Full Percutaneous Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note

Abstract

Introduction Although lumbar interbody fusion is effective for low back pain caused by severe disk degeneration, it is a highly invasive procedure. Less invasive procedures such as transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and lumbar lateral interbody fusion have become available; however, there is still scope for improvement. We performed full percutaneous endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (PELIF), a technique designed as a safe and less invasive percutaneous fusion.

Method and Subjects Our technique is indicated for patients with chronic low back pain in whom conservative treatment was not effective, thinning of the intervertebral disk was prominent, and temporary pain relief was achieved with a disk block. In the operation, percutaneous endoscopic diskectomy was performed with a 7.5-mm sheath inserted through a small incision, and a cage was inserted percutaneously using an L-shaped retractor. Instead of pedicle screw fixation, hybrid facet screw fixation was performed. Low back pain was improved, and bone union was confirmed on radiography. This technique was used in six patients, and no surgery-related complications occurred.

Discussion The L-shaped retractor used in this series can protect the exiting nerve by inserting it into the sheath, then removing the sheath and placing the rounded corner of the retractor on the lateral cranial side. This technique is safe with no other associated risks. Cages larger than the sheath can be inserted, and commercially available cages for TLIF are applicable. Hybrid facet screw fixation can overcome the problems associated with both conventional transfacet pedicle screw fixation and translaminar facet screw fixation by combining these two procedures.

Conclusion PELIF is an easy, safe, and fully percutaneous technique with very low invasiveness that uses an L-shaped retractor and hybrid facet screw fixation. This procedure can be a treatment option for patients with severe low back pain related to disk degeneration.

Keywords

interbody fusion - percutaneous endoscope - facet screw

• References

• 1 Ohtori S, Koshi T, Yamashita M. , et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of selected patients with discogenic low back pain: a small-sized randomized trial. Spine 2011; 36 (05) 347-354
• 2 Ohtori S, Kinoshita T, Yamashita M. , et al. Results of surgery for discogenic low back pain: a randomized study using discography versus discoblock for diagnosis. Spine 2009; 34 (13) 1345-1348
• 3 Ohtori S, Orita S, Yamauchi K. , et al. Do physical symptoms predict the outcome of surgical fusion in patients with discogenic low back pain?. Asian Spine J 2016; 10 (03) 509-515
• 4 Punt IM, Visser VM, van Rhijn LW. , et al. Complications and reoperations of the SB Charité lumbar disc prosthesis: experience in 75 patients. Eur Spine J 2008; 17 (01) 36-43
• 5 Shim CS, Lee SH, Shin HD. , et al. CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine 2007; 32 (09) 1012-1018
• 6 Putzier M, Funk JF, Schneider SV. , et al. Charité total disc replacement—clinical and radiographical results after an average follow-up of 17 years. Eur Spine J 2006; 15 (02) 183-195
• 7 Patel AA, Zfass-Mendez M, Lebwohl NH. , et al. Minimally invasive versus open lumbar fusion: a comparison of blood loss, surgical complications, and hospital course. Iowa Orthop J 2015; 35: 130-134
• 8 Putzier M, Hartwig T, Hoff EK, Streitparth F, Strube P. Minimally invasive TLIF leads to increased muscle sparing of the multifidus muscle but not the longissimus muscle compared with conventional PLIF—a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine J 2016; 16 (07) 811-819
• 9 Youssef JA, McAfee PC, Patty CA. , et al. Minimally invasive surgery: lateral approach interbody fusion: results and review. Spine 2010; 35 (26, Suppl): S302-S311
• 10 Taher F, Hughes AP, Lebl DR. , et al. Contralateral motor deficits after lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2013; 38 (22) 1959-1963
• 11 Lykissas MG, Aichmair A, Hughes AP. , et al. Nerve injury after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 919 treated levels with identification of risk factors. Spine J 2014; 14 (05) 749-758
• 12 Aichmair A, Fantini GA, Garvin S, Beckman J, Girardi FP. Aortic perforation during lateral lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28 (02) 71-75
• 13 Takata Y, Sakai T, Tezuka F. , et al. Risk assessment of lumbar segmental artery injury during lateral transpsoas approach in the patients with lumbar scoliosis. Spine 2016; 41 (10) 880-884
• 14 Abbasi H, Abbasi A. Oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLLIF): Technical notes and early results of a single surgeon comparative study. Cureus 2015; 7 (10) e351
• 15 Katzell J. Endoscopic foraminal decompression preceding oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion to decrease the incidence of post operative dysaesthesia. Int J Spine Surg 2014; 8 DOI: 10.14444/1019.
• 16 Ferrara LA, Secor JL, Jin BH, Wakefield A, Inceoglu S, Benzel EC. A biomechanical comparison of facet screw fixation and pedicle screw fixation: effects of short-term and long-term repetitive cycling. Spine 2003; 28 (12) 1226-1234
• 17 Mahar A, Kim C, Oka R. , et al. Biomechanical comparison of a novel percutaneous transfacet device and a traditional posterior system for single level fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 2006; 19 (08) 591-594
• 18 Hou Y, Shen Y, Liu Z, Nie Z. Which posterior instrumentation is better for two-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion: translaminar facet screw or pedicle screw?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133 (01) 37-42
• 19 Beaubien BP, Mehbod AA, Kallemeier PM. , et al. Posterior augmentation of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive fixation versus pedicle screws in vitro. Spine 2004; 29 (19) E406-E412