following sagittal balance parameters were measured pre- and postoperatively: segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, disk height, pelvic tilt, and pelvic incidence. Data on postoperative complications were gathered. RESULTS: Only OLIF managed to significantly improve segmental lordosis (4.4°, p<0.001) and lumbar lordosis (4.8°, p=0.049). All approaches significantly augmented disk height, with OLIF having the greatest effect (3.7°, p<0.001). No approaches were shown to significantly correct pelvic tilt. Pelvic incidence remained unchanged in all approaches. Open TLIF was the only approach with a higher rate of postoperative complications (33%, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The OLIF approach might offer greater correction of sagittal balance over open and MIS TLIF, mainly in regard to segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, and disk height. MIS TLIF, although offering more limited access than open TLIF, was not inferior to open TLIF in regard to sagittal balance correction. A higher rate of complications was shown for open TLIF than the other approaches, possibly due to its more invasive nature.

Is S1 Alar Iliac Screw a Feasible Option for Lumbosacral Fixation?: A Technical Note

Nonunion at the lumbosacral junction is a classic complication of long construct and deformity corrections. Iliac fixations have been extensively studied in the literature and have demonstrated superior biomechanical proprieties and lower complication rates. S2 alar iliac screws address the drawbacks of classical iliac screws but demonstrate similar biomechanical advantage. The main aim of this paper was to describe the S1 alar iliac (S1AI) screw fixation technique while evaluating our early results. S1AI screw fixation technique has the advantage of being able to achieve pelvic fixation without dissection to the S2 pedicle entry and is therefore a viable option for salvage of a failed S1 promontory screw.

Single Posterior Approach for En-Bloc Resection and Stabilization for Locally Advanced Pancoast Tumors Involving the Spine: Single Centre Experience

STUDY DESIGN: Monocentric prospective study. PURPOSE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of the posterior approach for resection of advanced Pancoast tumors. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: In patients with advanced Pancoast tumors invading the spine, most surgical teams consider the combined approach to be necessary for “en-bloc” resection to control visceral, vascular, and neurological structures. We report our preliminary experience with a single-stage posterior approach. METHODS: We included all patients who underwent posterior en-bloc resection of advanced Pancoast tumors invading the spine in our institution between January 2014 and May 2015. All patients had locally advanced tumors without N2 nodes or distant metastases. All patients, except 1, benefited from induction treatment consisting of a combination of concomitant chemotherapy (cisplatin-VP16) and radiation. RESULTS: Five patients were included in this study. There were 2 men and 3 women with a mean age of 55 years (range, 46–61 years). The tumor involved 2 adjacent levels in 1 patient, 3 levels in 1 patient, and 4 levels in 3 patients. There were no intraoperative complications. The mean operative time was 9 hours (range, 8–12 hours), and the mean estimated blood loss was 3.2 L (range, 1.5–7 L). No patient had a worsened neurological condition at discharge. Four complications occurred in 4 patients. Three complications required reoperation and none was lethal. The mean follow-up was 15.5 months (range, 9–24 months). Four patients harbored microscopically negative margins (R0 resection) and remained disease free. One patient harbored a microscopically positive margin (R1 resection) and exhibited local recurrence at 8 months following radiation treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The posterior approach was a valuable option that avoided the need for a second-stage operation. Induction chemoradiation is highly suitable for limiting the risk of local recurrence.