Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive axial presacral L5-S1 interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbosacral spine pathology: a retrospective clinical and radiographic analysis : Minimally invasive axial presacral L5-S1 interbody fusion

Massimo Balsano; Mauro Spina; Sara  Segalla; Da Broi Michele; Carlo Doria

doi:10.23750/abm.v91i14-S.11103

Efficacy and safety of minimally invasive axial presacral L5-S1 interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbosacral spine pathology: a retrospective clinical and radiographic analysis

Minimally invasive axial presacral L5-S1 interbody fusion

Authors

Massimo Balsano Regional Spinal Department, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy
Mauro Spina Regional Spinal Department, University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0079-021X
Sara Segalla Orthopedic and Traumatology Department. University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Da Broi Michele Orthopedic and Traumatology Department. University and Hospital Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Carlo Doria Orthopedic Department, University of Sassari

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i14-S.11103

Keywords:

degenerative disc disease, axiaLIF, pre-sacral approach, fusion L5/S1

Abstract

Background

The surgical treatment of degenerative disc disease L5-S1 is considerably controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the radiographic and clinical results of patients treated with AxiaLif® Technique (AxiaLif®, AMSGroup, Italy) using a minimally invasive pre-sacral approach.

Methods

From 2013 to 2018 a total of 52 patients have been treated (12 M, 40 F; mean age 46.3 years). Diagnosis included L5 isthmic spondylolisthesis low-grade dysplasia, primary and secondary degenerative disc disease. 43 patients have been followed for at least 2 years. Fusion assessment was based on plain radiographs and Brantigan fusion criteria at 1, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. All patients completed the VAS and ODI at baseline through last follow-up.

Results

Clinical results showed good pain resolution. VAS back demonstrated an average reduction over baseline of 50%, 57%, 71%, 77% at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months, respectively (p<0.001). ODI demonstrated an average reduction over baseline of 38%, 51%, 67%, and 72% at the same time points (p<0.001). Complete fusion was demonstrated in 65% of cases, 30% partial fusion and 5% in the absence of bony bridges visible radiographically. We had two major complications, as 1 retroperitoneal hematoma and 1 spondylodiscitis, and one minor complication, as a superficial infection of the surgical wound.

Conclusions

The surgical treatment of degenerative disc disease at L5-S1 with minimally invasive technique Axialif showed good radiographic and clinical outcomes with an acceptable rate of complications. Moreover, shorter hospitalization and faster functional recovery are adding factors to choice this technique.

References

Schroeder GD, Kepler CK, Millhouse PW et al. L5/S1 Fusion Rates in Degenerative Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review Comparing ALIF, TLIF, and Axial Interbody Arthrodesis. Clinical Spine Surgery 2016; 29(4):150-155.

Selby MD, Clark SR, Hall DJ and Freeman BJC. Radiologic Assessment of Spinal Fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2012; 20(11):694-703.

Tuli SK, Chen P, Eichler ME, Woodard EJ. Reliability of Radiologic Assessment of Fusion: Cervical Fibular Allograft Model. Spine 2004; 29(8):856–860.

Kant AP, Daum WJ, Dean SM, Uchida T. Evaluation of lumbar spine fusion: plain radiographs versus direct surgical exploration and observation. Spine 1995; 20:2313–7.

Santos ERG, Goss DG, Morcom RK, Fraser RD. Radiologic Assessment of Interbody Fusion Using Carbon Fiber Cages. SPINE 2003; 28(10): 997–1001.

Farey ID, McAfee PC, Davis RF, Long DM. Pseudarthrosis of the cervical spine after anterior arthrodesis. Treatment by posterior nerve-root decompression, stabilization, and arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1990; 72:1171-77.

Blumenthal SL, Gill K. Can lumbar spine radiographs accurately determine fusion in postoperative patients? Correlation of routine radiographs with a second surgical look at lumbar fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993; 18(9):1186-9.

Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K. Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995; 20(12):1410-8.

Brodsky AE, Kovalsky ES, Khalil MA. Correlation of radiologic assessment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical exploration. Spine 1991; [Suppl] 16:261–265.

Newton PO, White KK, Faro F, Gaynor T. The success of thoracoscopic anterior fusion in a consecutive series of 112 pediatric spinal deformity cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005; 30(4):392-8.

Brantigan JW, Steffee AD. A carbon fibre implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine 1993; 18:2106–2117.

Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, Quinn LM, Persenaire JM. Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine 2000; 25:1437–1446.

Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, Brantigan JW. Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion. Spine J. 2008;8(4):570-7.

Ho JM, Ben-Galim PJ, Weiner BK, Karbach LE, Reitman CA, Heggeness MH, Hipp JA. Toward the establishment of optimal computed tomographic parameters for the assessment of lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2011; 11(7):636-40.

Carreon LY, Glassman SD, Schwender JD, Subach BR, Gornet MF, Ohno S. Reliability and accuracy of fine-cut computed tomography scans to determine the status of anterior interbody fusions with metallic cages. Spine J. 2008; 8(6):998-1002.

Biswas D, Bible JE, Bohan M, Simpson AK, Whang PG, Grauer JN. Radiation exposure from musculoskeletal computerized tomographic scans. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(8):1882-9.

Whang PG, Sasso RC, Patel VV, Ali RM, Fischgrund JS. Comparison of axial and anterior interbody fusions of the L5-S1 segment: a retrospective cohort analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 26(8):437-43.

Rajaraman V, Vingan R, Roth P, Heary RF, Conklin L, Jacobs GB. Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg. 1999;91(1 Suppl):60-4.

Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA, et al. 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. 2007;7(4):379–386.

Quraishi NA, Konig M, Booker SJ, et al. Access related complications in anterior lumbar surgery performed by spinal surgeons. Eur Spine J. 2013;22 Suppl 1:S16-20.

Xu DS, Walker CT, Godzik J, Turner JD, Smith W, Urib JS. Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Ann Transl Med. 2018; 6(6): 104.

Bhambhvani HP, Kasman AM, Zhang CA, Hu SS, Eisenberg ML. Delayed Ejaculation After Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Claims Database Analysis. Global Spine J. 2020 Oct 13:2192568220962435

Chrastil J, Patel AA. Complications associated with posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012; 20:283–291.

Wong AP, Smith ZA, Nixon AT. Intraoperative and perioperative complications in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 513 patients. J Neurosurg Spine. 2015;22(5):487–495.

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. 2015; 1(1): 2–18.

Gundanna MI, Miller LE, Block JE. Complications with axial presacral lumbar interbody fusion: A 5-year postmarketing surveillance experience. SAS Journal 2011; 5(3): 90–94.