Direct lateral approach to lumbar fusion is a biomechanically equivalent alternative to the anterior approach: An in vitro study

Spine

Volumn 37, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 819-825

  Laws, Cory J ^a   Coughlin, Dezba G ^a   Lotz, Jeffrey C ^a   Serhan, Hassan A ^b   Hu, Serena S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Synthes Technical Center   (United States)

Author keywords

anterior lumbar interbody fusion; biomechanics; direct lateral interbody fusion; extreme lateral interbody fusion; kinematics; pedicle screws; plate

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANTERIOR SPINE FUSION; ARTICLE; CADAVER; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INVASIVE PROCEDURE; KINEMATICS; LUMBAR SPINE; LUMBOSACRAL SPINE; MALE; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PEDICLE SCREW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; RIGIDITY; ROTATION; SPINE MOBILITY; SURGICAL APPROACH; TORQUE;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOMECHANICS; CADAVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNAL FIXATORS; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; SPINAL FUSION; SURGICAL PROCEDURES, MINIMALLY INVASIVE;

EID: 84860834473     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823551aa     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Chastain CA, Eck JC, Hodges SD, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study of long-term pain relief and fusion outcomes. Orthopedics 2007; 30: 389-92. (Pubitemid 46860775)
2. Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J 2005; 14: 551-8. (Pubitemid 41159462)
3. Gill K, Blumenthal SL. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. A 2-year follow-up of 238 patients. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 1993; 251: 108-10. (Pubitemid 23098144)
4. Okuda S, Oda T, Miyauchi A, et al. Surgical outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 2714-20. (Pubitemid 44901959)
5. Ishihara H, Osada R, Kanamori M, et al. Minimum 10-year follow-up study of anterior lumbar interbody fusion for isthmic spondylo-listhesis. J Spinal Disord 2001; 14: 91-9. (Pubitemid 32274097)
6. Oppenheimer JH, DeCastro I, McDonnell DE. Minimally invasive spine technology and minimally invasive spine surgery: a historical review. Neurosurg Focus 2009; 27: E9.
7. Takahashi K, Kitahara H, Yamagata M, et al. Long-term results of anterior interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative spondylolis-thesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990; 15: 1211-5.
8. Tiusanen H, Seitsalo S, Osterman K, et al. Retrograde ejaculation after anterior interbody lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 1995; 4: 339-42.
9. Brau SA. Mini-open approach to the spine for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: description of the procedure, results and complications. Spine J 2002; 2: 216-23.
10. Okuda S, Miyauchi A, Oda T, et al. Surgical complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with total facetectomy in 251 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 4: 304-9. (Pubitemid 47325460)
11. Regan JJ, McAfee PC, Guyer RD, et al. Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine in a multicenter series of the first 34 consecutive patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1996; 6: 459-68.
12. German JW, Adamo MA, Hoppenot RG, et al. Perioperative results following lumbar discectomy: comparison of minimally invasive discectomy and standard microdiscectomy. Neurosurg Focus 2008; 25: E20.
13. Ryang YM, Oertel MF, Mayfrank L, et al. Standard open micro-discectomy versus minimal access trocar microdiscectomy: results of a prospective randomized study. Neurosurgery 2008; 62: 174-81; discussion 81-2. (Pubitemid 351640316)
14. Wiltse LL, Spencer CW. New uses and refinements of the paraspi-nal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988; 13: 696-706.
15. Pimenta L, Diaz RC, Guerrero LG. CHARITÉ lumbar artificial disc retrieval: use of a lateral minimally invasive technique. Technical note. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 5: 556-61. (Pubitemid 47325346)
16. Benglis DM, Vanni S, Levi AD. An anatomical study of the lum-bosacral plexus as related to the minimally invasive transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 10: 139-44.
17. Knight RQ, Schwaegler P, Hanscom D, et al. Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative conditions: early complication profile. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22: 34-7.
18. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, et al. Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar inter-body fusion. Spine J 2006; 6: 435-43. (Pubitemid 43964530)
19. Heth JA, Hitchon PW, Goel VK, et al. A biomechanical comparison between anterior and transverse interbody fusion cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: E261-7.
20. Aryan HE, Lu DC, Acosta FLJr, et al. Stand-alone anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion with plate: initial experience. Surg Neurol 2007; 68: 7-13; discussion 13. (Pubitemid 46935306)
21. Freudenberger C, Lindley EM, Beard DW, et al. Posterior versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion with anterior tension band plating: retrospective analysis. Orthopedics 2009; 32: 492.
22. Eguizabal J, Tufaga M, Scheer JK, et al. Pure moment testing for spinal biomechanics applications: fixed versus sliding ring cable-driven test designs. J Biomech 2010; 43: 1422-5.
23. Panjabi MM. Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices: I. A conceptual framework. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1988; 13: 1129-34.
24. Asazuma T, Stokes IA, Moreland MS, et al. Intersegmental spinal flexibility with lumbosacral instrumentation. An in vitro biome-chanical investigation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1990; 15: 1153-8.
25. Ashman RB, Bechtold JE, Edwards WT, et al. In vitro spinal arthrodesis implant mechanical testing protocols. J Spinal Disord 1989; 2: 274-81. (Pubitemid 20049816)
26. Crawford NR, Brantley AG, Dickman CA, et al. An apparatus for applying pure nonconstraining moments to spine segments in vitro. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995; 20: 2097-100.
27. Goel VK, Panjabi MM, Patwardhan AG, et al. Test protocols for evaluation of spinal implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (suppl 2): 103-9.
28. Wilke HJ, Wenger K, Claes L. Testing criteria for spinal implants: recommendations for the standardization of in vitro stability testing of spinal implants. Eur Spine J 1998; 7: 148-54. (Pubitemid 28223601)
29. Burton D, McIff T, Fox T, et al. Biomechanical analysis of posterior fixation techniques in a 360 degrees arthrodesis model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 2765-71. (Pubitemid 43011037)
30. Gerber M, Crawford NR, Chamberlain RH, et al. Biomechanical assessment of anterior lumbar interbody fusion with an anterior lumbosacral fixation screw-plate: comparison to stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion and anterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in an unstable human cadaver model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006; 31: 762-8.
31. Glazer PA, Colliou O, Lotz JC, et al. Biomechanical analysis of lum-bosacral fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996; 21: 1211-22.
32. Panjabi MM, Oxland TR, Yamamoto I, et al. Mechanical behavior of the human lumbar and lumbosacral spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1994; 76: 413-24. (Pubitemid 24138935)
33. Goel VK, Goyal S, Clark C, et al. Kinematics of the whole lumbar spine. Effect of discectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1985; 10: 543-54.
34. Abumi K, Panjabi MM, Duranceau J. Biomechanical evaluation of spinal fixation devices. Part III. Stability provided by six spinal fixation devices and interbody bone graft. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989; 14: 1249-55. (Pubitemid 20036750)
35. Ordway NR, Zhao J, Serhan HA, et al. Effect of cage orientation and posterior instrumentation on the initial stability of the bovine lumbar spine following interbody fusion [Abstract]. Paper presented at: the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Study of the Lumbar Spine; June 6, 1997; Singapore.
36. Lund T, Oxland TR, Jost B, et al. Interbody cage stabilisation in the lumbar spine: biomechanical evaluation of cage design, posterior instrumentation and bone density. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80: 351-9. (Pubitemid 128472109)
37. Schmidt H, Midderhoff S, Adkins K, et al. The effect of different design concepts in lumbar total disc arthroplasty on the range of motion, facet joint forces and instantaneous center of rotation of a L4-5 segment. Eur Spine J 2009; 18: 1695-705.
38. Nichols TA, Yantzer BK, Alameda S, et al. Augmentation of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion with an anterior plate or pedicle screw fixation: a comparative biomechanical in vitro study. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 6: 267-71. (Pubitemid 47066079)
39. Rousseau MA, Bradford DS, Hadi TM, et al. The instant axis of rotation influences facet forces at L5/S1 during flexion/extension and lateral bending. Eur Spine J 2006; 15: 299-307. (Pubitemid 43327663)
40. Panjabi MM. The stabilizing system of the spine. Part II. Neutral zone and instability hypothesis. J Spinal Disord 1992; 5: 390-6; discussion 7.
41. Oxland TR, Hoffer Z, Nydegger T, et al. A comparative biome-chanical investigation of anterior lumbar interbody cages: central and bilateral approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82: 383-93. (Pubitemid 30140338)
42. Johnson WM, Nichols TA, Jethwani D, et al. In vitro biomechani-cal comparison of an anterior and anterolateral lumbar plate with posterior fixation following single-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007; 7: 332-5. (Pubitemid 47480460)
43. Wang ST, Goel VK, Fu CY, et al. Posterior instrumentation reduces differences in spine stability as a result of different cage orientations: an in vitro study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005; 30: 62-7. (Pubitemid 40209279)
44. Panjabi M, Abumi K, Duranceau J, et al. Spinal stability and inter-segmental muscle forces. A biomechanical model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989; 14: 194-200. (Pubitemid 19059689)