Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Access to L1–L2 and L2–L3

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Lumbar Spine Access Surgery

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) access to the upper lumbar segments (L1–L2, L2–L3) is largely limited to oblique (prepsoas) and lateral (transpsoas) approaches due to the presence of the great vessels anteriorly. Unlike the most caudal lumbar segments, in which mini-open anterior approaches are feasible, the L1–L2 and L2–L3 levels are more safely and effectively accessed via a lateral approach. Advantages of a minimally invasive lateral lumbar transpsoas approach include the ability to place large interbody grafts, preservation of the facet joints and posterior tension band, and approach execution without an access surgeon. Awareness of the position of the lumbar plexus at each segment is key to safe execution of this technique, and much prior research has been performed to establish safe working zones based on anatomic level. Similarly, patient positioning is critical to allow for optimal radiographic images intraoperatively and to minimize technical challenges with instrumentation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Saadeh YS, Joseph JR, Smith BW, Kirsch MJ, Sabbagh AM, Park P. Comparison of segmental lordosis and global spinopelvic alignment after single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion or Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg. 2019;126:e1374–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J. Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(3):346–53. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000152379.54463.65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Verma R, Virk S, Qureshi S. Interbody fusions in the lumbar spine: a review. HSS J. 2020;16(2):162–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-019-09737-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Boussuges A, Gole Y, Blanc P. Diaphragmatic motion studied by m-mode ultrasonography: methods, reproducibility, and normal values. Chest. 2009;135(2):391–400. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.08-1541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Baaj AA, Papadimitriou K, Amin AG, Kretzer RM, Wolinsky J-P, Gokaslan ZL. Surgical anatomy of the diaphragm in the anterolateral approach to the spine: a cadaveric study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(4):220–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3182a18125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Beckman JM, Marengo N, Murray G, Bach K, Uribe JS. Anterior longitudinal ligament release from the minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal Transpsoas approach: technical note. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown). 2016;12(3):214–21. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000001203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abel NA, Januszewski J, Vivas AC, Uribe JS. Femoral nerve and lumbar plexus injury after minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: electrodiagnostic prognostic indicators and a roadmap to recovery. Neurosurg Rev. 2018;41(2):457–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-017-0863-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Regev GJ, Kim CW. Safety and the anatomy of the retroperitoneal lateral corridor with respect to the minimally invasive lateral lumbar intervertebral fusion approach. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014;25(2):211–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nec.2013.12.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pumberger M, Hughes AP, Huang RR, Sama AA, Cammisa FP, Girardi FP. Neurologic deficit following lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Eur spine J. 2012;21(6):1192–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-011-2087-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Uribe JS, Arredondo N, Dakwar E, Vale FL. Defining the safe working zones using the minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: an anatomical study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(2):260–6. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09766.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tubbs RI, Gabel B, Jeyamohan S, et al. Relationship of the lumbar plexus branches to the lumbar spine: anatomical study with application to lateral approaches. Spine J. 2017;17(7):1012–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2017.03.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kepler CK, Bogner EA, Herzog RJ, Huang RC. Anatomy of the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus with respect to the surgical approach for lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(4):550–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-010-1593-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mai HT, Schneider AD, Alvarez AP, et al. Anatomic considerations in the lateral Transpsoas interbody fusion: the impact of age, sex, BMI, and scoliosis. Clin Spine Surg. 2019;32(5):215–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000760.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Alkadhim M, Zoccali C, Abbasifard S, et al. The surgical vascular anatomy of the minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody approach: a cadaveric and radiographic analysis. Eur spine J. 2015;24(Suppl 7):906–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-4267-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Voin V, Kirkpatrick C, Alonso F, et al. Lateral Transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine and relationship of the ureter: anatomic study with application to minimizing complications. World Neurosurg. 2017;104:674–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.05.062.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Anand N, Baron EM. Urological injury as a complication of the transpsoas approach for discectomy and interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(1):18–23. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.9.SPINE12659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, Uribe JS. Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Takata Y, Sakai T, Tezuka F, et al. Risk assessment of lumbar segmental artery injury during lateral Transpsoas approach in the patients with lumbar scoliosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(10):880–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR. Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2006;6(4):435–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J spine Surg (Hong Kong). 2015;1(1):2–18. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Manzur MK, Samuel AM, Morse KW, et al. Indirect lumbar decompression combined with or without additional direct posterior decompression: a systematic review. Glob Spine J. 2021;12:21925682211013012. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682211013011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McAfee PC, Regan JJ, Peter Geis W, Fedder IL. Minimally invasive anterior retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine. Emphasis on the lateral BAK. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998;23(13):1476–84. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199807010-00009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Buckland AJ, Ashayeri K, Leon C, et al. Single position circumferential fusion improves operative efficiency, reduces complications and length of stay compared with traditional circumferential fusion. Spine J. 2021;21(5):810–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.11.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Avrumova F, Sivaganesan A, Alluri RK, Vaishnav A, Qureshi S, Lebl DR. Workflow and efficiency of robotic-assisted navigation in spine surgery. HSS J. 2021;17:15563316211026658. https://doi.org/10.1177/15563316211026658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Alluri RK, Clark N, Sheha ED, et al. Location of the femoral nerve in the lateral decubitus versus prone position. Global Spine J. 2023;13(7):1765–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Godzik J, Ohiorhenuan IE, Xu DS, et al. Single-position prone lateral approach: cadaveric feasibility study and early clinical experience. Neurosurg Focus. 2020;49(3):E15. https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.6.FOCUS20359.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pimenta L, Taylor WR, Stone LE, Wali AR, Santiago-Dieppa DR. Prone Transpsoas technique for simultaneous single-position access to the anterior and posterior lumbar spine. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown, Md). 2020;20(1):E5–E12. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opaa328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Li JXJ, Phan K, Mobbs R. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion: technical aspects, operative outcomes, and complications. World Neurosurg. 2017;98:113–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.074.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Molinares DM, Davis TT, Fung DA. Retroperitoneal oblique corridor to the L2-S1 intervertebral discs: an MRI study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(2):248–55. https://doi.org/10.3171/2015.3.SPINE13976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Walker CT, Harrison Farber S, Cole TS, et al. Complications for minimally invasive lateral interbody arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing prepsoas and transpsoas approaches. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30(4):446–60. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.9.SPINE18800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Davis TT, Hynes RA, Fung DA, et al. Retroperitoneal oblique corridor to the L2-S1 intervertebral discs in the lateral position: an anatomic study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;21(5):785–93. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.7.SPINE13564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang F, Xu H, Yin B, et al. Does right lateral decubitus position change retroperitoneal oblique corridor? A radiographic evaluation from L1 to L5. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(3):646–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4645-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Julian Li JX, Mobbs RJ, Phan K. Morphometric MRI imaging study of the corridor for the oblique lumbar interbody fusion technique at L1-L5. World Neurosurg. 2018;111:e678–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shirahata T, Okano I, Salzmann SN, et al. Association between surgical level and early postoperative thigh symptoms among patients undergoing standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg. 2020;134:e885–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.11.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Cummock MD, Vanni S, Levi AD, Yu Y, Wang MY. An analysis of postoperative thigh symptoms after minimally invasive transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15(1):11–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2011.2.SPINE10374.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Knight RQ, Schwaegler P, Hanscom D, Roh J. Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative conditions: early complication profile. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2009;22(1):34–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181679b8a.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bergey DL, Villavicencio AT, Goldstein T, Regan JJ. Endoscopic lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(15):1681–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000133643.75795.ef.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cahill KS, Martinez JL, Wang MY, Vanni S, Levi AD. Motor nerve injuries following the minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17(3):227–31. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.5.SPINE1288.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Woods KRM, Billys JB, Hynes RA. Technical description of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and evaluation of complication and fusion rates. Spine J. 2017;17(4):545–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2016.10.026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Regev GJ, Haloman S, Chen L, et al. Incidence and prevention of intervertebral cage overhang with minimally invasive lateral approach fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(14):1406–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c20fb5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kubota G, Orita S, Umimura T, Takahashi K, Ohtori S. Insidious intraoperative ureteral injury as a complication in oblique lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a case report. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2509-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lee H-J, Kim J-S, Ryu K-S, Park CK. Ureter injury as a complication of oblique lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg. 2017;102:693.e7–693.e14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Iwanaga J, Yilmaz E, Tawfik T, et al. Anatomical study of the extreme lateral Transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion with application to minimizing injury to the kidney. Cureus. 2018;10(1):e2123. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.2123.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Wu A, March L, Zheng X, et al. Abdominal wall paresis as a complication of minimally invasive lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. Nature. 2020;388:1–14.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA

    Karim A. Shafi, Junho Song & Sheeraz A. Qureshi

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Brooks Martino & Sheeraz A. Qureshi

Authors
  1. Karim A. Shafi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Junho Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brooks Martino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sheeraz A. Qureshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Aligned Orthopaedics, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Joseph R. O'Brien

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    Jeffrey B. Weinreb

  3. Vascular Surgery, Inova Health System, Falls Church, VA, USA

    Joseph C. Babrowicz

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Shafi, K.A., Song, J., Martino, B., Qureshi, S.A. (2023). Access to L1–L2 and L2–L3. In: O'Brien, J.R., Weinreb, J.B., Babrowicz, J.C. (eds) Lumbar Spine Access Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48034-8_33

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-48034-8_33

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-48033-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-48034-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation