An MRI study of psoas major and abdominal large vessels with respect to the X/DLIF approach
- 638 Downloads
Extreme/direct lateral interbody fusion (X/DLIF) has been used to treat various lumbar diseases. However, it involves risks to injure the lumbar plexus and abdominal large vessels when it gains access to the lumbar spine via lateral approach that passes through the retroperitoneal fat and psoas major muscle. This study was aimed to determine the distribution of psoas major and abdominal large vessels at lumbar intervertebral spaces in order to select an appropriate X/DLIF approach to avoid nerve and large vessels injury. Magnetic resonance imaging scanning on lumbar intervertebral spaces was performed in 48 patients (24 males, 24 females, 54.2 years on average). According to Moro’s method, lumbar intervertebral space was divided into six zones A, I, II, III, IV and P. Thickness of psoas major was measured and distribution of abdominal large vessels was surveyed at each zone. The results show vena cava migrate from the right of zone A to the right of zone I at L1/2–L4/5; abdominal aorta was located mostly to the left of zone A at L1/2–L3/4 and divided into bilateral iliac arteries at L4/5; Psoas major was tenuous and dorsal at L1/2 and L2/3, large and ventral at L3/4 and L4/5. Combined with the distribution of nerve roots reported by Moro, X/DLIF approach is safe via zones II–III at L1/2 and L2/3, and via zone II at L3/4. At L4/5, it is safe via zones I–II in left and via zone II in right side, respectively.
KeywordsX/DLIF Psoas Major Abdominal large vessels MRI Study
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 2.Regan JJ, Aronoff RJ, Ohnmeiss DD, Sengupta DK (1999) Laparoscopic approach to L4–L5 for interbody fusion using BAK cages: experience in the first 58 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:2171–2174Google Scholar
- 3.Lieberman IH, Willsher PC, DE Litwin, Salo PT, Kraetschmer BG (2000) Transperitoneal laparoscopic exposure for lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:509–514 (discussion 515)Google Scholar
- 5.Zdeblick TA, David SM (2000) A prospective comparison of surgical approach for anterior L4–L5 fusion: laparoscopic versus mini anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2682–2687Google Scholar
- 6.Zucherman JF, Zdeblick TA, Bailey SA, Mahvi D, Hsu KY, Kohrs D (1995) Instrumented laparoscopic spinal fusion. Preliminary results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:2029–2034 (discussion 2034–2025)Google Scholar
- 7.Mayer HM (1997) A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:691–699 (discussion 700)Google Scholar
- 9.McAfee PC, Regan JJ, Geis WP, Fedder IL (1998) Minimally invasive anterior retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine. Emphasis on the lateral BAK. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:1476–1484Google Scholar
- 10.McAfee PC, Regan JR, Zdeblick T, Zuckerman J, Picetti 3rd GD, Heim S, Geis WP, Fedder IL (1995) The incidence of complications in endoscopic anterior thoracolumbar spinal reconstructive surgery. A prospective multicenter study comprising the first 100 consecutive cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:1624–1632Google Scholar
- 15.Regan JJ, Yuan H, McAfee PC (1999) Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine: minimally invasive spine surgery: a prospective multicenter study evaluating open and laparoscopic lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:402–411Google Scholar
- 16.Baker JK, Reardon PR, Reardon MJ, Heggeness MH (1993) Vascular injury in anterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:2227–2230Google Scholar
- 20.Moro T, Kikuchi S, Konno S, Yaginuma H (2003) An anatomic study of the lumbar plexus with respect to retroperitoneal endoscopic surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:423–428 (discussion 427–428)Google Scholar