Clinical and radiographic outcomes with L4–S1 axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) and posterior instrumentation: a multicenter study

William D Tobler,1 Miguel A Melgar,2 Thomas J Raley,3 Neel Anand,4 Larry E Miller,5 Richard J Nasca6 1Department of Neurosurgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Mayfield Clinic, and The Christ Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 2Department of Neurosurgery, Tulane University, New Orleans,...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tobler WD, Melgar MA, Raley TJ, An, N, Miller LE, Nasca RJ
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/b32c7659d0434d68bfe7a537ce7a0ae5
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
Descripción
Sumario:William D Tobler,1 Miguel A Melgar,2 Thomas J Raley,3 Neel Anand,4 Larry E Miller,5 Richard J Nasca6 1Department of Neurosurgery, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Mayfield Clinic, and The Christ Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 2Department of Neurosurgery, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA; 3Advanced Spine and Pain, Arlington, VA, USA; 4Spine Trauma, Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Spine Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 5Miller Scientific Consulting, Inc, Arden, NC, USA; 6Orthopaedic and Spine Surgery, Wilmington, NC, USA Introduction: Previous studies have confirmed the benefits and limitations of the presacral retroperitoneal approach for L5&ndash;S1 interbody fusion. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of the minimally invasive axial lumbar interbody approach (AxiaLIF) for L4&ndash;S1 fusion. Methods: In this retrospective series, 52 patients from four clinical sites underwent L4&ndash;S1 interbody fusion with the AxiaLIF two-level system with minimum 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up (range: 24&ndash;51 months). Outcomes included back pain severity (on a 10-point scale), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Odom&#39;s criteria. Flexion and extension radiographs, as well as computed tomography scans, were evaluated to determine fusion status. Longitudinal outcomes were assessed with repeated measures analysis of variance. Results: Mean subject age was 52 &plusmn; 11 years and the male:female ratio was 1:1. Patients sustained no intraoperative bowel or vascular injury, deep infection, or neurologic complication. Median procedural blood loss was 220 cc and median length of hospital stay was 3 days. At 2-year follow-up, mean back pain had improved 56%, from 7.7 &plusmn; 1.6 at baseline to 3.4 &plusmn; 2.7 (P < 0.001). Back pain clinical success (ie, &ge;30% improvement from baseline) was achieved in 39 (75%) patients at 2 years. Mean ODI scores improved 42%, from 60% &plusmn; 16% at baseline to 35% &plusmn; 27% at 2 years (P < 0.001). ODI clinical success (ie, &ge;30% improvement from baseline) was achieved in 26 (50%) patients. At final follow-up, 45 (87%) patients were rated as good or excellent, five as fair, and two as poor by Odom&#39;s criteria. Interbody fusion observed on imaging was achieved in 97 (93%) of 104 treated interspaces. During follow-up, five patients underwent reoperation on the lumbar spine, including facet screw removal (two), laminectomy (two), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (one). Conclusion: The AxiaLIF two-level device is a safe, effective treatment adjunct for patients with L4&ndash;S1 disc pathology resistant to conservative treatments. Keywords: AxiaLIF, axial presacral fusion, interbody, outcomes, two-level fusion