Review
. 2017 Oct;17(10):1412-1419.
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.022.
Epub 2017 Apr 26.
Affiliations
Affiliations
- 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St, Suite #300, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
- 2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St, Suite #300, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. Electronic address: kern.singh@rushortho.com.
-
PMID:
28456671
-
DOI:
Review
Fady Y Hijji et al.
Spine J.
2017 Oct.
. 2017 Oct;17(10):1412-1419.
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.022.
Epub 2017 Apr 26.
Affiliations
- 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St, Suite #300, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
- 2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St, Suite #300, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. Electronic address: kern.singh@rushortho.com.
-
PMID:
28456671
-
DOI:
Abstract
Background context:
Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a frequently used technique for the treatment of lumbar pathology. Despite its overall success, LLIF has been associated with a unique set of complications. However, there has been inconsistent evidence regarding the complication rate of this approach.
Purpose:
To perform a systematic review analyzing the rates of medical and surgical complications associated with LLIF.
Study design:
Systematic review.
Patient sample:
6,819 patients who underwent LLIF reported in clinical studies through June 2016.
Outcome measures:
Frequency of complications within cardiac, vascular, pulmonary, urologic, gastrointestinal, transient neurologic, persistent neurologic, and spine (MSK) categories.
Methods:
This systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Relevant studies that identified rates of any complication following LLIF procedures were obtained from PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases. Articles were excluded if they did not report complications, presented mixed complication data from other procedures, or were characterized as single case reports, reviews, or case series containing less than 10 patients. The primary outcome was frequency of complications within cardiac, vascular, pulmonary, urologic, gastrointestinal, transient neurologic, persistent neurologic, and MSK categories. All rates of complications were based on the sample sizes of studies that mentioned the respective complications. The authors report no conflicts of interest directly or indirectly related to this work, and have not received any funds in support of this work.
Results:
A total of 2,232 articles were identified. Following screening of title, abstract, and full-text availability, 63 articles were included in the review. A total of 6,819 patients had 11,325 levels fused. The rate of complications for the categories included were as follows: wound (1.38%; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.00%-1.85%), cardiac (1.86%; CI=1.33%-2.52%), vascular (0.81%; CI=0.44%-1.36%), pulmonary (1.47; CI=0.95%-2.16%), gastrointestinal (1.38%; CI=1.00%-1.87%), urologic (0.93%; CI=0.55%-1.47%), transient neurologic (36.07%; CI=34.74%-37.41%), persistent neurologic (3.98%; CI=3.42%-4.60%), and MSK or spine (9.22%; CI=8.28%-10.23%).
Conclusions:
The current study is the first to comprehensively analyze the complication profile for LLIFs. The most significant reported complications were transient neurologic in nature. However, persistent neurologic complications occurred at a much lower rate, bringing into question the significance of transient symptoms beyond the immediate postoperative period. Through this analysis of complication profiles, surgeons can better understand the risks to and expectations for patients following LLIF procedures.
Keywords:
Complications; LLIF; Lateral lumbar interbody fusion; Lumbar spine; Systematic review; Transient neurologic.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature.
Joseph JR, Smith BW, La Marca F, Park P.
Joseph JR, et al.
Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Oct;39(4):E4. doi: 10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15278.
Neurosurg Focus. 2015.PMID: 26424344
Review.
Nerve injury and recovery after lateral lumbar interbody fusion with and without bone morphogenetic protein-2 augmentation: a cohort-controlled study.
Lykissas MG, Aichmair A, Sama AA, Hughes AP, Lebl DR, Cammisa FP, Girardi FP.
Lykissas MG, et al.
Spine J. 2014 Feb 1;14(2):217-24. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.06.109. Epub 2013 Nov 20.
Spine J. 2014.PMID: 24269858
Clinical Trial.
Neuromonitoring in Lateral Approaches for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review.
Nie JW, Hartman TJ, Zheng E, MacGregor KR, Oyetayo OO, Singh K.
Nie JW, et al.
World Neurosurg. 2022 Dec;168:268-277.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.10.031. Epub 2022 Oct 13.
World Neurosurg. 2022.PMID: 36243359
Review.
The effect of vascular approach surgeons on perioperative complications in lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusions.
Manning J, Wang E, Varlotta C, Woo D, Ayres E, Eisen L, Bendo J, Goldstein J, Spivak J, Protopsaltis TS, Passias PG, Buckland AJ.
Manning J, et al.
Spine J. 2020 Mar;20(3):313-320. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.10.013. Epub 2019 Oct 25.
Spine J. 2020.PMID: 31669613
Cited by
The anatomical positioning change of retroperitoneal organs in prone and lateral position: an assessment for single-prone position lateral lumbar surgery.
Dodo Y, Okano I, Kelly NA, Haffer H, Muellner M, Chiapparelli E, Shue J, Lebl DR, Cammisa FP, Girardi FP, Hughes AP, Sokunbi G, Sama AA.
Dodo Y, et al.
Eur Spine J. 2023 Jun;32(6):2003-2011. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07738-w. Epub 2023 May 4.
Eur Spine J. 2023.PMID: 37140640
A retrospective review of single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion cases: early learning curve and perioperative outcomes.
Patel A, Rogers M, Michna R.
Patel A, et al.
Eur Spine J. 2023 Jun;32(6):1992-2002. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07689-2. Epub 2023 Apr 6.
Eur Spine J. 2023.PMID: 37024770
Deformity Correction with Interbody Fusion Using Lateral versus Posterior Approach in Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Systematic Review and Observational Meta-analysis.
Mittal S, Sudhakar PV, Ahuja K, Ifthekar S, Yadav G, Sinha S, Goyal N, Verma V, Sarkar B, Kandwal P.
Mittal S, et al.
Asian Spine J. 2023 Apr;17(2):431-451. doi: 10.31616/asj.2022.0040. Epub 2023 Jan 16.
Asian Spine J. 2023.PMID: 36642969
Free PMC article.Complication rates following stand-alone lateral interbody fusion: a single institution series after 10 years of experience.
Godolias P, Tataryn ZL, Frieler S, Nunna R, Charlot K, Tran A, Plümer J, Cibura C, Al-Awadi H, Daher Z, Dudda M, Schildhauer TA, Chapman J, Oskouian R.
Godolias P, et al.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2023 Jul;33(5):2121-2127. doi: 10.1007/s00590-022-03408-7. Epub 2022 Oct 14.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2023.PMID: 36239820
Read more from the original source:
Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of complication rates – PubMed
Review . 2017 Oct;17(10):1412-1419. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.022. Epub 2017 Apr 26. Affiliations Affiliations 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St, Suite #300, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. 2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St, Suite #300, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. Electronic address: kern.singh@rushortho.com. PMID: 28456671…
At the London Spine Unit we specialise in the treatment of Vertebral Compression Fractures using Balloon Kyphoplasty and Vertberoplasty. Using specialist equipment and anaesthetic techniques, our world leading experts use advanced techniques that avoid the removal of too much bone and treat spinal stenosis using innovative surgical techniques. Our patients usually go home on the same day after surgery ie walk in and walk out same day surgery.
Day Case Complex Spine Surgery
About day case surgery
At Harley Street Hospital, we offer day case spinal stenosis surgery performed by a highly qualified team of surgeons. This provides patients with multiple benefits, such as the following:
-Shorter hospital stays. Due to this and to preventive measures, lower risk of contracting COVID-19.
-We apply local anaesthesia, avoiding general anaesthesia and its complications.
-Lower infection rates.
-Fewer post-surgery complications.
-Cheaper than surgery requiring an overnight stay.
Book an appointment to get a checkup.