Laparoscopy-Assisted Mini-Open Lateral Approach for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

  • Chong Suh Lee
  • Sung Soo Chung
  • Kwang Hoon Chung
Conference paper


The purpose of this study was to introduce a new approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and investigate the advantages, technical pitfalls, and complications of the laparoscopy-assisted mini-open lateral approach. Thirty-five patients with various disease entities were included. Blood loss, operation time, incision size, postoperative time to mobility, length of hospital stay, technical problems, and complications were analyzed. With this approach, we can reach from T12 to L5 subdiaphragmatically. The blood loss and operation time of patients who underwent simple ALIF were 45.7ml and 82.8 min for one level, 103.2ml and 107.6 min for two levels, 272.5ml and 150 min for three levels, and 520ml and 190min for four levels of fusion, respectively. The complications were retroperitoneal hematoma in two cases, pneumonia in one case, and transient lumbosacral plexus palsy in three cases. The laparoscopy-assisted mini-open lateral approach is an advantageous approach with a very short learning curve. However, special attention is required to complications, such as transient lumbosacral plexus palsy.

Key words

Spine Lumbar Laparoscopy Mini-open lateral approach Interbody fusion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Obenchain TG (1991) Laparoscopic discectomy. Case report. J Laparoendosc Surg 1:145–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mathews HH, Evans MT, Molligan HJ, Long BH (1995) Laparoscopic discectomy with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. A preliminary review. Spine 20:1797–1802PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dewald CJ, Millikan KW, Hammerberg KW, et al (1999) An open, minimally invasive approach to the lumbar spine. Am Surgeon 65:61–68PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mayer HM (1997) A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 22:691–700PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McAfee PC, Regan JJ, Geis WP, et al (1998) Minimally invasive anterior retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine: emphasis on the lateral BAK. Spine 23:1476–1484PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leverant SG, Bieber EJ, Barnes RB (1997) Anterior abdominal wall adhesions after laparotomy or laparoscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4:353–356Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McAfee PC, Regan JJ, Zdeblick T, et al (1995) The incidence of complication in endoscopic anterior thoracolumbar spinal reconstructive surgery: a prospective multicenter study comprising the first 100 consecutive cases. Spine 20:1624–1632PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Regan JJ, McAfee PC, Mack MJ (1995) Atlas of endoscopic spine surgery. Quality Medical Publishing, St. Louis, MOGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 24:402–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tiusanen H, Seitsalo S, Osterman K, et al (1995) Retrograde ejaculation after anterior interbody lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 4:339–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zdeblick TA, David SM (2000) A prospective comparison of surgical approach for anterior L4-L5 fusion: laparoscopic versus mini anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 25:2682–2687PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Tokyo 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chong Suh Lee
    • 1
  • Sung Soo Chung
    • 1
  • Kwang Hoon Chung
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Samsung Medical CenterSungkyunkwan University School of MedicineSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations