Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Minimally invasive LLIF surgery to decrease the occurrence of adjacent-segment disease compared to conventional open TLIF

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (Mis-LLIF) can establish indirect decompression by lifting the vertebra with a large intervertebral cage, which causes less damage to the posterior elements. Thus, Mis-LLIF is expected to reduce the incidence of adjacent segment disease (ASD). The aim of the study was to compare the occurrence of ASD between Mis-LLIF and conventional open transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF).

Methods

A total of 156 patients (TLIF group = 88, Mis-LLIF group = 68) who underwent single-level lumbar interbody fusion (L2/3, L3/4, or L4/5) at a single institution between 2003 and 2018 with minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence of symptomatic ASD requiring reoperation (S-ASD) and radiological adjacent segment degeneration (R-ASD) 2 years postoperatively were investigated between 51 paired patients from both groups who were propensity score (PS) matched by demographic and baseline clinical data. The effect of characteristics arising from differences in surgical methods between Mis-LLIF and TLIF, such as the amount of distraction of the index fused level (∆H), on S-ASD and R-ASD was also examined.

Results

There were no significant differences in the incidence of S-ASD between the Mis-LLIF and TLIF groups (adjusted OR 1.3; 95% CI 0.41–3.9). There was no significant difference in the incidence of R-ASD between the Mis-LLIF and TLIF groups both at the cranial (adjusted OR 1.0; 95% CI 0.22–4.5) and caudal level (adjusted OR 1.5; 95% CI 0.44–5.3). On the other hand, ∆H was significantly higher in the Mis-LLIF group than in the TLIF group (3.6 mm vs. 1.7 mm, respectively, P < 0.0001), and was extracted as a significant independent risk factor for S-ASD (adjusted HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.1–6.3) and R-ASD at the cranial side (adjusted HR 6.4; 95% CI 1.7–24) in multivariable analysis with PS adjustment.

Conclusions

The incidence of R-ASD or S-ASD was not significantly reduced in the Mis-LLIF group compared to the TLIF group, with greater ∆H potentially being a contributing factor. Using a thin cage in both TLIF and Mis-LLIF may decrease the occurrence of ASD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Greiner-Perth R, Boehm H, Allam Y, Elsaghir H, Franke J (2004) Reoperation rate after instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a report on 1680 cases. Spine 29:2516–2520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sears WR, Sergides IG, Kazemi N, Smith M, White GJ, Osburg B (2011) Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis. Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc 11:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2010.09.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Otsuki B, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Kimura H, Shimizu T, Matsuda S (2015) Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) is a risk factor for further surgery in short-segment lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 24:2514–2519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3603-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kaito T, Hosono N, Mukai Y, Makino T, Fuji T, Yonenobu K (2010) Induction of early degeneration of the adjacent segment after posterior lumbar interbody fusion by excessive distraction of lumbar disc space. J Neurosurg Spine 12:671–679. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.12.SPINE08823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rodriguez-Vela J, Lobo-Escolar A, Joven E, Munoz-Marin J, Herrera A, Velilla J (2013) Clinical outcomes of minimally invasive versus open approach for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at the 3-to 4-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 22:2857–2863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-2853-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Li XC, Huang CM, Zhong CF, Liang RW, Luo SJ (2017) Minimally invasive procedure reduces adjacent segment degeneration and disease: new benefit-based global meta-analysis. Plos One 12:e0171546. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171546

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR (2006) Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc 6:435–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis TT, Hynes RA, Fung DA, Spann SW, MacMillan M, Kwon B, Liu J, Acosta F, Drochner TE (2014) Retroperitoneal oblique corridor to the L2–S1 intervertebral discs in the lateral position: an anatomic study. J Neurosurg-Spine 21:785–793. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.7.Spine13564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fujibayashi S, Hynes RA, Otsuki B, Kimura H, Takemoto M, Matsuda S (2015) Effect of indirect neural decompression through oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease. Spine 40:E175–E182. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000000703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nakashima H, Kanemura T, Satake K, Ito K, Ishikawa Y, Ouchida J, Segi N, Yamaguchi H, Imagama S (2020) Indirect decompression using lateral lumbar interbody fusion for restenosis after an initial decompression surgery. Asian Spine J 14:305–311. https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2019.0194

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Shimizu T, Fujibayashi S, Otsuki B, Murata K, Matsuda S (2021) Indirect decompression via oblique lateral interbody fusion for severe degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: a comparative study with direct decompression transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S (2007) The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 370:1453–1457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kimura H, Fujibayashi S, Otsuki B, Takemoto M, Shikata J, Odate S, Matsushita M, Kusuba A, Kim Y, Sakamoto T, Watanabe K, Ota M, Izeki M, Tsubouchi N, Matsuda S (2017) Lumbar spinal surgery in patients with parkinson disease a multicenter retrospective study. Clin Spine Surg 30:E809–E818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Horowitz JA, Puvanesarajah V, Jain A, Li XJD, Shimer AL, Shen FH, Hassanzadeh H (2018) Rheumatoid arthritis is associated with an increased risk of postoperative infection and revision surgery in elderly patients undergoing anterior cervical fusion. Spine 43:E1040–E1044. https://doi.org/10.1097/Brs.0000000000002614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hori Y, Takahashi S, Terai H, Hoshino M, Toyoda H, Suzuki A, Hayashi K, Tamai K, Ohyama S, Nakamura H (2019) Impact of hemodialysis on surgical outcomes and mortality rate after lumbar spine surgery: a matched cohort study. Spine Surg Relat Res 3:151–156. https://doi.org/10.22603/ssrr.2018-0025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fujiwara A, Kobayashi N, Saiki K, Kitagawa T, Tamai K, Saotome K (2003) Association of the Japanese orthopaedic association score with the Oswestry disability index, Roland-morris disability questionnaire, and short-form 36. Spine 28:1601–1607

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Proietti L, Perna A, Ricciardi L, Fumo C, Santagada DA, Giannelli I, Tamburrelli FC, Leone A (2021) Radiological evaluation of fusion patterns after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: institutional case series. Radiol Med 126:250–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01252-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Pfirrmann CWA, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N (2001) Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine 26:1873–1878. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200109010-00011

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vansteelandt S, Daniel RM (2014) On regression adjustment for the propensity score. Stat Med 33:4053–4072. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Makino T, Honda H, Fujiwara H, Yoshikawa H, Yonenobu K, Kaito T (2018) Low incidence of adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with minimum disc distraction a preliminary report. Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009631

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Phan K, Nazareth A, Hussain AK, Dmytriw AA, Nambiar M, Nguyen D, Kerferd J, Phan S, Sutterlin C, Cho SK, Mobbs RJ (2018) Relationship between sagittal balance and adjacent segment disease in surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: meta-analysis and implications for choice of fusion technique. Eur Spine J 27:1981–1991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5629-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zhong ZM, Deviren V, Tay B, Burch S, Berven SH (2017) Adjacent segment disease after instrumented fusion for adult lumbar spondylolisthesis: incidence and risk factors. Clin Neurol Neurosur 156:29–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2017.02.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Matsumoto T, Okuda S, Maeno T, Yamashita T, Yamasaki R, Sugiura T, Iwasaki M (2017) Spinopelvic sagittal imbalance as a risk factor for adjacent-segment disease after single-segment posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg-Spine 26:435–440. https://doi.org/10.3171/2016.9.Spine16232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nakashima H, Kawakami N, Tsuji T, Ohara T, Suzuki Y, Saito T, Nohara A, Tauchi R, Ohta K, Hamajima N, Imagama S (2015) Adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion based on cases with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. Spine 40:E831–E841. https://doi.org/10.1097/Brs.0000000000000917

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mesregah MK, Yoshida B, Lashkari N, Abedi A, Meisel HJ, Diwan A, Hsieh P, Wang JC, Buser Z, Yoon ST, Degenerative AOSKF (2022) Demographic, clinical, and operative risk factors associated with postoperative adjacent segment disease in patients undergoing lumbar spine fusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J Off J N Am Spine Soc 22:1038–1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang Y, Battie MC, Videman T (2012) A morphological study of lumbar vertebral endplates: radiographic, visual and digital measurements. Eur Spine J 21:2316–2323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2415-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Tang SJ, Meng XY (2011) Does disc space height of fused segment affect adjacent degeneration in ALIF? A finite element study. Turk Neurosurg 21:296–303. https://doi.org/10.5137/1019-5149.Jtn.4018-10.0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Min JH, Jang JS, Lee SH (2007) Comparison of anterior- and posterior-approach instrumented lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 7:21–26. https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI-07/07/021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Ha SS (2017) Which approach is advantageous to preventing development of adjacent segment disease? comparative analysis of 3 different lumbar interbody fusion techniques (ALIF, LLIF, and PLIF) in L4–5 Spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg 105:612–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto city, Kyoto, Japan

    Bungo Otsuki, Shunsuke Fujibayashi, Takayoshi Shimizu, Koichi Murata, Soichiro Masuda & Shuichi Matsuda

Authors
  1. Bungo Otsuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shunsuke Fujibayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Takayoshi Shimizu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Koichi Murata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Soichiro Masuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shuichi Matsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bungo Otsuki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We declare no conflicts of interest, and we received no funds in support of this work.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Otsuki, B., Fujibayashi, S., Shimizu, T. et al. Minimally invasive LLIF surgery to decrease the occurrence of adjacent-segment disease compared to conventional open TLIF. Eur Spine J 32, 3200–3209 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07806-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07806-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation