Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of clinical outcomes following minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion stratified by preoperative diagnosis

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

Abstract

Purpose

Lumbar fusion has been shown to be effective in treating a variety of degenerative spinal conditions, though significant differences exist in the magnitude of clinical improvement across different surgical diagnoses. With modern, minimally disruptive approaches for fusion, diagnosis-specific differences in clinical improvement may be reduced. The purpose of this study is to report and compare interim clinical improvements in patients treated with XLIF for various degenerative lumbar conditions.

Methods

160 patients underwent XLIF for either degenerative spondylolisthesis (n = 68), degenerative disc disease (n = 20), adjacent segment disease (n = 26), or post-laminectomy syndrome (n = 46). Average age was 61 years and 66 % were female. Mean BMI was 28.9 kg/m2. 37 % were smokers, 23 % had diabetes mellitus, 22 % had depression. Mean age was highest for ASD patients (66 years) and lowest for DDD patients (48 years) (p < 0.001). There were no other baseline demographic differences between groups. Patient-reported clinical outcomes measures were collected at baseline and prospectively at standard intervals. Interim results at an average of 19 months follow-up are reported here.

Results

In total, 197 levels were treated with XLIF (mean 1.2 per patient). There were no cases of symptomatic pseudoarthrosis or implant/instrument failure. Overall, 1 patient (0.6 %) had a major complication and 12 % had a minor complication. Approach-related anterolateral thigh/groin sensory changes were present in 14 % and hip flexion weakness in 9 %. At last follow-up, overall ODI decreased 47 % (44.1–23.5), VAS LBP decreased 59 % (6.9–2.8), VAS LP decreased 56 % (7.1–3.1), and SF-36 PCS improved 40 % (30.9–43.2) (all p < 0.001). Baseline ODI was significantly lower for DDD patients (p = 0.052). At last follow-up, mean percent improvements on all outcomes were highest for DSP group, though not all differences were significant. Improvements between diagnostic groups were statistically different for LBP (p = 0.021), but were similar for all other clinical outcomes. Percentage of patients reaching MCID and SCB thresholds ranged from 60 to 95 % in clinical outcomes. Patient satisfaction for the entire group was 93 % when asked whether satisfied with surgical outcome.

Conclusions

XLIF has been demonstrated in the current series to lead to significant improvements in clinical outcomes and high rates of MCID and SCB and reduce the discrepancy in outcomes between well accepted and technically challenging indications compared to traditional open approaches for IBF. Complication rates were low, with only one patient in the series experiencing a major complication. Further investigation with larger cohorts and longer follow-up is warranted.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anand N, Hamilton JF, Perri B, Miraliakbar H, Goldstein T (2006) Cantilever TLIF with structural allograft and RhBMP2 for correction and maintenance of segmental sagittal lordosis: long-term clinical, radiographic, and functional outcome. Spine 31:E748–E753

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Blumenthal S, McAfee PC, Guyer RD et al (2005) A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine 30:1565–1575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Delamarter R, Zigler JE, Balderston RA, Cammisa FP, Goldstein JA, Spivak JM (2011) Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement compared with circumferential arthrodesis for the treatment of two-level lumbar degenerative disc disease: results at twenty-four months. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:705–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M et al (2009) Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 9:13–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rampersaud YR, Gray R, Lewis SJ, Massicotte EM, Fehlings MG (2011) Cost-utility analysis of posterior minimally invasive fusion compared with conventional open fusion for lumbar spondylolisthesis. SAS J 5:29–35

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sasso RC, Kitchel SH, Dawson EG (2004) A prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial of anterior lumbar interbody fusion using a titanium cylindrical threaded fusion device. Spine 29:113–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tosteson AN, Skinner JS, Tosteson TD et al (2008) The cost effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative treatment for lumbar disc herniation over two years: evidence from the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT). Spine 33:2108–2115

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD et al (2009) Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1295–1304

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Huntsman K (2013) XLIF for Adjacent level degeneration. In: Goodrich J, Volcan I (eds) Extreme lumbar interbody fusion (XLIF). Quality Medical Publishing (QMP), St. Louis, pp 317–323

  10. 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 6:435–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Peterson M, Youssef JA (2013) Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): lumbar surgical technique. In: Goodrich J, Volcan I (eds) Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF). Quality Medical Publishing (QMP), St. Louis, pp 159–178

  12. Berjano P, Lamartina C (2011) Minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach with advanced neurophysiologic monitoring for lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 20:1584–1586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Berjano P, Damilano M, Lamartina C (2012) Sagittal alignment correction and reconstruction of lumbar post-traumatic kyphosis via MIS lateral approach. Eur Spine J 21:2718–2720

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Berjano P, Lamartina C (2013) Far lateral approaches (XLIF) in adult scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22(Suppl 2):S242–S253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hu WK, He SS, Zhang SC et al (2011) An MRI study of psoas major and abdominal large vessels with respect to the X/DLIF approach. Eur Spine J 20:557–562

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pumberger M, Hughes AP, Huang RR, Sama AA, Cammisa FP, Girardi FP (2012) Neurologic deficit following lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 21:1192–1199

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY (2008) Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J 8:968–974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, Polly DW, Subach BR, Carreon LY (2008) Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:1839–1847

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Glassman SD, Hamill CL, Bridwell KH, Schwab FJ, Dimar JR, Lowe TG (2007) The impact of perioperative complications on clinical outcome in adult deformity surgery. Spine 32:2764–2770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tohmeh AG, Rodgers WB, Peterson MD (2011) Dynamically evoked, discrete-threshold electromyography in the extreme lateral interbody fusion approach. J Neurosurg Spine 14:31–37

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Phillips FM, Slosar PJ, Youssef JA, Andersson G, Papatheofanis F (2013) Lumbar spine fusion for chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease: a systematic review. Spine 38:E409–E422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Marchi L, Oliveira L, Amaral R et al (2012) Lateral interbody fusion for treatment of discogenic low back pain: minimally invasive surgical techniques. Adv Orthop 2012:282068

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Berjano P, Balsano M, Buric J, Petruzzi M, Lamartina C (2012) Direct lateral access lumbar and thoracolumbar fusion: preliminary results. Eur Spine J 21(Suppl 1):S37–S42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rodgers WB, Cox CS, Gerber EJ (2009) Minimally invasive treatment (XLIF) of adjacent segment disease after prior lumbar fusions. Internet J Minim Invasive Spinal Technol 3(4):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  25. Djurasovic M, Glassman SD, Howard JM, Copay AG, Carreon LY (2011) Health-related quality of life improvements in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion as a revision surgery. Spine 36:269–276

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Dr. Khajavi is a consultant for and has received research funds from NuVasive, Inc, though none related to the current work. Alessandria Shen, following her position at Georgia Spine and Neurosurgery and INSPIRE became employed directly by NuVasive, Inc. for a short time. She currently has no conflicts to report. No other authors have any conflicts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Spine and Neurosurgery Center, 2001 Peachtree Rd Suite 550, 30309, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Kaveh Khajavi, Alessandria Shen & Anthony Hutchison

  2. Institute for Neurosurgical and Spinal Research (INSPIRE) Foundation, Altanta, GA, USA

    Kaveh Khajavi, Alessandria Shen, Madeline Lagina & Anthony Hutchison

Authors
  1. Kaveh Khajavi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandria Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Madeline Lagina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anthony Hutchison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kaveh Khajavi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khajavi, K., Shen, A., Lagina, M. et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes following minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion stratified by preoperative diagnosis. Eur Spine J 24 (Suppl 3), 322–330 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3840-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3840-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation