North American Spine Society Journal (Dec 2022)

Instrumentation choice and early radiographic outcome following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF): Lateral instrumentation versus posterior pedicle screw fixation

  • Sarah Nuss,
  • Owen P. Leary,
  • Bryan Zheng,
  • Spencer C. Darveau,
  • Adriel Barrios-Anderson,
  • Tianyi Niu,
  • Ziya L. Gokaslan,
  • Prakash Sampath,
  • Albert E. Telfeian,
  • Adetokunbo A. Oyelese,
  • Jared S. Fridley

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12
p. 100176

Abstract

Read online

Background: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive fusion procedure that may be performed with or without supplemental instrumentation. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the effect of supplemental instrumentation technique on perioperative morbidity and fusion rate in LLIF. Methods: A single-institutional retrospective review of patients who underwent LLIF for lumbar spondylosis was conducted. Patients were grouped according to supplemental instrumentation technique: stand-alone LLIF, LLIF with laterally placed instrumentation, or LLIF with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF). Outcomes included fusion rates, peri-operative complication, and reoperation; estimated blood loss (EBL); surgery duration; length of stay; and length of follow-up. Results: 82 patients underwent LLIF at 114 levels. 35 patients (42.7%) received supplemental lateral instrumentation, 30 (36.6%) received supplemental PPSF, and 17 (20.7%) underwent stand-alone LLIF. More patients in the lateral instrumentation group had prior lumbar fusion at adjacent levels (23/35, 65.71%) versus stand-alone (3/17, 17.6%) or PPSF (2/30, 6.67%) groups (p = 0.003). 4/17 patients (23.5%) with stand-alone LLIF and 4/35 patients (11.42%) with lateral instrumentation underwent reoperation, versus 0/30 with PPSF (p = 0.030). There was no difference in fusion rates between groups (p = 0.717). Operation duration was longer in patients with PPSF (p < 0.005) and length of follow-up was longer for PPSF than lateral instrumentation (p = 0.001). Choice of instrumentation group was a statistically significant predictor of reoperation. Conclusions: While rates of complete radiographic fusion on imaging follow-up didn't differ, patients receiving PPSF were less likely than stand-alone or lateral instrumentation groups to require reoperation, though operative time was significantly longer. Further study of choice of supplemental instrumentation with LLIF is indicated.

Keywords