Segmental and global lordosis changes with two-level axial lumbar interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation.

BACKGROUND: Loss of lumbar lordosis has been reported after lumbar interbody fusion surgery and may portend poor clinical and radiographic outcome. The objective of this research was to measure changes in segmental and global lumbar lordosis in patients treated with presacral axial L4-S1 interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation and to determine if these changes influenced patient outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, multi-center review of prospectively collected data in 58 consecutive patients with disabling lumbar pain and radiculopathy unresponsive to nonsurgical treatment who underwent L4-S1 interbody fusion with the AxiaLIF two-level system (Baxano Surgical, Raleigh NC). Main outcomes included back pain severity, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Odom's outcome criteria, and fusion status using flexion and extension radiographs and computed tomography scans. Segmental (L4-S1) and global (L1-S1) lumbar lordosis measurements were made using standing lateral radiographs. All patients were followed for at least 24 months (mean: 29 months, range 24-56 months). RESULTS: There was no bowel injury, vascular injury, deep infection, neurologic complication or implant failure. Mean back pain severity improved from 7.8±1.7 at baseline to 3.3±2.6 at 2 years (p < 0.001). Mean ODI scores improved from 60±15% at baseline to 34±27% at 2 years (p < 0.001). At final follow-up, 83% of patients were rated as good or excellent using Odom's criteria. Interbody fusion was observed in 111 (96%) of 116 treated interspaces. Maintenance of lordosis, defined as a change in Cobb angle ≤ 5°, was identified in 84% of patients at L4-S1 and 81% of patients at L1-S1. Patients with loss or gain in segmental or global lordosis experienced similar 2-year outcomes versus those with less than a 5° change. CONCLUSIONS/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Two-level axial interbody fusion supplemented with posterior fixation does not alter segmental or global lordosis in most patients. Patients with postoperative change in lordosis greater than 5° have similarly favorable long-term clinical outcomes and fusion rates compared to patients with less than 5° lordosis change.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes with L4-S1 axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) and posterior instrumentation: a multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have confirmed the benefits and limitations of the presacral retroperitoneal approach for L5-S1 interbody fusion. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of the minimally invasive axial lumbar interbody approach (AxiaLIF) for L4-S1 fusion. METHODS: In this retrospective series, 52 patients from four clinical sites underwent L4-S1 interbody fusion with the AxiaLIF two-level system with minimum 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up (range: 24-51 months). Outcomes included back pain severity (on a 10-point scale), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Odom's criteria. Flexion and extension radiographs, as well as computed tomography scans, were evaluated to determine fusion status. Longitudinal outcomes were assessed with repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Mean subject age was 52 ± 11 years and the male:female ratio was 1:1. Patients sustained no intraoperative bowel or vascular injury, deep infection, or neurologic complication. Median procedural blood loss was 220 cc and median length of hospital stay was 3 days. At 2-year follow-up, mean back pain had improved 56%, from 7.7 ± 1.6 at baseline to 3.4 ± 2.7 (P < 0.001). Back pain clinical success (ie, ≥30% improvement from baseline) was achieved in 39 (75%) patients at 2 years. Mean ODI scores improved 42%, from 60% ± 16% at baseline to 35% ± 27% at 2 years (P < 0.001). ODI clinical success (ie, ≥30% improvement from baseline) was achieved in 26 (50%) patients. At final follow-up, 45 (87%) patients were rated as good or excellent, five as fair, and two as poor by Odom's criteria. Interbody fusion observed on imaging was achieved in 97 (93%) of 104 treated interspaces. During follow-up, five patients underwent reoperation on the lumbar spine, including facet screw removal (two), laminectomy (two), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (one). CONCLUSION: The AxiaLIF two-level device is a safe, effective treatment adjunct for patients with L4-S1 disc pathology resistant to conservative treatments.

Newer lumbar interbody fusion techniques.

The purpose of this review is to update the reader on more recent, less invasive lumbar interbody fusion procedures. The article contains a brief history on the development of lumbar interbody fusion methods, as well as the indications and descriptions of the various open and minimally invasive procedures, their complications, and outcomes. In contrast to the more traditional open methods of performing anterior and posterior interbody fusions, surgeons doing the less invasive techniques of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, extreme lateral and direct lateral interbody fusion, and the presacral axial approach are reporting less morbidity, shorter hospital stays, high rates of fusion, and improved patient outcomes. Although each technique has a different anatomical plane of approach, the goal is to achieve a solid interbody fusion of the pain generating segment(s) without complications.

Axial presacral lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous posterior fixation for stabilization of lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Case series. OBJECTIVE: To describe a minimally invasive surgical technique for treatment of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Traditional surgical management of lumbosacral spondylolisthesis is technically challenging and associated with significant complications. Minimally invasive surgical techniques offer patients treatment alternatives with lower operative morbidity risk. The combination of percutaneous pedicle screw reduction and an axial presacral approach for lumbosacral discectomy and fusion is an option for the surgical management of low-grade lumbosacral spondylolisthesis. METHODS: Twenty-six consecutive patients with symptomatic L5-S1 level isthmic spondylolisthesis (grade 1 or grade 2) underwent axial presacral lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous posterior fixation. Study outcomes included visual analogue scale for axial pain severity, Odom criteria, and radiographic fusion. RESULTS: The procedure was successfully completed in all patients with no intraoperative complications reported. Intraoperative blood loss was minimal (range, 20-150 mL). Median hospital stay was 1 day (range, <1-2 d). Spondylolisthesis grade was improved after axial lumbar interbody fusion (P<0.001) with 50% (13 of 26) of patients showing a reduction of at least 1 grade. Axial pain severity improved from 8.1±1.4 at baseline to 2.8±2.3 after axial lumbar interbody fusion, representing a 66% reduction from baseline (95% confidence interval, 54.3%-77.9%). At 2-year posttreatment, all patients showed solid fusion. Using Odom criteria, 81% of patients were judged as excellent or good (16 excellent, 5 good, 3 fair, and 2 poor). There were no perioperative procedure-related complications including infection or bowel perforation. During postoperative follow-up, 4 patients required reintervention due to recurrent radicular (n=2) or screw-related (n=2) pain. CONCLUSIONS: The minimally invasive presacral axial interbody fusion and posterior instrumentation technique is a safe and effective treatment for low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Retrospective analysis of L5-S1 axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF): a comparison with and without the use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Since approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002, use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) to promote spinal fusion is increasing. PURPOSE: In this comparative analysis, the authors assess fusion rates and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent a presacral axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) (TranS1 Inc., Wilmington, NC, USA) at L5-S1 with posterior instrumentation, with or without rhBMP-2. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-matched chart review. PATIENT SAMPLE: A matched cohort of 99 patients underwent fusion performed by two surgeons at two institutions (2005-2007): Specifically, 45 patients at The Christ Hospital received rhBMP-2 and 54 patients at the University of Pittsburgh had no rhBMP-2. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre- and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded, as was physiologic data on fusion rates, blood loss, and length of stay. Preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were obtained for patients treated with rhBMP-2. Odom's outcome criteria were obtained at 2-year follow-up for patients without rhBMP-2. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively. Demographic data, including sex and age, were matched. RESULTS: During the 2-year follow-up period, patients noted reduction in back pain and improved functional outcome measures. The most rapid reduction in VAS pain scores and improvement in ODI occurred within the first 3 months after surgery. Mean pre- and postoperative VAS scores improved 59% from 72.9 to 30.1 with rhBMP-2 and 72% from 81.3 to 22.6 without rhBMP-2. In rhBMP-2-treated patients, mean ODI scores were 54.4% preoperatively and 23.7% postoperatively, a 56.4% improvement at 2 years. In the non-rhBMP-2 patients, 80% reported excellent to good results using Odom criteria. Fusion rates were 96% with rhBMP-2 and 93% without rhBMP-2. Operative blood loss averaged 82 cm(3) with and less than 50 cm(3) without rhBMP-2. No differences in hospital length of stay were noted between the two groups or in the fusion rates with pedicle screws or facet screws. No major complications occurred with or without rhBMP-2. CONCLUSIONS: In our case-matched series, clinical outcomes were similar for patients who underwent an AxiaLIF L5-S1 interbody fusion with or without rhBMP-2. The data strongly suggest that there is a high confidence for no effect on fusion rate by using rhBMP-2.

Minimally invasive axial presacral L5-S1 interbody fusion: two-year clinical and radiographic outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case series. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to evaluate and report the 2-year clinical and radiographic outcomes associated with a L5-S1 interbody fusion procedure that employs an axial presacral surgical approach. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are a number of lumbar interbody fusion procedures used to treat painful, degenerated discs. However, despite their procedural differences (e.g., anterior vs. posterior), all of the current surgical approaches are undertaken in the same anatomical plane that requires disruption of musculoligamentous and osseous support structures as well as vascular and neurologic tissue to gain access the intervertebral disc space. The presacral procedure is distinct in that it uses an approach along an axis essentially perpendicular to the anatomical plane of traditional fusion procedures. METHODS: One hundred fifty-six patients from four clinical sites were selected for inclusion if they underwent a L5-S1 interbody fusion via the presacral approach with the AxiaLIF system (TranS1, Wilmington, NC) and had both presurgical and 2-year radiographic or clinical follow-up. Back pain and functional impairment were evaluated with an 11-point numeric scale and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), respectively, preoperatively and at 2 years. Standard radiographic imaging techniques were used to determine fusion status. RESULTS: Marked clinical improvements were realized in back pain severity and functional impairment through 2 years of follow-up. Mean pain scores improved from 7.7 ± 1.6 (n = 155) preoperatively to 2.7 ± 2.4 (n = 148) at 24 months, reflecting an approximate 63% overall improvement (P < 0.001). Mean ODI scores improved from 36.6 ± 14.6% (n = 86) preoperatively to 19.0 ± 19.2% (n = 78) at 24 months, or approximately 54% (P < 0.001). Two-year clinical success rates on the basis of change relative to baseline of at least 30% were 86% (127 of 147) and 74% (57 of 77) for pain and function, respectively. The overall radiographic fusion rate at 2 years was 94% (145 of 155). CONCLUSION: Findings from this clinical series of patients treated with a presacral interbody fusion procedure, stabilized with the AxiaLIF rod, reflect favorable and durable outcomes through 2 years of follow-up.

Cervical radiculopathy: current diagnostic and treatment options.

Cervical nerve root compression, in contrast to nerve root irritation, results in an objective neurologic deficit of the affected nerve root. The purpose of this article is to highlight current diagnostic and treatment options that have proven efficient and safe in managing cervical root compression. The natural history of cervical disc disease and the clinical patterns and causes of cervical radiculopathy are reviewed. Electromyography and reformatted mutiplanar CT scans in addition to MRI are valuable diagnostic modalities. Although anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion remains the gold standard of treatment, microendoscopic foraminotomies and discectomies done from posterior and anterior approaches are effective and safe. The role of disc arthroplasty in the treatment of radiculopathy is evolving.

Lumbar spinal stenosis: surgical considerations.

Spinal stenosis is an acquired or congenital narrowing of the spinal or nerve-root canals. Surgical treatment is often effective. Acquired spinal stenosis most commonly occurs in those with degenerative disk disease and arthritic facets. If the degenerative process stabilizes and there is adequate room to accommodate the neural contents, symptomatic patients become asymptomatic. Residual stability after decompression must be assessed in patients having multilevel decompression. Fusion maybe indicated. In women with osteoporosis coexisting with degenerative scoliosis and spinal stenosis, decompression for concave nerve-root compression and fusion are necessary. Spinal fusion is not indicated in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis having unilateral decompression for lateral stenosis. Patients with central-mixed stenosis may not need fusion. Patients with spinal stenosis after laminectomies and diskectomies had better results when arthrodesis was done in conjunction with repeated decompression. Arthrodesis with instrumentation and decompression is recommended for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis.