Intra-abdominal Content Movement in Prone Versus Lateral Decubitus Position Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF).

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, anatomical imaging study of healthy volunteer subjects in accurate surgical positions. OBJECTIVE: To establish if there is a change in the position of the abdominal contents in the lateral decubitus (LD) versus prone position. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in the LD position has been validated anatomically and for procedural safety, specifically in relation to visceral risks. Recently, LLIF with the patient in the prone position has been suggested as an alternative to LLIF in the LD position. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbosacral region in the right LD position with the hips flexed and the prone position with the legs extended. Anatomical measurements were performed on axial magnetic resonance images at the L4-5 disc space. RESULTS: Thirty-four subjects were included. The distance from the skin to the lateral disc surface was 134.9 mm in prone compared with 118.7 mm in LD ( P <0.0001). The distance between the posterior aspect of the disc and the colon was 20.3 mm in the prone compared with 41.1 mm in LD ( P <0.0001). The colon migrated more posteriorly in relation to the anterior margin of the psoas in the prone compared with LD (21.7  vs . 5.5 mm, respectively; P <0.0001). 100% of subjects had posterior migration of the colon in the prone compared with the LD position, as measured by the distance from the quadratum lumborum to the colon (44.4  vs . 20.5 mm, respectively; P <0.001). CONCLUSION: There were profound changes in the position of visceral structures between the prone and LD patient positions in relation to the LLIF approach corridor. Compared with LD LLIF, the prone position results in a longer surgical corridor with a substantially smaller working window free of the colon, as evidenced by the significant and uniform posterior migration of the colon. Surgeons should be aware of the potential for increased visceral risks when performing LLIF in the prone position. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-prospective anatomical cohort study.

Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Increases Operative Efficiency and Maintains Safety in Revision Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Multi-centre retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and safety of the single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) technique for revision lumbar fusion surgery. BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Prone LLIF (P-LLIF) is a novel technique allowing for placement of a lateral interbody in the prone position and allowing posterior decompression and revision of posterior instrumentation without patient repositioning. This study examines perioperative outcomes and complications of single position P-LLIF against traditional Lateral LLIF (L-LLIF) technique with patient repositioning. METHOD: A multi-centre retrospective cohort study involving patients undergoing 1 to 4 level LLIF surgery was performed at 4 institutions in the US and Australia. Patients were included if their surgery was performed via either: P-LLIF with revision posterior fusion; or L-LLIF with repositioning to prone. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, complications, and radiological outcomes were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at P <0.05. RESULTS: 101 patients undergoing revision LLIF surgery were included, of which 43 had P-LLIF and 58 had L-LLIF. Age, BMI and CCI were similar between groups. The number of posterior levels fused (2.21 P-LLIF vs. 2.66 L-LLIF, P =0.469) and number of LLIF levels (1.35 vs. 1.39, P =0.668) was similar between groups.Operative time was significantly less in the P-LLIF group (151 vs. 206 min, P =0.004). EBL was similar between groups (150mL P-LLIF vs. 182mL L-LLIF, P =0.31) and there was a trend toward reduced length of stay in the P-LLIF group (2.7 vs. 3.3d, P =0.09). No significant difference was demonstrated in complications between groups. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative sagittal alignment measurements. CONCLUSION: P-LLIF significantly improves operative efficiency when compared to L-LLIF for revision lumbar fusion. No increase in complications was demonstrated by P-LLIF or trade-offs in sagittal alignment restoration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

Single-Position Transpsoas Corpectomy and Posterior Instrumentation in the Thoracolumbar Spine for Different Clinical Scenarios.

