Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Fifty-six consecutive patients with spondylolisthesis, lumbar instability, or failed back syndrome were treated with ALIF between 1991 and 2001. The patients were retrospectively evaluated and divided in two groups: Group 1, consisting 33 patients, was treated with ALIF using the conventional retroperitoneal approach, and Group 2, consisting of 23 patients, was operated with the minimally invasive muscle-splitting approach for ALIF. The groups were comparable as regards age, indication of fusion, and diagnosis. All patients in both groups had fusion with autologous iliac crest grafts and posterior instrumentation with posterolateral fusion in the same sitting. Clinical evaluation was done by two questionnaires: the North American Spine Society (NASS) Lumbar Spine Outcome Assessment Instrument and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). Fusion rate was evaluated radiologically. Mean clinical follow-up was 5.5 years. There was no statistical difference in the occurrence of complications with both approaches nor with the fusion rates of 92% in group 1 and 84% in group 2 respectively. The minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for ALIF was associated with significantly less intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and length of the skin incision. In addition, this approach showed significant improvement in postoperative back pain in comparison to the conventional approach for ALIF.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albee FH (1911) Transplantation of a portion of the tibia into the spine for Pott’s disease. JAMA 57:885

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andersson BJ (1995) Epidemiology. In: Weinstein JN, Rydevik BL, Sonntag VH (eds) Essentials of the spine. Raven, New York, pp 1–10

  3. Barnes B, Rodts GE, McLaughlin MR, Haid RW Jr (2001) Threaded cortical bone dowels for lumbar interbody fusion: over 1-year mean follow up in 28 patients. J Neurosurg 95(1):1–4

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Capener N (1932) Spondylolisthesis. Br J Surg 19:374–386

    Google Scholar 

  5. Castro FP, Hartz RS, Frigon V, Whitecloud TS (2000) Aortic thrombosis after lumbar spine surgery. J Spinal Disord 13:538–540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chan FL, Chow SP (1983) Retroperitoneal fibrosis after anterior spinal fusion. Clin Radiol 34:331–335

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Christensen FB, Bunger CE (1997) Retrograde ejaculation after retroperitoneal lower lumbar interbody fusion. Int Orthop 21:176–180

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH (1996) The North American Spine Society (NASS) Lumbar Spine Outcome Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 21:741–749

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. DeWald CJ, Millikan KW, Hammerberg KW, Doolas A, DeWald RL (1999) An open, minimally invasive approach to the lumbar spine. Am Surg 65:61–68

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Flynn JC, Hoque MA (1979) Anterior fusion of the lumbar spine. End-result study with long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61:1143–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fraser RD (1982) A wide muscle-splitting approach to the lumbosacral spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 64:44–46

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fujimaki A, Crock HV, Bedbrook GM (1982) The results of 150 anterior lumbar interbody fusion operations performed by two surgeons in Australia. Clin Orthop 165:164–167

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grob D, Scheier HJ, Dvorak J, Siegrist H, Rubeli M, Joller R (1991) Circumferential fusions of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 111:20–25

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hacker RJ (1997) Comparison of interbody fusion approaches for disabling low back pain. Spine 22:660–666

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Harmon PH (1960) Anterior extraperitoneal lumbar disc excision and vertebral body fusion. Clin Orthop 18:169–173

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Backett EM, Williams J et al (1980) A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health 34:281–286

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ishihara H, Osada R, Kanamori M, Kawaguchi Y, Ohmori K et al (2001) Minimum 10-year follow-up study of anterior lumbar interbody fusion for isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord 14(2):91–99

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaiser MG, Haid RW Jr., Subach BR, Miller JS, Smith CD et al (2002) Comparison of the mini-open versus laparoscopic approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective review. Neurosurgery 51(1):97–103

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kohlmann T, Bullinger M, Kirchberger-Blumstein I (1997) Die deutsche Version des Nottingham Health Profile (NHP): Übersetzungsmethodik und psychometrische Validierung. Soz Praventivmed 42:175–185

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kozak JA, O’Brien JP (1990) Simultaneous combined anterior and posterior fusion: an independent analysis of a treatment for the disabled low-back pain patient. Spine 15:322–328

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kulkarni SS, Lowery GL, Ross RE, Ravi-Sankar K, Lykomitros V (2003) Arterial complications following anterior lumbar interbody fusion: report of eight cases. Eur Spine J 12(1):48–54

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Le Huec JC, Liu M, Skalli W, Josse L (2002) Lumbar lateral interbody cage with plate augmentation: in vitro biomechanical analysis. Eur Spine J 11(2):130–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Linson MA, Williams H (1991) Anterior and combined anteroposterior fusion for lumbar disc pain. A preliminary study. Spine 16:143–145

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mayer HM (1997) A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 22:691–700

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. O’Brien JP, Dawson MHO, Heard CW, Momberger G, Weatherley CR (1986) Simultaneous combined anterior and posterior fusion: a surgical solution for failed spinal surgery with a brief review of the first 150 patients. Clin Orthop 203:191–195

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ogon M, Maurer H, Wimmer C, Landauer F, Sterzinger W et al (1997) Minimally invasive approach and surgical procedure in the lumbar spine. Orthopäde 26:553–561

    Google Scholar 

  27. Penta M, Fraser RD (1997) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion. A minimum 10-year follow-up. Spine 22:2429–2434

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pose B, Sangha O, Peters A, Wildner M (1999) Validierung des North American Spine Society Instruments zur Erfassung des Gesundheitsstatus bei Patienten mit chronischen Rückenbeschwerden. Z Orthop 137:437–41

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rajaraman V, Vingan R, Roth P, Heary RF, Conklin L et al (1999) Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg 91:60–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rajaraman V, Heary RF, Livingston DH (2000) Acute pancreatitis complicating anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 9:171–173

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Raskas DS, Delamarter RB (1997) Occlusion of the left iliac artery after retroperitoneal exposure of the spine. Clin Orthop 338:86–89

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Regan JJ, Yuan H, McAfee PC (1999) Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine: minimally invasive spine surgery. A prospective multicenter study evaluating open and laparoscopic lumbar fusion. Spine. 24:402–411

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sasso RC, Burkus KJ, Le Huec JC (2003) Retrograde ejaculation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Transperitoneal versus Retroperoitoneal Exposure. Spine 28(10):1023–1026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Seelig W, Nidecker A (1989) Pain following operations of the lumbar of the lumbar spine. The ‘‘failed back surgery syndrome’’. Z Orthop 127:346–353

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Slosar PJ, Reynolds JB, Schofferman J, Goldthwaite N, White AH et al (2000) Patient satisfaction after circumferential lumbar fusion. Spine 25:722–726

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Stauffer RN, Coventry MB (1972) Anterior interbody lumbar spine fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 54:756–768

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Takahashi K, Kitahara H, Yamagata M, Murakami M, Takata K et al (1990) Long-term results of anterior interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 15:1211–15

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wimmer C, Krismer M, Gluch H, Sterzinger W, Ogon M (1997) Advantages and disadvantages of retro- and transperitoneal approach for fusion of the presacral intervertebral disk. Orthopade 26:563–567

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zdeblick TA, David SM (2000) A Prospective Comparison of Surgical Approach for Anterior L4-L5 Fusion. Laparoscopic versus Mini Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Spine 25:2682–2687

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Zucherman JD, Zdeblick TA, Bailey SA, Mahvi D, Hsu KY et al (1995) Instrumented laparoscopic spinal fusion: Preliminary results. Spine 2:2029–2035

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. Saraph.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Saraph, V., Lerch, C., Walochnik, N. et al. Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 13, 425–431 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0722-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-004-0722-4

Keywords

Navigation