Anterior-To-Psoas Approach Measurements, Feasibility, Non-Neurological Structures at Risk and Influencing Factors: A Bilateral Analysis From L1-L5 Using Computed Tomography Imaging.
Journal
Operative neurosurgery (Hagerstown, Md.)
ISSN: 2332-4260
Titre abrégé: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101635417
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2023
01 07 2023
Historique:
received:
21
12
2022
accepted:
24
01
2023
medline:
19
6
2023
pubmed:
11
5
2023
entrez:
11
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Spinal fusion through the anterior-to-psoas (ATP) technique harbors several approach-related risks. We used abdominal computed tomography imaging to analyze the L1-L5 ATP fusion approach measurements, feasibility, degree of obstruction by non-neurological structures, and the influence of patient characteristics on ATP approach dimensions. The vascular window, psoas window, safe window, and incision line anterior and posterior margins for the ATP approach were measured on abdominal computed tomography imaging. The feasibility of approach and the presence of kidneys, ribs, liver, spleen, and iliac crests within the ATP approach were also measured. Correlation and regression models among radiographic measurements and patient age, height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were analyzed as well as differences in approach measurements based on sex. Safe window and incision line measurements were more accommodating for the left-sided vs right-sided ATP approach. At L4-5, the ATP approach was not feasible 18% of the time on the left side vs 60% of the time on the right side. The spleen was present 22%, 10%, and 3% of the time from L1-4, while the liver was present 56%, 30%, and 9% of the time. The iliac crests were not observed within ATP parameters. Patient age, height, weight, and BMI did not strongly correlate with approach measurements, although ATP dimensions did differ based on sex. This study reports characteristics of the ATP approach including approach measurements, feasibility, non-neurological structures at risk, and influencing factors to approach measurements. While incision line measurements are larger for male patients compared with female patients at the lower lumbar levels, safe window sizes are similar across all levels L1-L5. The kidneys, ribs, spleen, and liver are potential at-risk structures during the ATP approach, although the iliac crests pose limited concern for ATP technique. Patient characteristics such as age, height, weight, and BMI do not markedly affect ATP approach considerations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Spinal fusion through the anterior-to-psoas (ATP) technique harbors several approach-related risks. We used abdominal computed tomography imaging to analyze the L1-L5 ATP fusion approach measurements, feasibility, degree of obstruction by non-neurological structures, and the influence of patient characteristics on ATP approach dimensions.
METHODS
The vascular window, psoas window, safe window, and incision line anterior and posterior margins for the ATP approach were measured on abdominal computed tomography imaging. The feasibility of approach and the presence of kidneys, ribs, liver, spleen, and iliac crests within the ATP approach were also measured. Correlation and regression models among radiographic measurements and patient age, height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were analyzed as well as differences in approach measurements based on sex.
RESULTS
Safe window and incision line measurements were more accommodating for the left-sided vs right-sided ATP approach. At L4-5, the ATP approach was not feasible 18% of the time on the left side vs 60% of the time on the right side. The spleen was present 22%, 10%, and 3% of the time from L1-4, while the liver was present 56%, 30%, and 9% of the time. The iliac crests were not observed within ATP parameters. Patient age, height, weight, and BMI did not strongly correlate with approach measurements, although ATP dimensions did differ based on sex.
CONCLUSION
This study reports characteristics of the ATP approach including approach measurements, feasibility, non-neurological structures at risk, and influencing factors to approach measurements. While incision line measurements are larger for male patients compared with female patients at the lower lumbar levels, safe window sizes are similar across all levels L1-L5. The kidneys, ribs, spleen, and liver are potential at-risk structures during the ATP approach, although the iliac crests pose limited concern for ATP technique. Patient characteristics such as age, height, weight, and BMI do not markedly affect ATP approach considerations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37166202
doi: 10.1227/ons.0000000000000696
pii: 01787389-202307000-00009
doi:
Substances chimiques
Adenosine Triphosphate
8L70Q75FXE
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
52-58Informations de copyright
Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2023. All rights reserved.