BACKGROUND: The concept of single-position spine surgery has been gaining momentum because it has proven to reduce operative time, blood loss, and hospital length of stay with similar or better outcomes than traditional dual-position surgery. The latest development in single-position spine surgery techniques combines either open or posterior pedicle screw fixation with transpsoas corpectomy while in the lateral or prone positioning. OBJECTIVE: To provide, through a multicenter study, the results of our first patients treated by single-position corpectomy. METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent corpectomy and instrumentation in the lateral or prone position without repositioning between the anterior and posterior techniques. Data regarding demographics, diagnosis, neurological status, surgical details, complications, and radiographic parameters were collected. The minimum follow-up for inclusion was 6 months. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were finally included in our study (24 male patients and 10 female patients), with a mean age of 51.2 (SD ± 17.5) years. Three-quarter of cases (n = 27) presented with thoracolumbar fracture as main diagnosis, followed by spinal metastases and primary spinal infection. Lateral positioning was used in 27 cases, and prone positioning was used in 7 cases. The overall rate of complications was 14.7%. CONCLUSION: This is the first multicenter series of patients who underwent single-position corpectomy and fusion. This technique has shown to be safe and effective to treat a variety of spinal conditions with a relatively low rate of complications. More series are required to validate this technique as a possible standard approach when thoracolumbar corpectomies are indicated.

Lateral decubitus single position anterior posterior surgery improves operative efficiency, improves perioperative outcomes, and maintains radiological outcomes comparable with traditional anterior posterior fusion at minimum 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The advantages of lateral single position surgery (LSPS) in the perioperative period has previously been demonstrated, however 2-year postoperative outcomes of this novel technique have not yet been compared to circumferential anterior-posterior fusion (FLIP) at 2-years postoperatively. PURPOSE: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of LSPS versus gold-standard FLIP STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter retrospective cohort review. PATIENT SAMPLE: Four hundred forty-two patients undergoing lumbar fusion via LSPS or FLIP OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels fused, operative time, estimated blood loss, perioperative complications, and reasons for reoperation at 30-days, 90-days, 1-year, and 2-years. Radiographic outcomes included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT), PI-LL mismatch, and segmental lumbar lordosis. METHODS: Patients were grouped as LSPS if anterior and posterior portions of the procedure were performed in the lateral decubitus position, and FLIP if patients were repositioned from supine or lateral to prone position for the posterior portion of the procedure under the same anesthetic. Groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative, perioperative and radiological outcomes, complications and reoperations up to 2-years follow-up. Measures were compared using independent samples or paired t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p<.05. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-two patients met inclusion, including 352 LSPS and 90 FLIP patients. Significant differences were noted in age (62.4 vs 56.9; p≤.001) and smoking status (7% vs 16%; p=.023) between the LSPS and FLIP groups. LSPS demonstrated significantly lower Op time (97.7min vs 297.0 min; p<.001), fluoro dose (36.5mGy vs 78.8mGy; p<.001), EBL (88.8mL vs 270.0mL; p<.001), and LOS (1.91 days vs 3.61 days; p<.001) compared to FLIP. LSPS also demonstrated significantly fewer post-op complications than FLIP (21.9% vs 34.4%; p=.013), specifically regarding rates of ileus (0.0% vs 5.6%; p<.001). No differences in reoperation were noted at 30-day (1.7%LSPS vs 4.4%FLIP, p=.125), 90-day (5.1%LSPS vs 5.6%FLIP, p=.795) or 2-year follow-up (9.7%LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.441). LSPS group had a significantly lower preoperative PI-LL (4.1° LSPS vs 8.6°FLIP, p=.018), and a significantly greater postoperative LL (56.6° vs 51.8°, p = .006). No significant differences were noted in rates of fusion (94.3% LSPS vs 97.8% FLIP; p=.266) or subsidence (6.9% LSPS vs 12.2% FLIP; p=.260). CONCLUSIONS: LSPS and circumferential fusions have similar outcomes at 2-years post-operatively, while reducing perioperative complications, improving perioperative efficiency and safety.

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.

Anterior column reconstruction of the lumbar spine in the lateral decubitus position: anatomical and patient-related considerations for ALIF, anterior-to-psoas, and transpsoas LLIF approaches.

