Need of vascular surgeon and comparison of value for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in lateral decubitus: Delphi consensus.
ALIF
Anterior spinal approach
Degenerative disc disease
Interbody spine fusion
Spine surgery
Journal
European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society
ISSN: 1432-0932
Titre abrégé: Eur Spine J
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9301980
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2022
09 2022
Historique:
received:
15
11
2021
accepted:
06
07
2022
revised:
03
07
2022
pubmed:
23
7
2022
medline:
3
9
2022
entrez:
22
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Anterior lumbar approaches are recommended for clinical conditions that require interbody stability, spinal deformity corrections or a large fusion area. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in lateral decubitus position (LatALIF) has gained progressive interest in the last years. The study aims to describe the current habit, the perception of safety and the perceptions of need of vascular surgeons according to experienced spine surgeons by comparing LatALIF to the standard L5-S1 supine ALIF (SupALIF). A two-round Delphi method study was conducted to assess the consensus, within expert spine surgeons, regarding the perception of safety, the preoperative planning, the complications management and the need for vascular surgeons by performing anterior approaches (SupALIF vs LatALIF). A total of 14 experts voluntary were involved in the survey. From 82 sentences voted in the first round, a consensus was reached for 38 items. This included the feasibility of safe LatALIF without systematic involvement of vascular surgeon for routine cases (while for revision cases the involvement of the vascular surgeon is an appropriate option) and the appropriateness of standard MRI to evaluate the accessibility of the vascular window. Thirteen sentences reached the final consensus in the second round, whereas no consensus was reached for the remaining 20 statements. The Delphi study collected the consensus on several points, such as the consolidated required experience on anterior approaches, the accurate study of vascular anatomy with MRI, the management of complications and the significant reduction of the surgical times of the LatALIF if compared to SupALIF in combined procedures. Furthermore, the study group agrees that LatALIF can be performed without the need for a vascular surgeon in routine cases.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Anterior lumbar approaches are recommended for clinical conditions that require interbody stability, spinal deformity corrections or a large fusion area. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in lateral decubitus position (LatALIF) has gained progressive interest in the last years. The study aims to describe the current habit, the perception of safety and the perceptions of need of vascular surgeons according to experienced spine surgeons by comparing LatALIF to the standard L5-S1 supine ALIF (SupALIF).
METHODS
A two-round Delphi method study was conducted to assess the consensus, within expert spine surgeons, regarding the perception of safety, the preoperative planning, the complications management and the need for vascular surgeons by performing anterior approaches (SupALIF vs LatALIF).
RESULTS
A total of 14 experts voluntary were involved in the survey. From 82 sentences voted in the first round, a consensus was reached for 38 items. This included the feasibility of safe LatALIF without systematic involvement of vascular surgeon for routine cases (while for revision cases the involvement of the vascular surgeon is an appropriate option) and the appropriateness of standard MRI to evaluate the accessibility of the vascular window. Thirteen sentences reached the final consensus in the second round, whereas no consensus was reached for the remaining 20 statements.
CONCLUSIONS
The Delphi study collected the consensus on several points, such as the consolidated required experience on anterior approaches, the accurate study of vascular anatomy with MRI, the management of complications and the significant reduction of the surgical times of the LatALIF if compared to SupALIF in combined procedures. Furthermore, the study group agrees that LatALIF can be performed without the need for a vascular surgeon in routine cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35867159
doi: 10.1007/s00586-022-07319-3
pii: 10.1007/s00586-022-07319-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2270-2278Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Berjano P, Zanirato A, Langella F et al (2021) Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) L5–S1 with overpowering of posterior lumbosacral instrumentation and fusion mass: a reliable solution in revision spine surgery. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06888-z
doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06888-z
pubmed: 34910244
Cofano F, Langella F, Petrone S et al (2021) Clinical and radiographic performance of indirect foraminal decompression with anterior retroperitoneal lumbar approach for interbody fusion (ALIF). Clin Neurol Neurosurg 209:106946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106946
doi: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2021.106946
pubmed: 34555799
Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G et al (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J spine Surg (Hong Kong) 1:2–18. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05
doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05
Phan K, Xu J, Scherman DB, et al (2017) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with and without an “access surgeon”: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42:E592–E601. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001905
Quraishi NA, Konig M, Booker SJ et al (2013) Access related complications in anterior lumbar surgery performed by spinal surgeons. Eur Spine J 22(Suppl 1):S16-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2616-1
doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2616-1
pubmed: 23250515
Bateman DK, Millhouse PW, Shahi N et al (2015) Anterior lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of associated complications. Spine J 15:1118–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.040
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2015.02.040
pubmed: 25728552
Jarrett CD, Heller JG, Tsai L (2009) Anterior exposure of the lumbar spine with and without an “access surgeon”: morbidity analysis of 265 consecutive cases. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:559–564. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318192e326
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318192e326
pubmed: 19956029
Schroeder GD, Kepler CK, Millhouse PW et al (2016) L5/S1 fusion rates in degenerative spine surgery: a systematic review comparing ALIF, TLIF, and axial interbody arthrodesis. Clin spine Surg 29:150–155. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000356
doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000356
pubmed: 26841206
Terran J, Schwab F, Shaffrey CI et al (2013) The SRS-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: assessment and clinical correlations based on a prospective operative and nonoperative cohort. Neurosurgery 73:559–568. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0000000000000012
doi: 10.1227/NEU.0000000000000012
pubmed: 23756751
Berjano P, Ismael MF, Damilano M et al (2014) Successful correction of sagittal imbalance can be calculated on the basis of pelvic incidence and age. Eur Spine J 23:S587–S596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3556-8
doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3556-8
Ahlquist S, Park HY, Gatto J et al (2018) Does approach matter? A comparative radiographic analysis of spinopelvic parameters in single-level lumbar fusion. Spine J 18:1999–2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2018.03.014
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.03.014
pubmed: 29631061
Redaelli A, Langella F, Dziubak M et al (2020) Useful and innovative methods for the treatment of postoperative coronal malalignment in adult scoliosis: the “kickstand rod” and “tie rod” procedures. Eur Spine J 29:849–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06285-7
doi: 10.1007/s00586-019-06285-7
pubmed: 31907658
Obeid I, Berjano P, Lamartina C et al (2019) Classification of coronal imbalance in adult scoliosis and spine deformity: a treatment-oriented guideline. Eur Spine J 28:94–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5826-3
doi: 10.1007/s00586-018-5826-3
pubmed: 30460601
Phan K, Thayaparan GK, Mobbs RJ (2015) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion–systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg 29:705–711. https://doi.org/10.3109/02688697.2015.1036838
doi: 10.3109/02688697.2015.1036838
pubmed: 25968330
Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA et al (2007) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine 7:379–386. https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI-07/10/379
doi: 10.3171/SPI-07/10/379
pubmed: 17933310
Thomas JA, Thomason CIM, Braly BA, Menezes CM (2020) Rate of failure of indirect decompression in lateral single-position surgery: clinical results. Neurosurg Focus 49:E5. https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.6.FOCUS20375
doi: 10.3171/2020.6.FOCUS20375
pubmed: 33002874
Buckland AJ, Ashayeri K, Leon C et al (2021) Single position circumferential fusion improves operative efficiency, reduces complications and length of stay compared with traditional circumferential fusion. Spine J 21:810–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2020.11.002
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.11.002
pubmed: 33197616
Ashayeri K, Leon C, Tigchelaar S et al (2021) Single position lateral decubitus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) and posterior fusion reduces complications and improves perioperative outcomes compared with traditional anterior-posterior lumbar fusion. Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2021.09.009
doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.09.009
pubmed: 34600110
pmcid: 8321964
Malham GM, Wagner TP, Claydon MH (2019) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in a lateral decubitus position: technique and outcomes in obese patients. J spine Surg (Hong Kong) 5:433–442. https://doi.org/10.21037/jss.2019.09.09
doi: 10.21037/jss.2019.09.09