Single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion: an overview of terminology, concepts, rationale and the current evidence base.

PURPOSE: To provide definitions and a conceptual framework for single position surgery (SPS) applied to circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine. METHODS: Narrative literature review and experts' opinion. RESULTS: Two major limitations of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) have been (a) a perceived need to reposition the patient to the prone position for posterior fixation, and (b) the lack of a robust solution for fusion at the L5/S1 level. Recently, two strategies for performing single-position circumferential lumbar spinal fusion have been described. The combination of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in the lateral decubitus position (LALIF), LLIF and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (pPSF) in the lateral decubitus position is known as lateral single-position surgery (LSPS). Prone LLIF (PLLIF) involves transpsoas LLIF done in the prone position that is more familiar for surgeons to then implant pedicle screw fixation. This can be referred to as prone single-position surgery (PSPS). In this review, we describe the evolution of and rationale for single-position spinal surgery. Pertinent studies validating LSPS and PSPS are reviewed and future questions regarding the future of these techniques are posed. Lastly, we present an algorithm for single-position surgery that describes the utility of LALIF, LLIF and PLLIF in the treatment of patients requiring AP lumbar fusions. CONCLUSIONS: Single position surgery in circumferential fusion of the lumbar spine includes posterior fixation in association with any of the following: lateral position LLIF, prone position LLIF, lateral position ALIF, and their combination (lateral position LLIF+ALIF). Preliminary studies have validated these methods.

Postoperative spinal alignment comparison of lateral versus supine patient position L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

PURPOSE: Over the past decade, alternative patient positions for the treatment of the anterior lumbar spine have been explored in an effort to maximize the benefits of direct anterior column access while minimizing the inefficiencies of single or multiple intraoperative patient repositionings. The lateral technique allows for access from L1 to L5 through a retroperitoneal, muscle-splitting, transpsoas approach with placement of a large intervertebral spacer than can reliably improve segmental lordosis, though its inability to be used at L5-S1 limits its overall adoption, as L5-S1 is one of the most common levels treated and where high levels of lordosis are optimal. Recent developments in instrumentation and techniques for lateral-position treatment of the L5-S1 level with a modified anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) approach have expanded the lateral position to L5-S1, though the positional effect on L5-S1 lordosis is heretofore unreported. The purpose of this study was to compare local and regional alignment differences between ALIFs performed with the patient in the lateral (L-ALIF) versus supine position (S-ALIF). METHODS: Retrospective, multi-center data and radiographs were collected from 476 consecutive patients who underwent L5-S1 L-ALIF (n = 316) or S-ALIF (n = 160) for degenerative lumbar conditions. Patients treated at L4-5 and above with other single-position interbody fusion and posterior fixation techniques were included in the analysis. Baseline patient characteristics were similar between the groups, though L-ALIF patients were slightly older (58 vs. 54 years), with a greater preoperative mean L5-S1 disk height (7.8 vs. 5.8 mm), and with less preoperative slip (6.6 vs. 8.5 mm), respectively. 262 patients were treated with only L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 while the remaining 214 patients were treated with either L-ALIF or S-ALIF at L5-S1 along with fusions at other thoracolumbar levels. Lumbar lordosis (LL), L5-S1 segmental lordosis, L5-S1 disk space height, and slip reduction in L5-S1 spondylolisthesis were measured on preoperative and postoperative lateral X-ray images. LL was only compared between single-level ALIFs, given the variability of other procedures performed at the levels above L5-S1. RESULTS: Mean pre- to postoperative L5-S1 segmental lordosis improved 39% (6.6°) and 31% (4.9°) in the L-ALIF and S-ALIF groups, respectively (p = 0.063). Mean L5-S1 disk height increased by 6.5 mm (89%) in the L-ALIF and 6.4 mm (110%) in the S-ALIF cohorts, (p = 0.650). Spondylolisthesis, in those patients with a preoperative slip, average reduction in the L-ALIF group was 1.5 mm and 2.2 mm in the S-ALIF group (p = 0.175). In patients treated only at L5-S1 with ALIF, mean segmental alignment improved significantly more in the L-ALIF compared to the S-ALIF cohort (7.8 vs. 5.4°, p = 0.035), while lumbar lordosis increased 4.1° and 3.6° in the respective groups (p = 0.648). CONCLUSION: Use of the lateral patient position for L5-S1 ALIF, compared to traditional supine L5-S1 ALIF, resulted in at least equivalent alignment and radiographic outcomes, with significantly greater improvement in segmental lordosis in patients treated only at L5-S1. These data, from the largest lateral ALIF dataset reported to date, suggest that-radiographically-the lateral patient position can be considered as an alternative to traditional ALIF positional techniques.

Setting for single position surgery: survey from expert spinal surgeons.

PURPOSE: To describe a comprehensive setting of the different alternatives for performing a single position fusion surgery based on the opinion of leading surgeons in the field. METHODS: Between April and May of 2021, a specifically designed two round survey was distributed by mail to a group of leaders in the field of Single Position Surgery (SPS). The questionnaire included a variety of domains which were focused on highlighting tips and recommendations regarding improving the efficiency of the performance of SPS. This includes operation room setting, positioning, use of technology, approach, retractors specific details, intraoperative neuromonitoring and tips for inserting percutaneous pedicle screws in the lateral position. It asked questions focused on Lateral Single Position Surgery (LSPS), Lateral ALIF (LA) and Prone Lateral Surgery (PLS). Strong agreement was defined as an agreement of more than 80% of surgeons for each specific question. The number of surgeries performed in SPS by each surgeon was used as an indirect element to aid in exhibiting the expertise of the surgeons being surveyed. RESULTS: Twenty-four surgeons completed both rounds of the questionnaire. Moderate or strong agreement was found for more than 50% of the items. A definition for Single Position Surgery and a step-by-step recommendation workflow was built to create a better understanding of surgeons who are starting the learning curve in this technique. CONCLUSION: A recommendation of the setting for performing single position fusion surgery procedure (LSPS, LA and PLS) was developed based on a survey of leaders in the field.

Radiographic comparison of lordotic and hyperlordotic implants in L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) used at the lumbosacral junction provides arthrodesis for several indications. The anterior approach allows restoration of lumbar lordosis, an important goal of surgery. With hyperlordotic ALIF implants, several options may be employed to obtain the desired amount of lordosis. In this study, the authors compared the degree of radiographic lordosis achieved with lordotic and hyperlordotic ALIF implants at the L5-S1 segment. METHODS: All patients undergoing L5-S1 ALIF from 2 institutions over a 4-year interval were included. Patients < 18 years of age or those with any posterior decompression or osteotomy were excluded. ALIF implants in the lordotic group had 8° or 12° of inherent lordosis, whereas implants in the hyperlordotic group had 20° or 30° of lordosis. Upright standing radiographs were used to determine all radiographic parameters, including lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, disc space lordosis, and disc space height. Separate analyses were performed for patients who underwent single-segment fixation at L5-S1 and for the overall cohort. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were included (hyperlordotic group, 93 [45.6%]; lordotic group, 111 [54.4%]). Single-segment ALIF at L5-S1 was performed in 74 patients (hyperlordotic group, 27 [36.5%]; lordotic group, 47 [63.5%]). The overall mean ± SD age was 61.9 ± 12.3 years; 58.3% of patients (n = 119) were women. The mean number of total segments fused was 3.2 ± 2.6. Overall, 66.7% (n = 136) of patients had supine surgery and 33.3% (n = 68) had lateral surgery. Supine positioning was significantly more common in the hyperlordotic group than in the lordotic group (83.9% [78/93] vs 52.3% [58/111], p < 0.001). After adjusting for differences in surgical positioning, the change in lumbar lordosis was significantly greater for hyperlordotic versus lordotic implants (3.6° ± 7.5° vs 0.4° ± 7.5°, p = 0.048) in patients with single-level fusion. For patients receiving hyperlordotic versus lordotic implants, changes were also significantly greater for segmental lordosis (12.4° ± 7.5° vs 8.4° ± 4.9°, p = 0.03) and disc space lordosis (15.3° ± 5.4° vs 9.3° ± 5.8°, p < 0.001) after single-level fusion at L5-S1. The change in disc space height was similar for these 2 groups (p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Hyperlordotic implants provided a greater degree of overall lumbar lordosis restoration as well as L5-S1 segmental and disc space lordosis restoration than lordotic implants. The change in disc space height was similar. Differences in lateral and supine positioning did not affect these parameters.

Applied anatomy and surgical technique of the lateral single-position L5-S1 fusion.

The latest development in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) procedure is its application in the lateral position to allow for simultaneous posterior percutaneous screw placement. The technical details of the lateral ALIF technique have not yet been described. To describe the surgical anatomy relevant to the lateral ALIF approach we performed a comprehensive anatomical study. In addition, the preoperative imaging, patient positioning, planning of the skin incision, positioning of the C-arm, surgical approach, and surgical technique are discussed in detail. The technique described led to the successful use of the lateral ALIF technique in our clinical cases. No lateral ALIF procedure needed to be aborted during these cases. Our present work gives detailed anatomical background and technical details for the lateral ALIF approach. This teaching article can provide readers with sufficient technical and anatomical knowledge to assist them in performing their first lateral ALIF procedure.

In vitro comparison of endplate preparation between four mini-open interbody fusion approaches.

PURPOSE: Discectomy and endplate preparation are important steps in interbody fusion for ensuring sufficient arthrodesis. While modern less-invasive approaches for lumbar interbody fusion have gained in popularity, concerns exist regarding their ability to allow for adequate disc space and endplate preparation. Thus, the purpose of this study was to quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate and compare disc space and endplate preparation achieved with four less-invasive approaches for lumbar interbody fusion in cadaveric spines. METHODS: A total of 24 disc spaces (48 endplates) from L2 to L5 were prepared in eight cadaveric torsos using mini-open anterior lumbar interbody fusion (mini-ALIF), minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (MAS PLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MAS TLIF) or minimally invasive lateral, transpsoas interbody fusion (XLIF) on two specimens each, for a total of six levels and 12 endplates prepared per procedure type. Following complete discectomy and endplate preparation, spines were excised and split axially at the interbody disc spaces. Endplates were digitally photographed and evaluated using image analysis software. Area of endplate preparation was measured and qualitative evaluation was also performed to grade the quality of preparation. RESULTS: The XLIF approach resulted in the greatest relative area of endplate preparation (58.3 %) while mini-ALIF resulted in the lowest at 35.0 %. Overall, there were no differences in percentage of preparation between cranial and caudal endplates, though this was significantly different in the XLIF group (65 vs 52 %, respectively). ALL damage was observed in 3 MAS TLIF levels. Percentage of endplate that was deemed to have complete disc removal was highest in XLIF group with 90 % compared to 65 % in MAS TLIF group, 43 % in MAS PLIF, and 40 % in mini-ALIF group. Endplate damage area was highest in the MAS TLIF group at 48 % and lowest in XLIF group at 4 %. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that adequate endplate preparation for interbody fusion can be achieved utilizing various minimally invasive approach techniques (mini-ALIF, MAS TLIF, MAS PLIF, XLIF), however, XLIF appears to provide a greater area of and more complete endplate preparation.

Can triggered electromyography monitoring throughout retraction predict postoperative symptomatic neuropraxia after XLIF? Results from a prospective multicenter trial.

PURPOSE: This multicenter study aims to evaluate the utility of triggered electromyography (t-EMG) recorded throughout psoas retraction during lateral transpsoas interbody fusion to predict postoperative changes in motor function. METHODS: Three hundred and twenty-three patients undergoing L4-5 minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion from 21 sites were enrolled. Intraoperative data collection included initial t-EMG thresholds in response to posterior retractor blade stimulation and subsequent t-EMG threshold values collected every 5 min throughout retraction. Additional data collection included dimensions/duration of retraction as well as pre-and postoperative lower extremity neurologic exams. RESULTS: Prior to expanding the retractor, the lowestt-EMG threshold was identified posterior to the retractor in 94 % of cases. Postoperatively, 13 (4.5 %) patients had a new motor weakness that was consistent with symptomatic neuropraxia (SN) of lumbar plexus nerves on the approach side. There were no significant differences between patients with or without a corresponding postoperative SN with respect to initial posterior blade reading (p = 0.600), or retraction dimensions (p > 0.05). Retraction time was significantly longer in those patients with SN vs. those without (p = 0.031). Stepwise logistic regression showed a significant positive relationship between the presence of new postoperative SN and total retraction time (p < 0.001), as well as change in t-EMG thresholds over time (p < 0.001), although false positive rates (increased threshold in patients with no new SN) remained high regardless of the absolute increase in threshold used to define an alarm criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged retraction time and coincident increases in t-EMG thresholds are predictors of declining nerve integrity. Increasing t-EMG thresholds, while predictive of injury, were also observed in a large number of patients without iatrogenic injury, with a greater predictive value in cases with extended duration. In addition to a careful approach with minimal muscle retraction and consistent lumbar plexus directional retraction, the incidence of postoperative motor neuropraxia may be reduced by limiting retraction time and utilizing t-EMG throughout retraction, while understanding that the specificity of this monitoring technique is low during initial retraction and increases with longer retraction duration.

Comparison of clinical outcomes following minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion stratified by preoperative diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Lumbar fusion has been shown to be effective in treating a variety of degenerative spinal conditions, though significant differences exist in the magnitude of clinical improvement across different surgical diagnoses. With modern, minimally disruptive approaches for fusion, diagnosis-specific differences in clinical improvement may be reduced. The purpose of this study is to report and compare interim clinical improvements in patients treated with XLIF for various degenerative lumbar conditions. METHODS: 160 patients underwent XLIF for either degenerative spondylolisthesis (n = 68), degenerative disc disease (n = 20), adjacent segment disease (n = 26), or post-laminectomy syndrome (n = 46). Average age was 61 years and 66 % were female. Mean BMI was 28.9 kg/m(2). 37 % were smokers, 23 % had diabetes mellitus, 22 % had depression. Mean age was highest for ASD patients (66 years) and lowest for DDD patients (48 years) (p < 0.001). There were no other baseline demographic differences between groups. Patient-reported clinical outcomes measures were collected at baseline and prospectively at standard intervals. Interim results at an average of 19 months follow-up are reported here. RESULTS: In total, 197 levels were treated with XLIF (mean 1.2 per patient). There were no cases of symptomatic pseudoarthrosis or implant/instrument failure. Overall, 1 patient (0.6 %) had a major complication and 12 % had a minor complication. Approach-related anterolateral thigh/groin sensory changes were present in 14 % and hip flexion weakness in 9 %. At last follow-up, overall ODI decreased 47 % (44.1-23.5), VAS LBP decreased 59 % (6.9-2.8), VAS LP decreased 56 % (7.1-3.1), and SF-36 PCS improved 40 % (30.9-43.2) (all p < 0.001). Baseline ODI was significantly lower for DDD patients (p = 0.052). At last follow-up, mean percent improvements on all outcomes were highest for DSP group, though not all differences were significant. Improvements between diagnostic groups were statistically different for LBP (p = 0.021), but were similar for all other clinical outcomes. Percentage of patients reaching MCID and SCB thresholds ranged from 60 to 95 % in clinical outcomes. Patient satisfaction for the entire group was 93 % when asked whether satisfied with surgical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: XLIF has been demonstrated in the current series to lead to significant improvements in clinical outcomes and high rates of MCID and SCB and reduce the discrepancy in outcomes between well accepted and technically challenging indications compared to traditional open approaches for IBF. Complication rates were low, with only one patient in the series experiencing a major complication. Further investigation with larger cohorts and longer follow-up is warranted.

