| Abstrakt: |
Background: Over the past decade, the minimally disruptive lateral transpsoas approach for lumbar interbody fusion (MI-LIF) is increasingly being used as an alternative to conventional surgical approaches. The purpose of this review was to evaluate four primary questions as they relate to MI-LIF: (1) Is there an anatomical justification for MI-LIF at L4-5? (2) What are the complication and outcome profiles of MI-LIF and are they acceptable with respect to conventional approaches? (3) Given technical and neuromonitoring differences between various MI-LIF procedures, are there any published clinical differences? And, (4) are modern minimally disruptive procedures (e.g., MI-LIF) economically viable?Methods: Through a MEDLINE and Google Scholar search, a total of 237 articles that discussed MI-LIF were identified. Of those, topical areas included anatomy (22), biomechanics/testing (17), technical descriptions (11), case reports (40), complications (30), clinical and radiographic outcomes (43), deformity (23), trauma or thoracic applications (10), and review articles (41).Results: In answer to the questions posed, (1) there is a high strength of evidence showing MI-LIF to be anatomically justified at all levels of the lumbar spine from L1-2 to L4-5. The evidence also supports the use of advanced neuromonitoring modalities. (2) There is moderate strength evidence in support of reproducible and reasonable complication, side effect, and outcome profiles following MI-LIF which may be technique dependent. (3) There is low-strength evidence that shows elevated neural complication rates in non-traditional (e.g., shallow-docking approaches and/or those without specialized neuromonitoring) MI-LIF, and (4) there is low- to moderate-strength evidence that modern minimally disruptive surgical approaches are cost-effective.Conclusions: There is considerable published evidence to support MI-LIF in spinal fusion and advanced applications, though the results of some reports, especially concerning complications, vary greatly depending on technique and instrumentation used. Additional cost-effectiveness analyses would assist in fully understanding the long-term implications of MI-LIF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Full text from SpringerLink