PURPOSE: Circumferential (AP) lumbar fusion surgery is an effective treatment for degenerative and deformity conditions of the spine. The lateral decubitus position allows for simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior aspects of the spine, enabling instrumentation of both columns without the need for patient repositioning. This paper seeks to outline the anatomical and patient-related considerations in anterior column reconstruction of the lumbar spine from L1-S1 in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS: We detail the anatomic considerations of the lateral ALIF, transpsoas, and anterior-to-psoas surgical approaches from surgeon experience and comprehensive literature review. RESULTS: Single-position AP surgery allows simultaneous access to the anterior and posterior column and may combine ALIF, LLIF, and minimally invasive posterior instrumentation techniques from L1-S1 without patient repositioning. Careful history, physical examination, and imaging review optimize safety and efficacy of lateral ALIF or LLIF surgery. An excellent understanding of patient spinal and abdominal anatomy is necessary. Each approach has relative advantages and disadvantages according to the disc level, skeletal, vascular, and psoas anatomy. CONCLUSIONS: A development of a framework to analyze these factors will result in improved patient outcomes and a reduction in complications for lateral ALIF, transpsoas, and anterior-to-psoas surgeries.

Surgical fixation of pathologic and traumatic spinal fractures using single position surgery technique in lateral decubitus position.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Case Series. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to determine complications, readmission, and revision surgery rates in patients undergoing single position surgery (SPS) for surgical treatment of traumatic and pathologic thoracolumbar fractures. METHODS: A multi-center review of patients who underwent SPS in the lateral decubitus position (LSPS) for surgical management of traumatic or pathologic thoracolumbar fractures between January 2016 and May 2020 was conducted. Operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, readmissions, and revision surgeries were collected. RESULTS: A total of 12 patients with a mean age of 45 years (66.67% male) were included. The majority of patients underwent operative treatment for acute thoracolumbar trauma (66.67%) with a mean injury severity score (ISS) of 16.71. Mean operative time was 175.5 min, mean EBL of 816.67 cc. Five patients experienced a complication, two of which required revision surgery for additional decompression during the initial admission. All ambulatory patients were mobilized on postoperative day 1. The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was 9.67 days. CONCLUSION: The results of this case series supports LSPS as a feasible alternative to the traditional combined anterior-posterior approach for surgical treatment of pathologic and thoracolumbar fractures. These results are similar to reductions in operative time, EBL, and LOS seen in the elective spine literature with LSPS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Single position lateral decubitus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and posterior fusion reduces complications and improves perioperative outcomes compared with traditional anterior-posterior lumbar fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion utilizing anterior lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous posterior fixation is a novel, minimally invasive surgical technique. Single position lumbar surgery (SPLS) with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has been shown to be a safe, effective technique. This study directly compares perioperative outcomes of SPLS with lateral ALIF vs. traditional supine ALIF with repositioning (FLIP) for degenerative pathologies. PURPOSE: To determine if SPLS with lateral ALIF improves perioperative outcomes compared to FLIP with supine ALIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients undergoing primary AP fusions with ALIF at 5 institutions from 2015 to 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Levels fused, inclusion of L4-L5, L5-S1, radiation dosage, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence (PI), and PI-LL mismatch. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of primary ALIFs with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L4-S1 over 5 years at 5 institutions. Patients were grouped as FLIP or SPLS. Demographic, procedural, perioperative, and radiographic outcome measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses with significance set at p <.05. Cohorts were propensity-matched for demographic or procedural differences. RESULTS: A total of 321 patients were included; 124 SPS and 197 Flip patients. Propensity-matching yielded 248 patients: 124 SPLS and 124 FLIP. The SPLS cohort demonstrated significantly reduced operative time (132.95±77.45 vs. 261.79±91.65 min; p <0.001), EBL (120.44±217.08 vs. 224.29±243.99 mL; p <.001), LOS (2.07±1.26 vs. 3.47±1.40 days; p <.001), and rate of perioperative ileus (0.00% vs. 6.45%; p =.005). Radiation dose (39.79±31.66 vs. 37.54±35.85 mGy; p =.719) and perioperative complications including vascular injury (1.61% vs. 1.61%; p =.000), retrograde ejaculation (0.00% vs. 0.81%, p =.328), abdominal wall (0.81% vs. 2.42%; p =.338), neuropraxia (1.61% vs. 0.81%; p =.532), persistent motor deficit (0.00% vs. 1.61%; p =.166), wound complications (1.61% vs. 1.61%; p =.000), or VTE (0.81% vs. 0.81%; p =.972) were similar. No difference was seen in 90-day return to OR. Similar results were noted in sub-analyses of single-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 fusions. On radiographic analysis, the SPLS cohort had greater changes in LL (4.23±11.14 vs. 0.43±8.07 deg; p =.005) and PI-LL mismatch (-4.78±8.77 vs. -0.39±7.51 deg; p =.002). CONCLUSIONS: Single position lateral ALIF with percutaneous posterior fixation improves operative time, EBL, LOS, rate of ileus, and maintains safety compared to supine ALIF with prone percutaneous pedicle screws between L4-S1.

Single position circumferential fusion improves operative efficiency, reduces complications and length of stay compared with traditional circumferential fusion.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with percutaneous posterior screw fixation are two techniques used to address degenerative lumbar pathologies. Traditionally, these anterior-posterior (AP) surgeries involve repositioning the patient from the supine or lateral decubitus position to prone for posterior fixation. To reduce operative time (OpTime) and subsequent complications of prolonged anesthesia, single-position lumbar surgery (SPLS) is a novel, minimally invasive alternative performed entirely from the lateral decubitus position. PURPOSE: Assess the perioperative safety and efficacy of single position AP lumbar fusion surgery (SPLS). STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group. OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS), and perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary ALIF and/or LLIF surgery with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between L2-S1 were included over a 4-year period. Patients were classified as either traditional repositioned "Flip" surgery or SPLS. Outcome measures included levels fused, percentage of cases including L5-S1 fusion, fluoroscopy radiation dosage, OpTime, EBL, LOS, perioperative complications. Radiographic analysis included LL, pelvic incidence, pelvic tilt, and segmental LL. All measures were compared using independent samples t-tests and chi-squared analyses as appropriate with significance set at p < .05. Propensity matching was completed where demographic differences were found. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety patients undergoing AP surgery were included, of which 237 underwent SPLS and 153 were in the Flip group. Age, gender, BMI, and CCI were similar between groups. Levels fused (1.47 SPLS vs 1.52 Flip, p = .468) and percent cases including L5-S1 (31% SPLS, 35% Flip, p = .405) were similar between cohorts. SPLS significantly reduced OpTime (103 min vs 306 min, p < .001), EBL (97 vs 313 mL, p < .001), LOS (1.71 vs 4.12 days, p < .001), and fluoroscopy radiation dosage (32 vs 88 mGy, p < .001) compared to Flip. Perioperative complications were similar between cohorts with the exception of postoperative ileus, which was significantly lower in the SPLS group (0% vs 5%, p < .001). There was no significant difference in wound, vascular injury, neurological complications, or Venous Thrombotic Event. There was no significant difference found in 90-day return to operating room (OR). CONCLUSIONS: SPLS improves operative efficiency in addition to reducing blood loss, LOS and ileus in this large cohort study, while maintaining safety.

Rate of failure of indirect decompression in lateral single-position surgery: clinical results.