Références
Xu DS, Walker CT, Godzik J, Turner JD, Smith W, Uribe JS. Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Ann Transl Med. 2018;6(6):104
Kim H, Chang BS, Chang SY. Pearls and pitfalls of oblique lateral interbody fusion: a comprehensive narrative review. Neurospine. 2022;19(1):163-176
Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. 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). 2015;1(1):2-18
Chung HW, Lee HD, Jeon CH, Chung NS. Comparison of surgical outcomes between oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2021;209:106901
Woods KRM, Billys JB, Hynes RA. Technical description of oblique lateral interbody fusion at L1-L5 (OLIF25) and at L5-S1 (OLIF51) and evaluation of complication and fusion rates. Spine J. 2017;17(4):545-553
Abe K, Orita S, Mannoji C, et al. Perioperative complications in 155 patients who underwent oblique lateral interbody fusion surgery: perspectives and indications from a retrospective, multicenter survey. Spine. 2017;42(1):55-62
Hynes R. Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) Technique and Complications in 457 Levels L1 to S1. Int Soc Adv Spine Surg 2014 Meet. 2014.
Kim JS, Choi WS, Sung JH. 314 minimally invasive oblique lateral interbody fusion for L4-5: clinical outcomes and perioperative complications—ProQuest. Neurosurgery. 2016;63(suppl 1):190-191
Picture archiving and communication systems. Health Devices. 2000;29(11):385-390.
Tesoriero JA, Eddy P, Hasso AN. PACS used while on-call: a national survey of radiology program directors and chief residents. J Digit Imaging. 2015;28(2):205-212
Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S. Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2012;10(2):486-489
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420-428
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-163
Fleiss J. Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
Parra-Frutos I. Testing homogeneity of variances with unequal sample sizes. Comput Stat. 2013;28(3):1269-1297
Vetter TR. Fundamentals of research data and variables: the devil is in the details. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(4):1375-1380
Vetter TR. Descriptive statistics: reporting the answers to the 5 basic questions of who, what, why, when, where, and a sixth, so what? Anesth Analg. 2017;125(5):1797-1802
Ratner B. The correlation coefficient: its values range between +1/−1, or do they? J Target Meas Anal Mark. 2009;17(2):139-142
Liu L, Liang Y, Zhang H, et al. Imaging anatomical research on the operative windows of oblique lumbar interbody fusion. PLoS One. 2016;11(9):e0163452
Molinares DM, Davis TT, Fung DA. Retroperitoneal oblique corridor to the L2-S1 intervertebral discs: an MRI study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(2):248-255
Chen X, Chen J, Zhang F. Imaging anatomic research of oblique lumbar interbody fusion in a Chinese population based on magnetic resonance. World Neurosurg. 2019;128:e51-e58
Mahatthanatrakul A, Itthipanichpong T, Ratanakornphan C, et al. Relation of lumbar sympathetic chain to the open corridor of retroperitoneal oblique approach to lumbar spine: an MRI study. Eur Spine J. 2019;28(4):829-834
Berry CA. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion in patient with persistent left-sided inferior vena cava: case report and review of literature. World Neurosurg. 2019;132:58-62
Yang F, Dou C, Cheng X, Chen B. Oblique lateral interbody fusion to treat lumbar spinal stenosis in a patient with situs inversus totalis: a case report. J Int Med Res. 2021;49(7):030006052110328
Xigong L, Weiyi D, Shuo W, et al. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion from the right-side approach in the treatment of a patient with left-sided inferior vena cava. Neurosurg Cases Rev. 2021;4(1):64
Liu C, Zhai J, Yuan Q, Zhang Y, Xu H. A patient with left-sided inferior vena cava who received oblique lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2020;14(1):21
Julian Li JX, Mobbs RJ, Phan K. Morphometric MRI imaging study of the corridor for the oblique lumbar interbody fusion technique at L1-L5. World Neurosurg. 2018;111:e678-e685
Xiao L, Xu Z, Liu C, Zhao Q, Zhang Y, Xu H. Anatomic relationship between ureter and oblique lateral interbody fusion access: analysis based on contrast-enhanced computed tomographic urography. World Neurosurg. 2019;123:e717-e722
Wu T, Xiao L, Liu C, Tao X, Xu H. Anatomical study of the lumbar segmental arteries in relation to the oblique lateral interbody fusion approach. World Neurosurg. 2020;138:e778-e786
Zhang F, Xu H, Yin B, et al. Does right lateral decubitus position change retroperitoneal oblique corridor? A radiographic evaluation from L1 to L5. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(3):646-650
Deukmedjian AR, Le TV, Dakwar E, Martinez CR, Uribe JS. Movement of abdominal structures on magnetic resonance imaging during positioning changes related to lateral lumbar spine surgery: a morphometric study: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16(6):615-623