Substantial clinical benefit of minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

PURPOSE: Conventional lumbar arthrodesis for the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is associated with high complication rates and variable clinical efficacy. Modern minimally invasive (MIS) approaches may reduce the morbidity and produce greater clinical improvement compared to traditional surgical techniques. The objective of this study is to report radiographic outcomes and evaluate clinical improvements in the context of substantial clinical benefit for DS patients treated with a MIS 90° lateral, transpsoas approach for lumbar interbody fusion. METHODS: From 2005 to 2011, 60 consecutive patients were treated with MIS lateral interbody fusion for Grade I or II DS at a single institution. Mean patient age was 68 years, 75 % were female, and 30 % had undergone previous lumbar surgery. A total of 71 levels were treated, supplemental posterior fixation was used in 57 (95 %) cases, and 26 (43 %) patients underwent additional direct posterior decompression. RESULTS: Average follow-up was 20.3 months. Average ORT, EBL, and LOS were 206 min, 83 cc, and 1.29 days, respectively. Complications occurred in 3 (5 %) patients. Transient approach-related thigh/groin pain was observed in 5 (8 %) cases. There were no cases of pseudoarthrosis. At 1 year, LBP improved 71 %, LP improved 68 %, ODI decreased 52 %, and SF-36 PCS and MCS improved 43 and 21 %, respectively. Substantial clinical benefit was met by 94.7 % of patients on NRS LBP, by 84.6 % on NRS LP, by 83.7 % on ODI, and by 66.7 % on SF-36 PCS. Disc height increased 71 % and segmental lordosis increased 27.8 % at treated levels. Foraminal height, width, and volume increased 19.7, 18.0, and 39.6 %, respectively. Slip improved 60.7 % with interbody fusion only and further improved to 69.2 % after the placement of supplemental instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS: MIS lateral interbody fusion in the treatment of DS resulted in significant improvements in clinical and radiographic outcomes, with a low complication rate and a high proportion of patients achieving substantial clinical benefit.

Two-year radiographic and clinical outcomes of a minimally invasive, lateral, transpsoas approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine radiographic and clinical outcomes in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis using a minimally invasive (MI) lateral approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (IBF). METHODS: A prospective study of 24 consecutive degenerative scoliosis patients treated with MI, 90° lateral, transpsoas approach for anterior IBF was conducted. Twenty-one patients (88 %) were available for at least 12 months follow-up (mean 24 months). RESULTS: Mean operating time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay was 218 min, 68 mL, and 2.2 days, respectively. Complications occurred in one (5 %) case, a postoperative foot drop. At the last follow-up, disability improved by 50 % from 48.4 to 24.4. Back pain improved by 59 % from 7.0 to 2.9. Leg pain improved by 41 % from 5.6 to 3.3. In patients with a baseline score greater than 2.0, leg pain decreased by 42 % from 6.6 to 3.8. SF-36 physical component score improved by 41 % from 28.0 to 39.6, while mental component score increased by 18 % from 42.2 to 49.8. All changes were statistically significant, p < 0.05. Cobb angle was corrected from 27.7° to 16.6° and lumbar lordosis increased 39 % from -31.8° to -44.0°. Disc height increased from 5.7 to 11.6 mm, segmental lordosis increased by 48 % from 11.6° to 17.2°, and foraminal height increased from 16.4 to 21.7 mm. At the last follow-up, 100 % of patients were satisfied with their outcome, and 86 % would undergo the same procedure again. No revisions occurred. CONCLUSIONS: MI lateral IBF in the treatment of degenerative scoliosis results in lower complication rates and clinical and radiographic outcomes equivalent to reports in the literature of conventional approaches.

Safety and efficacy of bioabsorbable cervical spacers and low-dose rhBMP-2 in multi-level ACDF.