OBJECTIVE: Lateral single-position surgery (LSPS) of the lumbar spine generally involves anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) performed in the lateral position (LALIF) at L5-S1 with or without lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) at L4-5 and above, followed by bilateral pedicle screw fixation (PSF) without repositioning the patient. One obstacle to more widespread adoption of LSPS is the perceived need for direct decompression of the neural elements, which typically requires flipping the patient to the prone position. The purpose of this study was to examine the rate of failure of indirect decompression in a cohort of patients undergoing LSPS from L4 to S1. METHODS: A multicenter, post hoc analysis was undertaken from prospectively collected data of patients at 3 institutions who underwent LALIF at L5-S1 with or without LLIF at L4-5 with bilateral PSF in the lateral decubitus position between March 2018 and March 2020. Inclusion criteria were symptoms of radiculopathy or neurogenic claudication, central or foraminal stenosis (regardless of degree or etiology), and indication for interbody fusion at L5-S1 or L4-S1. Patients with back pain only; those who were younger than 18 years; those with tumor, trauma, or suspicion of infection; those needing revision surgery; and patients who required greater than 2 levels of fusion were excluded. Baseline patient demographic information and surgical data were collected and analyzed. The number of patients in whom indirect decompression failed was recorded and each individual case of failure was analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 178 consecutive patients underwent LSPS during the time period (105 patients underwent LALIF at L5-S1 and 73 patients underwent LALIF at L5-S1 with LLIF at L4-5). The mean follow-up duration was 10.9 ± 6.5 months. Bilateral PSF was placed with the patient in the lateral decubitus position in 149 patients, and there were 29 stand-alone cases. The mean case time was 101.9 ± 41.5 minutes: 79.3 minutes for single-level cases and 134.5 minutes for 2-level cases. Three patients (1.7%) required reoperation for failure of indirect decompression. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of failure of indirect decompression in LSPS from L4 to S1 is exceedingly low. This low risk of failure should be weighed against the risks associated with direct decompression as well as the risks of the extra operative time needed to perform this decompression.

MIS Single-position Lateral and Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Bilateral Pedicle Screw Fixation: Feasibility and Perioperative Results.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data of the first 72 consecutive patients treated with single-position one- or two-level lateral (LLIF) or oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLLIF) with bilateral percutaneous pedicle screw and rod fixation by a single spine surgeon. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical feasibility, accuracy, and efficiency of a single-position technique for LLIF and OLLIF with bilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Minimally-invasive lateral interbody approaches are performed in the lateral decubitus position. Subsequent repositioning prone for bilateral pedicle screw and rod fixation requires significant time and resources and does not facilitate increased lumbar lordosis. METHODS: The first 72 consecutive patients (300 screws) treated with single-position LLIF or OLLIF and bilateral pedicle screws by a single surgeon between December 2013 and August 2016 were included in the study. Screw accuracy and fusion were graded using computed tomography and several timing parameters were recorded including retractor, fluoroscopy, and screw placement time. Complications including reoperation, infection, and postoperative radicular pain and weakness were recorded. RESULTS: Average screw placement time was 5.9 min/screw (standard deviation, SD: 1.5 min; range: 3-9.5 min). Average total operative time (interbody cage and pedicle screw placement) was 87.9 minutes (SD: 25.1 min; range: 49-195 min). Average fluoroscopy time was 15.0 s/screw (SD: 4.7 s; range: 6-25 s). The pedicle screw breach rate was 5.1% with 10/13 breaches measured as < 2 mm in magnitude. Fusion rate at 6-months postoperative was 87.5%. Two (2.8%) patients underwent reoperation for malpositioned pedicle screws with subsequent resolution of symptoms. CONCLUSION: The single-position, all-lateral technique was found to be feasible with accuracy, fluoroscopy usage, and complication rates comparable with the published literature. This technique eliminates the time and staffing associated with intraoperative repositioning and may lead to significant improvements in operative efficiency and cost savings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

An unusual cause of neck pain: acquired Chiari malformation leading to brainstem herniation and death.

BACKGROUND: Chiari malformations are structural defects in which portions of the cerebellum are located below the foramen magnum. Of the four types of Chiari malformation, emergency physicians are most likely to encounter Type I (Chiari I). Chiari I malformations may be congenital or acquired. Congenital Chiari I malformations are most frequently encountered in the emergency department (ED) setting due to an exacerbation of subacute or chronic Chiari-related symptoms. However, acute Chiari-associated symptoms from an occult congenital or a secondary (acquired) Chiari malformation may occur. OBJECTIVE: To present a literature-guided approach to the identification and initial management of patients with Chiari I malformations in the ED setting. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a 30-year-old man who presented to the ED with isolated cervical region pain, and who subsequently died as a result of acute brainstem herniation from an acquired Chiari I malformation. CONCLUSIONS: Although rare, acute Chiari I malformation may present to the ED. The new finding of a Chiari I malformation should be presumed acquired until proved otherwise, and should trigger an evaluation for central nervous system lesions or hydrocephalus. Brain imaging to exclude increased intracranial pressure and, in certain cases, specialty consultation, are important considerations.

An alternate method for placement of C-1 screws.

OBJECT: Several techniques for the surgical stabilization of the atlas and the axis have been described. Placement of C-1 lateral mass screws is one of the latest technical advances, and has gained popularity due to its efficacy and biomechanical advantages. However, the technique for placement of C-1 lateral mass screws, as first described by Harms, can cause excessive bleeding or irritation of the C-2 nerve. An alternative technique is available for the placement of C-1 lateral mass screws that completely avoids the C-2 nerve/ganglion and its associated venous plexus. This new technique mitigates some of the risk associated with the Harms techniques and eliminates the need to use specialized screws (that is, smooth shanks). METHODS: Twenty-six patients underwent atlantoaxial or occipitocervical fusions incorporating the alternative technique of C-1 screw placement. Three surgeons at 3 different institutions performed the surgeries. Standard lateral fluoroscopy and fully threaded polyaxial screws were used in each case. RESULTS: Forty-nine screws were placed in C-1 lateral masses by using the new technique. Solid arthrodesis was achieved in all cases, with a mean follow-up period of 30 months. There were no cases of CSF leakage, new neurological deficit, injury to the C-2 ganglion, vertebral artery injury, or hardware failures. CONCLUSIONS: The technique is a safe and effective way to fixate C-1 while avoiding the C-2 nerve/ganglion and venous plexus. The results indicate that excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes can be achieved with this new technique.

Surgical management of a paraclinoid aneurysm containing a displaced neuroform microstent: technical case report.

OBJECTIVE: We report the first case of clip obliteration of a cerebral aneurysm containing a displaced microstent. CLINICAL PRESENTATION: A 63-year-old woman presented with a 6-month history of headaches. She had no other neurological symptoms, and her examination was normal. A computed tomographic scan showed no evidence of hemorrhage. Angiography confirmed the presence of a large left paraclinoid aneurysm. INTERVENTION: The patient initially underwent attempted endovascular repair of the aneurysm. A Neuroform microstent (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA), which was placed across the aneurysm neck, migrated into the aneurysm upon passing through it with the microcatheter to be used to place coils. This left the proximal half of the stent in the aneurysm and the distal half in the internal carotid artery. Attempts to remove the stent and to place a second stent across the neck of the aneurysm failed, and any plans to place coils were aborted. Three months after the failed endovascular procedure, the patient consented to a craniotomy. The aneurysm was successfully obliterated by placing several clips directly across the neck of the aneurysm and leaving the stent in place. CONCLUSION: The patient experienced an excellent clinical and angiographic outcome. Although not the ideal treatment strategy, this report illustrates that clip obliteration of aneurysms containing displaced microstents can be performed successfully for this complication of endovascular treatment.

Glossopharyngeal schwannoma in childhood.

Glossopharyngeal (that is, cranial nerve IX) schwannomas are extremely rare nerve sheath tumors that frequently mimic the more common vestibular schwannoma in their clinical as well as radiographic presentation. Although rare in adults, this tumor has not been reported in a child. The authors report the case of a 10-year-old boy who presented with several months of unilateral hearing loss. He was found to have a large right cerebellopontine angle tumor. Given the boy's primary complaint of hearing loss and the appearance of the lesion on imaging, the tumor was initially believed to be a schwannoma of the vestibular nerve. It was found intraoperatively, however, to originate from the glossopharyngeal nerve. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first reported case of a glossopharyngeal schwannoma in a child.