Minimally invasive anterolateral retroperitoneal approaches for lumbar interbody arthrodesis have distinct advantages attractive to spine surgeons. Prepsoas or transpsoas trajectories can be employed with differing complication profiles because of the inherent anatomical differences encountered in each approach. The evidence comparing them remains limited because of poor quality data. Here, the authors sought to systematically review the available literature and perform a meta-analysis comparing the two techniques.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A database search was used to identify eligible studies. Prepsoas and transpsoas studies were compiled, and each study was assessed for inclusion criteria. Complication rates were recorded and compared between approach groups. Studies incorporating an analysis of postoperative subsidence and pseudarthrosis rates were also assessed and compared.
For the prepsoas studies, 20 studies for the complications analysis and 8 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the transpsoas studies, 39 studies for the complications analysis and 19 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the complications analysis, 1874 patients treated via the prepsoas approach and 4607 treated with the transpsoas approach were included. In the transpsoas group, there was a higher rate of transient sensory symptoms (21.7% vs 8.7%, p = 0.002), transient hip flexor weakness (19.7% vs 5.7%, p < 0.001), and permanent neurological weakness (2.8% vs 1.0%, p = 0.005). A higher rate of sympathetic nerve injury was seen in the prepsoas group (5.4% vs 0.0%, p = 0.03). Of the nonneurological complications, major vascular injury was significantly higher in the prepsoas approach (1.8% vs 0.4%, p = 0.01). There was no difference in urological or peritoneal/bowel injury, postoperative ileus, or hematomas (all p > 0.05). A higher infection rate was noted for the transpsoas group (3.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.01). With regard to postoperative fusion outcomes, similar rates of subsidence (12.2% prepsoas vs 13.8% transpsoas, p = 0.78) and pseudarthrosis (9.9% vs 7.5%, respectively, p = 0.57) were seen between the groups at the last follow-up.
Complication rates vary for the prepsoas and transpsoas approaches owing to the variable retroperitoneal anatomy encountered during surgical dissection. While the risks of a lasting motor deficit and transient sensory disturbances are higher for the transpsoas approach, there is a reciprocal reduction in the risks of major vascular injury and sympathetic nerve injury. These results can facilitate informed decision-making and tailored surgical planning regarding the choice of minimally invasive anterolateral access to the spine.
Correspondence Corey T. Walker: Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ. email@example.com.
INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online January 25, 2019; DOI: 10.3171/2018.9.SPINE18800.
C.T.W. and S.H.F. contributed equally to this work.
Disclosures Dr. Uribe receives consulting fees and royalties from NuVasive Medical Inc. and is a consultant for Masonix Inc. and SI Bone Inc. Dr. Turner receives consulting fees from NuVasive Medical Inc. and SeaSpine Inc. Dr. Porter is the owner and founder of Medical Memory Inc. The other authors have no competing interests to disclose related to this study.
AbeKOritaSMannojiCMotegiHAramomiMIshikawaT: Perioperative complications in 155 patients who underwent oblique lateral interbody fusion surgery: perspectives and indications from a retrospective, multicenter survey. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)42:55–622017
AichmairALykissasMGGirardiFPSamaAALeblDRTaherF: An institutional six-year trend analysis of the neurological outcome after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a 6-year trend analysis of a single institution. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)38:E1483–E14902013
ChoudhriTFMummaneniPVDhallSSEckJCGroffMWGhogawalaZ: Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion status. J Neurosurg Spine21:23–302014
DomínguezILuqueRNoriegaMReyJAliaJMarco-MartínezF: Extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Surgical technique, outcomes and complications after a minimum of one year follow-up. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol61:8–182017
DuJYKielyPDAl MaaiehMAichmairAHuangRC: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation for the treatment of adjacent segment disease: a preliminary report. J Spine Surg3:330–3372017
FormicaMBerjanoPCavagnaroLZaniratoAPiazzollaAFormicaC: Extreme lateral approach to the spine in degenerative and post traumatic lumbar diseases: selection process, results and complications. Eur Spine J23 (Suppl 6):684–6922014
FujibayashiSHynesRAOtsukiBKimuraHTakemotoMMatsudaS: Effect of indirect neural decompression through oblique lateral interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)40:E175–E1822015
FujibayashiSOtsukiBKimuraHTanidaSMasamotoKMatsudaS: Preoperative assessment of the ureter with dual-phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography for lateral lumbar interbody fusion procedures. J Orthop Sci22:420–4242017
HynesR: Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) technique and complications in 457 levels L1 to S1, presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the International Society for the Advancement of Spine SurgeryApril 30–May 2 2014 (http://www.isass.org/abstracts/isass14_oral_posters/isass14-77-Oblique-Lateral-Interbody-Fusion-(OLIF)-Technique-and-Complications-in.html) [Accessed October 9 2018]
IsaacsREHydeJGoodrichJARodgersWBPhillipsFM: A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: perioperative outcomes and complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)35 (26 Suppl):S322–S3302010
JinJRyuKSHurJWSeongJHKimJSChoHJ: Comparative study of the difference of perioperative complication and radiologic results: MIS-DLIF (minimally invasive direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion) versus MIS-OLIF (minimally invasive oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion). Clin Spine Surg31:31–362018
JosephJRSmithBWLa MarcaFParkP: Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus39(4):E42015
KhajaviKShenAY: Two-year radiographic and clinical outcomes of a minimally invasive, lateral, transpsoas approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis. Eur Spine J23:1215–12232014
MalhamGMParkerRMBlecherCMChowFYSeexKA: Choice of approach does not affect clinical and radiologic outcomes: a comparative cohort of patients having anterior lumbar interbody fusion and patients having lateral lumbar interbody fusion at 24 months. Global Spine J6:472–4812016
NaYCLeeHSShinDAHaYKimKNYoonDH: Initial clinical outcomes of minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar disease: a preliminary report on the experience of a single institution with 30 cases. Korean J Spine9:187–1922012
PhillipsFMIsaacsRERodgersWBKhajaviKTohmehAGDevirenV: Adult degenerative scoliosis treated with XLIF: clinical and radiographical results of a prospective multicenter study with 24-month follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)38:1853–18612013
TohmehAGKhorsandDWatsonBZielinskiX: Radiographical and clinical evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion: effects of cage size and instrumentation type with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976)39:E1582–E15912014
UribeJSIsaacsREYoussefJAKhajaviKBalzerJRKanterAS: Can triggered electromyography monitoring throughout retraction predict postoperative symptomatic neuropraxia after XLIF? Results from a prospective multicenter trial. Eur Spine J24 (Suppl 3):378–3852015
WaddellBBriskiDQadirRGodoyGHoustonAHRudmanE: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the correction of spondylolisthesis and adult degenerative scoliosis in high-risk patients: early radiographic results and complications. Ochsner J14:23–312014
ZhangYHWhiteIPottsEMobasserJPChouD: Comparison perioperative factors during minimally invasive pre-psoas lateral interbody fusion of the lumbar spine using either navigation or conventional fluoroscopy. Global Spine J7:657–6632017