Anatomic evaluation of retroperitoneal organs for lateral approach surgery: a prospective imaging study using computed tomography in the lateral decubitus position
The aim of this study is to investigate retroperitoneal organ distribution with the retroperitoneal approach in the lateral decubitus position.
We enrolled 100 patients scheduled for lateral approach surgery, including LIF and lateral corpectomy. We performed computed tomography with lateral decubitus positioning (L-CT) to assess the position of the organs, including abdominal aorta, kidney, descending colon, ureter, and gonadal artery. Anteroposterior organ positions were divided into four zones: A, anterior to the anterior margin of the vertebral body; AL, anterior margin to the middle line of the vertebral body; PL, middle line to the posterior margin of the vertebral body; and P, posterior to the posterior margin of the vertebral body. We defined zone PL–P as the “approach zone.” Measurements obtained using L-CT were compared with those obtained in the conventional supine position (S-CT).
Retroperitoneal organs in the approach zone significantly decreased in lateral positioning. Eighty-three percent of kidney and 20% of descending colon remain in the approach zone in L-CT. Sixty-six percent of disk levels recorded for the descending colon in zone P in S-CT remained in the approach zone even in L-CT.
We observed anterior migration in L-CT in all retroperitoneal organs. However, a considerable percentage of kidney and that of descending colon remain obstruent while performing LIF. We discuss that the preoperative imaging evaluation is beneficial, and gentle and meticulous surgical detachment is essential for safe and reliable lateral approach surgery, especially in the case that the descending colon extends outside zone P in S-CT.
KeywordsLumbar spine 1 Fusion 2 Complication 3 Lateral access surgery 4 Visceral injury
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 2.Malham GM, Parker RM, Goss B, Blecher CM (2015) Clinical results and limitations of indirect decompression in spinal stenosis with laterally implanted interbody cages: results from a prospective cohort study. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):339–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3807-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Tormenti MJ, Maserati MB, Bonfield CM, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS (2010) Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus 28:E7. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.1.focus09263 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Flouzat-Lachaniette CH, Delblond W, Poignard A, Allain J (2013) Analysis of intraoperative difficulties and management of operative complications in revision anterior exposure of the lumbar spine: a report of 25 consecutive cases. Eur Spine J 22:766–774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2524-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.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. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000049226.87064.3b
- 17.Fujibayashi S, Kawakami N, Asazuma T, Ito M, Mizutani J, Nagashima H, Nakamura M, Sairyo K, Takemasa R, Iwasaki M (2017) Complications associated with lateral interbody fusion: nationwide survey of 2998 cases during the first two years of its use in Japan. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002139 Google Scholar