Safety of lateral access to the concave side for adult spinal deformity

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona; and
  • | 2 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques, particularly lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), have become increasingly popular for adult spinal deformity (ASD) correction. Much discussion has been had regarding theoretical and clinical advantages to addressing coronal curvature from the convex versus concave side of the curve. In this study, the authors aimed to broadly evaluate the clinical outcomes of addressing ASD with circumferential MIS (cMIS) techniques while accessing the lumbar coronal curvature from the concave side.

METHODS

A multi-institution, retrospective chart and radiographic review was performed for all ASD patients with at least a 10° curvature, as defined by the Scoliosis Research Society, who underwent cMIS correction. The data collected included convex versus concave access to the coronal curve, durable or sensory femoral nerve injury lasting longer than 6 weeks, vascular injury, visceral injury, and any additional major complication, with at least a 2-year follow-up. Neither health-related quality-of-life metrics nor spinopelvic parameters were included within the scope of this study.

RESULTS

A total of 152 patients with ASD treated with cMIS correction via lateral access were identified and analyzed. Of these, 126 (82.9%) were approached from the concave side and 26 (17.1%) were approached from the convex side. In the concave group, 1 (0.8%) motor and 4 (3.2%) sensory deficit cases remained at 6 weeks after the operation. No vascular, visceral, or catastrophic intraoperative injuries were encountered in the concave group. Of the 26 patients in the convex group, 2 (7.7%) experienced motor deficits lasting longer than 6 weeks and 5 (19.2%) had lower-extremity sensory deficits.

CONCLUSIONS

It has been reported that lateral access to the convex side is associated with similar clinical and radiographic outcomes with fewer complications when compared with access to the concave side. Advantages to approaching the lumbar spine from the concave side include using one incision to access multiple levels, breaking the operative table to assist with curvature correction, easier access to the L4–5 disc space, the ability to release the contracted side, and, often, avoidance of the need to access or traverse the thoracic cavity. This study illustrates the largest reported cohort of concave access for cMIS scoliosis correction; few postoperative sensory and motor deficits were found.

ABBREVIATIONS

ALIF = anterior lumbar interbody fusion; ASD = adult spinal deformity; cMIS = circumferential MIS; LLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusion; MIS = minimally invasive surgery; TLIF = transforaminal interbody fusion.
Illustrations from Walker et al. (pp 80–90). © Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $600.00

Contributor Notes

Correspondence Juan S. Uribe: c/o Neuroscience Publications, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ. neuropub@barrowneuro.org.

INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online May 14, 2021; DOI: 10.3171/2020.10.SPINE191270.

Disclosures Dr. Uribe is a consultant for NuVasive, Misonix, and SI-BONE. NuVasive provides research support and stock options.

  • 1

    Daniels AH, Reid DBC, Tran SN, et al. . Evolution in surgical approach, complications, and outcomes in an adult spinal deformity surgery multicenter study group patient population. Spine Deform. 2019;7(3):481488.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Iorio JA, Reid P, Kim HJ. Neurological complications in adult spinal deformity surgery. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9(3):290298.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Zanirato A, Damilano M, Formica M, et al. . Complications in adult spine deformity surgery: a systematic review of the recent literature with reporting of aggregated incidences. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(9):22722284.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Choy W, Miller CA, Chan AK, et al. . Evolution of the minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery algorithm: an evidence-based approach to surgical strategies for deformity correction. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2018;29(3):399406.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Kanter AS, Tempel ZJ, Ozpinar A, Okonkwo DO. A review of minimally invasive procedures for the treatment of adult spinal deformity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(suppl 8):S59S65.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Lovecchio F, Qureshi SA. The current state of minimally invasive approaches to adult spinal deformity. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019;12(3):318327.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Park P, Wang MY, Lafage V, et al. . Comparison of two minimally invasive surgery strategies to treat adult spinal deformity. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(4):374380.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Xu DS, Walker CT, Godzik J, et al. . Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6(6):104.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Godzik J, Hlubek RJ, de Andrada Pereira B, et al. . Combined lateral transpsoas anterior column realignment with pedicle subtraction osteotomy to treat severe sagittal plane deformity: cadaveric feasibility study and early clinical experience. World Neurosurg. 2019;121:e589e595.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Mundis GM Jr, Turner JD, Kabirian N, et al. . Anterior column realignment has similar results to pedicle subtraction osteotomy in treating adults with sagittal plane deformity. World Neurosurg.2017;105:249256.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Turner JD, Akbarnia BA, Eastlack RK, et al. . Radiographic outcomes of anterior column realignment for adult sagittal plane deformity: a multicenter analysis. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(suppl 3):427432.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Kanter AS, Tempel ZJ, Agarwal N, et al. . Curve laterality for lateral lumbar interbody fusion in adult scoliosis surgery: the concave versus convex controversy. Neurosurgery. 2018;83(6):12191225.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Scheer JK, Khanna R, Lopez AJ, et al. . The concave versus convex approach for minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion for thoracolumbar degenerative scoliosis. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(10):15881593.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Shin MH, Ryu KS. MRI-based determination of convex or concave surgical approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative scoliosis: a retrospective radiographic comparative analysis. J Neurosurg Sci. 2017;61(6):579588.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Eguchi Y, Norimoto M, Suzuki M, et al. . Diffusion tensor tractography of the lumbar nerves before a direct lateral transpsoas approach to treat degenerative lumbar scoliosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;30(4):461469.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 205 205 159
Full Text Views 57 57 45
PDF Downloads 92 92 74
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0