Minimally Invasive Surgery for Managing Grade IV and V Spondylolisthesis.

Surgical treatment of high-grade spondylolisthesis is controversial and aims at restoring the spinopelvic sagittal balance through complete or partial reduction of the listhesis. Nerve decompression and interbody fusion are necessary for patients presenting with neurological deficit, severe pain, lower limb asymmetry, or deformities. We present the case and the results of a patient with high-grade spondylolisthesis, in whom minimally invasive management was performed. A narrative review in this topic is also provided. We performed a literature review of high-grade spondylolisthesis to compare our technique to current surgical alternatives. We included articles from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Ovid, and Science Direct published between 1963 and 2022 that were written in English, German, and Spanish. The terms used were the following: "high grade spondylolisthesis," "spondyloptosis," "surgical management," "interbody fusion," and "arthrodesis." In all, 485 articles were displayed, from which we filtered 112 by title and abstract. At the end, 75 references were selected for the review. Different interbody fusion techniques can be used to correct the lumbosacral kyphosis and restore the spinopelvic parameters. A complete reduction of the listhesis is not always required. The surgical procedure carried out in our patient corresponds to the first known case of minimally invasive circumferential arthrodesis with iliac screws and sacral fixation in a high-grade dysplastic spondylolisthesis. This approach guarantees the correction of the lumbosacral kyphosis and a complete reduction of the listhesis. Further studies are required to determine whether the results of this case can be extrapolated to other patients with high-grade spondylolisthesis.

Comparing perioperative and postoperative outcomes and complications of ALIF and LLIF

Purpose: This paper compares anterior lumbar intercorporeal fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar intercorporeal fusion (LLIF). LLIF is an approach through the lateral retroperitoneal corridor, transpsoas. ALIF is a described alternative to interbody fusion with approach variations described as retroperitoneal, transperitoneal, open, and laparoscopic. Our objective is to compare complications can occur in both approaches the ALIF and the LLIF, to see what the advantages and disadvantages are during the perioperative and postoperative. Method: This is a literature review article. A MEDLINE search was conducted through PubMed, google scholar, science direct, and Cochrane to identify articles that reported the differences between ALIF, LLIF and other lumbar interbody fusion approaches focusing the complications, cost and length of surgery, length of hospitalization, narcotic use, sagittal balance and surgical technique. Result: There was no overall significant difference in the postoperative narcotic use, fusion rate, and disc height. However, ALIF was seen to have better postoperative sagittal balance. Although long-term complication rates between ALIF and LLIF are not statistically even though the procedures have procedure-specific complications. Intraoperative blood loss and operative time were relatively higher in ALIF than in LLIF. The risk of injury to the lumbar plexus and iliac vessels is relatively higher than ALIF. Conclusion: ALIF and LLIF they are considered safe, effective and non-invasive. Both procedures present their pearls and pitfalls, but LLIF is associated with more complications than ALIF, although they do not present great differences of clinical outcomes. There is a need more extensive research to determine the best approach.

Propósito: Este trabajo compara la fusión intercorpórea lumbar anterior (ALIF, por sus siglas en inglés) y la fusión intercorpórea lumbar lateral (LLIF, por sus siglas en inglés). LLIF es una aproximación a través del corredor retroperitoneal lateral, con transpsoas. La ALIF es una alternativa a la fusión intercorporal con variaciones de abordaje descritas como retroperitoneal, transperitoneal, abierta y laparoscópica. Nuestro objetivo es comparar las complicaciones que pueden ocurrir en ambos abordajes de la ALIF y la LLIF, para ver cuáles son las ventajas y desventajas durante los procesos perioperatorio y postoperatorio. Método: Este es un artículo de revisión de literatura. Se realizó una búsqueda MEDLINE a través de PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct y Cochrane para identificar artículos que reportaron las diferencias entre ALIF, LLIF y otros enfoques de fusión intercorporal lumbar enfocándose en las complicaciones, el costo y la duración de la cirugía, duración de la hospitalización, uso de estupefacientes, equilibrio sagital y técnica quirúrgica. Resultado: No hubo diferencia significativa general en el uso posoperatorio de narcóticos, la tasa de fusión y la altura del disco. Sin embargo, se observó que la ALIF tenía un mejor equilibrio sagital postoperatorio. Aunque las tasas de complicaciones a largo plazo entre ALIF y LLIF no son estadísticamente significativas a pesar de que los procedimientos tienen complicaciones específicas del procedimiento. La pérdida de sangre intraoperatoria y el tiempo operativo fueron relativamente más altos en ALIF que en LLIF. El riesgo de lesión en el plexo lumbar y los vasos ilíacos es relativamente mayor que la ALIF. Conclusiones: ALIF y LLIF se consideran métodos seguros, eficaces y no invasivos. Ambos procedimientos presentan aciertos y desaciertos, pero el LLIF se asocia a más complicaciones que el ALIF, aunque no presentan grandes diferencias en los resultados clínicos. Se necesita una investigación más amplia para determinar el mejor enfoque.

Intraoperative Complications of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A 5-Year Experience of a Group of Spine Surgeons Performing Their Own Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery has evolved at an accelerated pace, allowing the development of more efficient surgical techniques while providing a decreasing rate of morbimortality. One example of these approaches is the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical complication rate when performing ALIF without the help of a vascular "access" surgeon. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted at the Hospital Universitario San Ignacio between 2014 and 2018 and included all patients who underwent ALIF during this time. A nonsystematic review was performed assessing approach-related complications in ALIF and the impact of "access" surgeons in surgical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 337 patients were included and 508 levels were fused. ALIF was performed as ALIF-360° (27%), ALIF-lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) (8.9%), and stand-alone ALIF (62%). Most procedures were single-level fusions (51.9%), 45.4% involved 2 levels, and 2.6% were 3-level fusions. The mortality rate was 0%, and only 9 cases of vascular injury were observed and described. Left and common iliac veins were the predominant affected structures. Only a single case required blood transfusion without any other treatment or intensive care unit surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is consistent with literature reports about ALIF complications, finding an incidence of 1.7%. Therefore, ALIF is an excellent alternative for spine procedures, especially for the levels L5-S1 that require sagittal balance restoration. The approaches were performed without a vascular "access" surgeon and presented complication rates similar to those described in the literature.

How to deal with this complication: Intraoperative anterior cage migration in L5-S1 resolved with a lumbar hybrid fusion technique.

Anterior cage migration is the most infrequent and dangerous complication seen in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) procedures. We report the case of a 74-year-old woman who underwent PLIF at the L5-S1 level. During the surgery, one of the PLIF-cages dislodged anteriorly into the abdominal cavity without vascular injury. An anterior retroperitoneal approach to remove the cage and complete the fusion was made. The patient was discharged 2 weeks later with encouraging clinical results. In a patient hemodynamically stable, removing the cage by a vascular surgeon, and complete the Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion could be a feasible option at L5-S1.

La migración anterior del implante para fusión lumbar es la complicación más infrecuente y peligrosa asociada a la fusión intersomática posterior (PLIF). Reportamos el caso de un paciente femenino de 74 años, operada de PLIF en L5-S1. Durante la cirugía, una de las cajas usadas migró a la cavidad abdominal, sin ocasionar lesión vascular. Para remover el implante y completar la fusión lumbar un abordaje retroperitoneal anterior fue realizado. La paciente fue egresada 2 semanas después con éxito. En un paciente hemodinamicamente estable, este abordaje puede ser una opción para revertir la complicación y completar la fusión lumbar vía anterior.

Venous anatomy of the lumbar region applied to anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF): Proposal of a new classification.

BACKGROUND: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a good alternative for the surgical treatment of lumbar degenerative disc disease. The primary vascular complications regarding this intervention involve the common iliac vein bifurcation complex (CIVC). Currently, no classification system allows defining which patients are more prone to these complications. We aimed to perform a retrospective study evaluating the anatomy of the common iliac CIVC at the L5-S1 disc proposing a novel classification system as it relates to the ALIF difficulty. METHODS: 91 consecutive patients who underwent ALIF at the L5-S1 level were included. We categorize the CIVC at the L5-S1 disc space into four types according to the veins position along the disc space. The patient records were reviewed for demographic information, surgical characteristics, and complications. The surgical difficulty was rated at the end of the procedure. RESULTS: 54% of the patients were women. The mean age was 52.5 ± 14.8 years. Mean surgical bleeding was 152 ml (range 20ml -3000 ml), and mean surgical time was 79 ± 13.3 minutes. Berbeo-Diaz-Vargas (BDV) classification type 4 was found in 43.9% of the patients. The surgical complexity was associated with the bleeding magnitude and surgical time spent (p<0.01), not being related to the corporal mass index or sacral slope. Bleeding magnitude, surgical time, and surgical complexity were significantly related to the BDV classification system (p<0.01). Weighted Cohen´s kappa index for the BDV scale was 0.89 (95% IC 0.822 - 0.974). CONCLUSIONS: BDV scale is a reliable and reproducible tool for the classification of CIVC significantly related to a higher incidence of bleeding, prolonged operating time, and increased perceived difficulty by the surgeon.