Freddy P Jacome, Justin J Lee, David M Hiltzik, Sia Cho, Manasa Pagadala, Wellington K Hsu
{"title":"单体位俯卧侧腰椎椎间融合术:当前文献综述","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":"{\"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}","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}
Single Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of the Current Literature.
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.
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.