INTRODUCTION: Many options for interbody spacer and graft biologic exist for multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). The objective of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a bioabsorbable cervical spacer (BCS) (Cornerstone HSR, Medtronic Sofamor Danek) filled with low-dose rhBMP-2 (INFUSE, Medtronic Sofamor Danek) in multilevel ACDF. METHODS: 72 consecutive patients treated with a multi-level ACDF using BCS and rhBMP-2 (dosage between 0.5 to 0.7 mg per level) at a single institution were followed in an IRB-approved, prospective registry. A total of 187 levels were treated (mean = 2.6), with 37 (51%) patients undergoing a 2-level procedure and 35 (49%) undergoing a 3- or 4-level procedure. Statistical analysis included frequency and ANOVA tests. Significance was accepted for p < 0.001. RESULTS: Average follow-up was 13.8 months. Mean patient age was 55.3 years, 70.8% were female, and 16.7% had undergone a previous cervical procedure. 29 (40%) patients had cervical spondylitic myelopathy, 27 (38%) had radiculopathy, 15 (21%) had a combination of both, and 1 (1%) patient had a previous nonunion. A total of 187 levels were treated with an ACDF, with 37 (51%) 2-level, 27 (38%) 3-level, and 8 (11%) 4-level cases. Average OR time, EBL, and LOS were 144 minutes, 49 mL, and 1.1 days, respectively. Major complications occurred in 5 (7%) patients: 2 returns to OR (1 nonunion, 1 seroma), 1 recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, and 2 hospital readmissions for excessive pre-vertebral swelling/dysphagia treated with steroids and observation. Minor complications occurred in 3 (4%) patients: 2 exacerbations of pre-existing medical conditions (1 atrial fibrillation, 1 COPD), and 1 hospital readmission for nausea/ headache due to narcotics. At last follow-up, NDI improved 43% from 43.6% to 25.0%. VAS neck pain improved 60% from 5.5 to 2.2 and VAS arm pain improved 52% from 5.8 to 2.6. SF-36 PCS improved 24% from 37.5 to 46.3 and MCS improved 18% from 43.2 to 50.9. All clinical improvements were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was high, with 97% of patients reported being satisfied with their surgical outcome, and 90% would undergo the procedure again. CONCLUSION: Patients in this series experienced significant clinical improvements, low complication rates, and high patient satisfaction. Symptomatic pseudoarthrosis was rare. BCS filled with low-dose rhBMP-2 appears to be a safe and effective option in multilevel ACDF. Further investigation is warranted.

Adult degenerative scoliosis treated with XLIF: clinical and radiographical results of a prospective multicenter study with 24-month follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, single-arm study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographical results of patients undergoing extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), a minimally disruptive lateral transpsoas retroperitoneal surgical approach for the treatment of degenerative scoliosis (DS). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Surgery for the treatment of DS has been reported to have acceptable results but is traditionally associated with high morbidity and complication rates. A minimally disruptive lateral transpsoas retroperitoneal surgical approach (XLIF) has become popular for the treatment of DS. This is the first prospective, multicenter study to quantify outcomes after XLIF in this patient population. METHODS: A total of 107 patients with DS who underwent the XLIF procedure with or without supplemental posterior fixation at one or more intervertebral levels were enrolled in this study. Clinical and radiographical results were evaluated up to 24 months after surgery. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 68 years; 73% of patients were female. A mean of 3.0 (range, 1-6) levels were treated with XLIF per patient. Overall complication rate was low compared with traditional surgical treatment of DS. Significant improvement was seen in all clinical outcome measures at 24 months: Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain and leg pain, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey mental and physical component summaries (P < 0.001). Eighty-five percent of patients were satisfied with their outcome and would undergo the procedure again. In patients with hypolordosis, lumbar lordosis was corrected from a mean of 27.7° to 33.6° at 24 months (P < 0.001). Overall Cobb angle was corrected from 20.9° to 15.2°, with the greatest correction observed in patients supplemented with bilateral pedicle screws. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the use of the XLIF procedure in the treatment of DS. XLIF is associated with good clinical and radiographical outcomes, with a substantially lower complication rate than has been reported with traditional surgical procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Intractable epilepsy and mild brain injury: incidence, pathology and surgical outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To study the role of mild brain injury in intractable epilepsy. METHODS: The medical charts of 86 patients who underwent surgery for intractable epilepsy were reviewed in regard to the history of mild brain injury, pathology and surgical outcome. RESULTS: Nine of 86 patients had a previous history of mild brain injury (10.4%) compared to 2.5% of 80 age and sex matched controls. Six of nine patients had non-neoplastic and three had neoplastic lesions. Post-surgical outcome was excellent in eight of nine patients (Engel class IA). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of mild brain injury was 4-times higher in patients with intractable epilepsy compared to asymptomatic controls. The pathology was variable but in four of nine patients it was compatible with the described pathology in traumatic brain injury. Both groups, with or without brain injury, had good surgical outcome (88% versus 70%).