Single Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of the Current Literature.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Freddy P Jacome, Justin J Lee, David M Hiltzik, Sia Cho, Manasa Pagadala, Wellington K Hsu
{"title":"Single Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of the Current Literature.","authors":"Freddy P Jacome, Justin J Lee, David M Hiltzik, Sia Cho, Manasa Pagadala, Wellington K Hsu","doi":"10.1007/s12178-024-09913-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Spinal fusion, vital for treating various spinal disorders, has evolved since the introduction of the minimally invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) by Pimenta in 2001. Traditionally performed in the lateral decubitus position, LLIF faces challenges such as intraoperative repositioning, neurological complications, and lack of access to lower lumbar levels. These challenges lead to long surgery times, increased rates of perioperative complications, and increased costs. The more recently popularized prone lateral approach mitigates these issues primarily by eliminating patient repositioning, thereby enhancing surgical efficiency, and reducing operative times. This review examines the progression of spinal fusion techniques, focusing on the advantages and recent findings of the prone lateral approach compared to the traditional LLIF.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The prone lateral approach has shown improved patient outcomes, including lower blood loss and shorter hospital stays, and has been validated by multiple studies for its safety and efficacy compared to the LLIF approach. Significant enhancements in postoperative metrics, such as the Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and radiological improvements have been noted. Comparatively, the prone lateral approach offers superior segmental lordosis correction and potentially better subjective outcomes than the lateral decubitus position. Despite these advances, both techniques present similar risks of neurological complications. Overall, the prone lateral approach has emerged as a promising alternative in lumbar interbody fusion, combining efficiency, safety, and improved clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":10950,"journal":{"name":"Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"386-392"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11336012/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-024-09913-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: Spinal fusion, vital for treating various spinal disorders, has evolved since the introduction of the minimally invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF) by Pimenta in 2001. Traditionally performed in the lateral decubitus position, LLIF faces challenges such as intraoperative repositioning, neurological complications, and lack of access to lower lumbar levels. These challenges lead to long surgery times, increased rates of perioperative complications, and increased costs. The more recently popularized prone lateral approach mitigates these issues primarily by eliminating patient repositioning, thereby enhancing surgical efficiency, and reducing operative times. This review examines the progression of spinal fusion techniques, focusing on the advantages and recent findings of the prone lateral approach compared to the traditional LLIF.

Recent findings: The prone lateral approach has shown improved patient outcomes, including lower blood loss and shorter hospital stays, and has been validated by multiple studies for its safety and efficacy compared to the LLIF approach. Significant enhancements in postoperative metrics, such as the Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale, and radiological improvements have been noted. Comparatively, the prone lateral approach offers superior segmental lordosis correction and potentially better subjective outcomes than the lateral decubitus position. Despite these advances, both techniques present similar risks of neurological complications. Overall, the prone lateral approach has emerged as a promising alternative in lumbar interbody fusion, combining efficiency, safety, and improved clinical outcomes.

单体位俯卧侧腰椎椎间融合术:当前文献综述
综述目的:脊柱融合术对治疗各种脊柱疾病至关重要,自 2001 年 Pimenta 推出微创侧腰椎体间融合术(LLIF)以来,脊柱融合术不断发展。LLIF 传统上在侧卧位进行,面临着术中重新定位、神经系统并发症以及无法进入腰椎下段等挑战。这些挑战导致手术时间延长、围手术期并发症发生率增加以及费用增加。最近流行的俯卧侧位手术方法主要通过消除患者的体位调整来缓解这些问题,从而提高手术效率并缩短手术时间。这篇综述探讨了脊柱融合技术的发展,重点是俯卧位外侧入路与传统 LLIF 相比的优势和最新发现:最近的研究结果:俯卧侧位方法改善了患者的预后,包括降低失血量和缩短住院时间,与 LLIF 方法相比,其安全性和有效性已得到多项研究的验证。术后指标(如 Oswestry 失能指数、视觉模拟量表)和放射学指标均有显著改善。与侧卧位相比,俯卧侧位方法具有更好的节段前凸矫正效果和潜在的主观疗效。尽管取得了这些进步,但这两种技术都存在类似的神经系统并发症风险。总的来说,俯卧位侧方入路已成为腰椎椎间融合术中一种很有前途的替代方法,它集高效、安全和临床效果改善于一身。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: This journal intends to review the most significant recent developments in the field of musculoskeletal medicine. By providing clear, insightful, balanced contributions by expert world-renowned authors, the journal aims to serve all those involved in the diagnosis, treatment, management, and prevention of musculoskeletal-related conditions. We accomplish this aim by appointing authorities to serve as Section Editors in key subject areas, such as rehabilitation of the knee and hip, sports medicine, trauma, pediatrics, health policy, customization in arthroplasty, and rheumatology. Section Editors, in turn, select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that emphasize new developments and recently published papers of major importance, highlighted by annotated reference lists. We also provide commentaries from well-known figures in the field, and an Editorial Board of more than 20 diverse members suggests topics of special interest to their country/region and ensures that topics are current and include emerging research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信