Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and the safety of a new skin incision for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF): the perinavel incision.
Methods
Demographic and clinical data from patients who underwent ALIF with the perinavel incision were collected. Indications to surgery, preoperative symptoms, radiological data, number of treated levels, intraoperative and early postoperative complications and wound-related problems were analysed.
Result
Ninety-seven patients underwent ALIF with this new skin incision. One hundred fifty-seven levels were treated (mean 1.7 level per patient) being L4–L5 the most frequently treated. Intraoperative complications were represented only by the venous injury with a rate of 3.09% (3 cases). Postoperative complications were all linked to skin incision issues: a case of wound dehiscence and a case of superficial infection. No case of skin necrosis occurs at 3-month follow-up.
Conclusions
In this paper, the perinavel skin incision was demonstrated to be as safe as traditional approaches for ALIF. Furthermore, with this incision it is possible to perform multilevel (L3–S1) ALIF, which means a good option in minimally invasive surgery as well as revision surgery.
Graphical abstract
These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Obenchain TG (1991) Laparoscopic lumbar discectomy: case report. J Laparoendosc Surg 1:145–149
Mobbs RJ, Sivabalan P, Li J (2012) Minimally invasive surgery compared to open spinal fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine pathologies. J Clin Neurosci 19:829–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2011.10.004
Sasso RC, Kenneth Burkus J, LeHuec J-C (2003) Retrograde ejaculation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion: transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal exposure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1023–1026. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000062965.47779.eb
O’Dey DM, Heimburg DV, Prescher A, Pallua N (2004) The arterial vascularisation of the abdominal wall with special regard to the umbilicus. Br J Plast Surg 57:392–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2004.02.008
Bassani R, Sinigaglia A, Lamartina C (2011) Video-assisted minimally invasive lumbar total disc replacement. Eur Spine J 20(12):2282–2283
Bassani R, Cecchinato R, Morselli C et al (2016) Video-assisted anterior retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine. A minimal invasive technique improved by the use of endoscopic camera to treat lumbar spine diseases. Int J Clin Med 7:94–100. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijcm.2016.71009
Gorek JE, Rolfe KW, Idler C (2011) Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Spine: less is more. Semin Spine Surg 23:2–8. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semss.2010.11.002
Schmidt M, Tinhofer I, Duscher D, Huemer GM (2014) Perforasomes of the upper abdomen: an anatomical study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67:42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2013.08.017
Boyd JB, Taylor GI, Corlett R (1984) The vascular territories of the superior epigastric and the deep inferior epigastric systems. Plast Reconstr Surg 73:1–16
Zdeblick TA, David SM (2000) A prospective comparison of surgical approach for anterior L4–L5 fusion laparoscopic versus mini anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:2682–2687
Davis TT, Hynes RA, Fung DA et al (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
Park YJ, Kim EK, Yun JY et al (2014) The influence of Pfannenstiel incision scarring on deep inferior epigastric perforator. Arch Plast Surg 41:542–547. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2014.41.5.542
Mayer HM (1997) A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:691–699 (discussion 700)
Brau SA, Delamarter RB, Kropf MA et al (2008) Access strategies for revision in anterior lumbar surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:1662–1667. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e31817bb970
Mehren C, Mayer HM, Siepe C et al (2010) The minimally invasive anterolateral approach to L2–L5. Oper Orthop Traumatol 22:221–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-010-8054-5
Silvestre C, Mac-Thiong JM, Hilmi R, Roussouly P (2012) Complications and morbidities of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 179 patients. Asian Spine J 6:89–97. https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2012.6.2.89
Bassani R, Serchi E (2017) Role of minimally invasive surgery in back pain for degenerative spine in AOSpine masters series, vol 8. Thieme, Stuttgart, pp 153–176
Fantini GA, Pawar AY (2013) Access related complications during anterior exposure of the lumbar spine. World J Orthop 4:19–23. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v4.i1.19
Phan K, Xu J, Scherman DB et al (2017) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with and without an “access surgeon” a systematic review an meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:E592–E601. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000001905
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
R Bassani: consultant for Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson’s; Nuvasive and Zimmer Biomet; R Cecchinato: consultant for Medacta and Nuvasive; G Casero: consultant for Nuvasive; AM Querenghi, C Morselli, D Gavino, S Brock, C Ferlinghetti: none.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bassani, R., Querenghi, A.M., Cecchinato, R. et al. A new “keyhole” approach for multilevel anterior lumbar interbody fusion: the perinavel approach—technical note and literature review. Eur Spine J 27, 1956–1963 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5659-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5659-0