J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2017; 78(05): 507-512
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1599226
Technical Note
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Extraforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion at the L5–S1 Level: Technical Considerations and Feasibility

Arthur Robert Kurzbuch
1   Neurochirurgie, Groupe Hospitalier du Havre, Le Havre, France
,
Denis Kaech
2   Department of Neurosurgery, Kantonsspital Graubunden, Chur, GR, Switzerland
,
Pawel Baranowski
3   Konstancin Mazowieckie Centrum - Rehabilitajci Stocer Sp. Zo.o, Konstancin-Jezornia, Poland
,
Alicja Baranowska
3   Konstancin Mazowieckie Centrum - Rehabilitajci Stocer Sp. Zo.o, Konstancin-Jezornia, Poland
,
Didier Recoules-Arche
1   Neurochirurgie, Groupe Hospitalier du Havre, Le Havre, France
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

06 September 2016

20 December 2016

Publication Date:
16 March 2017 (online)

Abstract

Background Extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF) surgery is a muscle-sparing approach that allows the treatment of various degenerative spinal diseases. It is technical challenging to perform the ELIF approach at the L5–S1 level because the sacral ala obstructs the view of the intervertebral disk space.

Methods We reported earlier on the ELIF technique in which the intervertebral disk is targeted at an angle of 45 degrees relative to the midline. In this article we describe the technical process we developed to overcome the anatomic relation between the sacral ala and the intervertebral disk space L5–S1 that hinders the ELIF approach at this level. We then report in a retrospective analysis on the short-term clinical and radiologic outcome of 100 consecutive patients with degenerative L5–S1 pathologies who underwent ELIF surgery.

Results The L5–S1 ELIF approach could be realized in all patients. The short-term clinical outcome was evaluated 5 months after surgery: 92% of the patients were satisfied with their postoperative result; 8% had a poor result. Overall, 17% of the patients presented light radicular or low back pain not influencing their daily activity, and 82% of the patients working before surgery returned to work 3 to 7 months after surgery. The radiologic outcome was documented by computed tomography at 5 months after surgery and showed fusion in 99% of the patients. Lumbar magnetic resonance imaging performed in 5 patients at 6 months after surgery revealed the integrity of the paraspinal muscles.

Conclusions ELIF surgery at the L5–S1 level is technically feasible for various degenerative spinal diseases. Analysis of the clinical and radiologic data in a consecutive retrospective cohort of patients who underwent this surgical procedure showed a good short-term clinical outcome and fusion rate.

 
  • References

  • 1 Recoules-Arche D. Surgery of disk hernia of the lumbar vertebral canal [in French]. Neurochirurgie 1985; 31 (01) 61-64
  • 2 Recoules-Arche D. Greffe lombaire intersomatique par voie extraforaminale. Rachis 2000; 12 (04) 345-348
  • 3 Kurzbuch AR, Recoules-Arche D. Epidural fibrosis seen from a different angle: extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2016; DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1584827.
  • 4 Recoules-Arche D, Druschel C, Fayada P, Vinikoff L, Disch AC. Unilateral extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF): surgical technique and clinical outcome in 107 patients. Clin Spine Surg 2016; 29 (03) E162-E170
  • 5 Recoules-Arche D, Alcaix D. Extra-foraminal lumbar interbody fusion (ELIF), 30 degenerative lumbar dislocations, 1#x2009;year follow-up. Rachis 2004; 16 (03) 197-204
  • 6 Recoules-Arche D, Somon TH, Kaech DL. ELIF through a muscle sparing unilateral approach: biological and radiological follow-up. EJOST 2014; (special issue January): 50-53
  • 7 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 (01) 2-18
  • 8 Wiltse LL, Spencer CW. New uses and refinements of the paraspinal approach to the lumbar spine. Spine 1988; 13 (06) 696-706
  • 9 Baek OK, Lee SH. Extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009; 22 (03) 219-227
  • 10 Phillips FM, Cunningham B. Intertransverse lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2002; 27 (02) E37-E41
  • 11 Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F, Zhao X, Huang Y, Fang X. Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 2010; 19 (02) 316-324
  • 12 Fan SW, Hu ZJ, Fang XQ, Zhao FD, Huang Y, Yu HJ. Comparison of paraspinal muscle injury in one-level lumbar posterior inter-body fusion: modified minimally invasive and traditional open approaches. Orthop Surg 2010; 2 (03) 194-200
  • 13 Kim K, Isu T, Sugawara A, Matsumoto R, Isobe M. Comparison of the effect of 3 different approaches to the lumbar spinal canal on postoperative paraspinal muscle damage. Surg Neurol 2008; 69 (02) 109-113 ; discussion 113
  • 14 Görgülü A, Simşek O, Cobanoğlu S, Imer M, Parsak T. The effect of epidural free fat graft on the outcome of lumbar disc surgery. Neurosurg Rev 2004; 27 (03) 181-184
  • 15 Rönnberg K, Lind B, Zoega B. , et al. Peridural scar and its relation to clinical outcome: a randomised study on surgically treated lumbar disc herniation patients. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (12) 1714-1720
  • 16 Almeida DB, Prandini MN, Awamura Y. , et al. Outcome following lumbar disc surgery: the role of fibrosis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2008; 150 (11) 1167-1176
  • 17 Annertz M, Jönsson B, Strömqvist B, Holtås S. No relationship between epidural fibrosis and sciatica in the lumbar postdiscectomy syndrome. A study with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Spine 1995; 20 (04) 449-453
  • 18 Aydin Y, Ziyal IM, Duman H, Türkmen CS, Başak M, Sahin Y. Clinical and radiological results of lumbar microdiskectomy technique with preserving of ligamentum flavum comparing to the standard microdiskectomy technique. Surg Neurol 2002; 57 (01) 5-13 ; discussion 13–14
  • 19 Malter AD, McNeney B, Loeser JD, Deyo RA. 5-year reoperation rates after different types of lumbar spine surgery. Spine 1998; 23 (07) 814-820