Abstract
Introduction
Lumbar interbody fusion is a standard method to treat certain degenerative conditions that are refractory to conservative treatments. LLIF reduces posterior muscle damage, can relieve neurological symptoms through indirect decompression, provides increased stability with its wider cages, and promotes more significant segmental lordosis than standard posterior techniques. However, the technique possesses its issues, such as unusual positioning, possible plexus-related symptoms, and median segmental lordosis correction. Trying to ease those issues, the idea of a prone transpsoas technique occurred.
Methods
Retrospective, single-centric, comparative, and non-randomized study. The authors paired patients receiving lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) or prone transpsoas (PTP) to evaluate the technique’s impact on the segmental lordosis correction. A correlation test selected the covariates for the matching. p-Values inferior to 0.05 were deemed significant.
Results
Seventy-one patients were included in the analysis, 53 in the LLIF group and 18 in the PTP group. The significant covariates to the segmental lordosis correction were technique, preoperative segmental lordosis, cage position, and preoperative pelvic tilt. After the paring model, PTP showed significant segmental lordosis correction potential regarding the LLIF.
Conclusion
The prone transpsoas approach can significantly enhance the correction of segmental lordosis proportionated to the traditional LLIF approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Lumbar interbody fusion is a standard method to treat certain degenerative conditions that are refractory to conservative treatments. To improve surgery outcomes for this population, minimally invasive techniques have become popular, aiming to reduce the extent of surgery, amount of blood loss, length of hospitalization, and recovery time [1, 2].
Dr. Luiz Pimenta and collaborators initially described the lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in 2006, a technique that proved to be a safe and effective procedure to treat a vast range of lumbar disorders [2,3,4]. LLIF reduces posterior muscle damage, can relieve neurological symptoms through indirect decompression [5,6,7], provides increased stability with its wider cages [8], and promotes more significant segmental lordosis than standard posterior techniques [9, 10]. The LLIF also has limitations, such as minor segmental lordosis improvements and postoperative neurological deficits transitory in 90% of cases and the necessity to reposition the patient to the instrument posteriorly to perform direct decompression when needed [11, 12].
Trying to overcome issues traditional LLIF issues, in 2020, Dr. Pimenta and Dr. Taylor published the description of a novel approach to the LLIF, with the patient in a prone position [13]. The theoretical concept of this approach is that positioning the patient in a ventral fashion allows a single-position surgery, with optimal position to perform posterior maneuvers when needed [13, 14] while enhancing the patient’s lordosis with only table positioning [14, 15].
Therefore, this article aims to compare the correction of the segmental lordosis promoted by the traditional LLIF and the prone transpsoas technique (PTP).
Methods
This is a retrospective, single-centric, comparative, and non-randomized study. An IRB board approved the study, and all patients that had their data analyzed had prior fulfilled a free consent form.
Patient population and inclusion and exclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria are patients undergoing single-level prone transpsoas interbody fusion or lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery, with lateral profile X-ray at baseline and 6 months to 1-year follow-up, and with baseline computerized tomography, patients receiving surgery from one of the two senior surgeons of the clinic, and patients receiving cages with lordosis between 10 and 12°, with width between 22 and 26 mm.
The exclusion criteria were patients with low-quality X-rays that do not allow adequate measurements, and patients with subsidence > 25% at the follow-up (5 patients which composed 5% of the initially screened cohort), and patients with non-degenerative pathologies (Fig. 1).
Techniques
The prone transpsoas technique was performed according to the Pimenta et al., 2020 article [1]. The selected patients did not receive any osteotomy or anterior longitudinal ligament. All the patients received posterior instrumentation with percutaneous pedicle screws.
The lateral lumbar interbody fusion was performed according to the described in Ozgur et al., 2006 and Pimenta et al., 2018, articles [2, 3]. The selected patients did not receive any osteotomy or anterior longitudinal ligament. All the patients received posterior instrumentation with percutaneous pedicle screws.
The two senior surgeons of the institution performed both the LLIF and PTP cases.
Measured parameters and outcomes
Index level segmental lordosis (SL), both preoperative and postoperative, pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic version (PT), sacral slope (SS), lumbar lordosis (LL), the delta segmental lordosis (postop SL–preop SL), and the cage position over the vertebral body (see definition below).
The cage position was defined by the location of the center of the cage concerning the vertebral body. To perform the measurement, the size of the vertebral body was measured in millimeters, then the distance from the posterior margin of the vertebral to the posterior margin of the cage (posterior distance) and added to the half of the cage size to obtain the position of the center of the cage. Cage Position = Position of the Center of Cage/Vertebral Body Size (Fig. 2).
All parameters, except the cage position component variables (measured at computerized tomography), were measured in the lateral standing neutral orthostatic position profile X-ray. All postoperative x-rays were collected from the 6 to 12 months follow-up.
Propensity-score matching (PSM)
The authors divided the patients into two groups, PTP and LLIF. Then, a propensity-matched score analysis was used to match the patients according to specific covariates.
Correlation to derivate critical covariates
Variables with significant correlation with delta segmental lordosis composed the PSM model.
The matching model
The chosen methodology was the nearest neighbor method, where the pairing occurs with the closest neighbor of the other group [16, 17]. The PSM model used a 1:1 pairing ratio (PSM ratio 1:1). The standardized mean (SMD) and the Adjusted Variance (VR) values of the included covariates were used to assess the pairing efficacy. Covariates with SMD values above 0.10 or inferior to −0.10 or VR values higher than 0.2 or smaller than −0.2 are considered unbalanced [18, 19].
Treatment effects after the matching
The treatment effects will be assessed using variance tests to assess the difference in segmental lordosis among the groups.
Statistical analysis
The software R (CRAN, Vienna, Austria) [20] analyzed and described the data. The authors used the tidyverse package to tidy, organize and describe the data [21], and the FastDummies [22] package to perform the dummiezation of categorical variables included in the models. To evaluate the normality of the sample, the authors used the Shapiro–Wilk test and performed the test for variances among the groups, the Wilcox test. The authors used the MatchIt package [23] and the cobalt package [24] to realize the balance analysis to perform the propensity score match. p-Values equal or inferior to 0.05 were deemed as statistically significant.
Results
Seventy-one patient were included in the analysis, 53 in the LLIF group and 18 in the PTP group. The demographic data of the patients are given in Table 1.
Prior matching
The mean preoperative segmental lordosis (SL) in the LLIF group was 5.6° (± 4.2°), while in the PTP group, 6.8° (± 6°), p = 0.6. As for the cage position in both groups, of the majority, the patients had the cage positioned at the center of the vertebral body (57.7% vs. 57.4%, p = 0.8). Finally, the mean delta segmental lordosis of the LLIF group was 2.6° (4.5°) and 6.6° (6.5°) for the PTP group (p = 0.03) (Table 2). The effect of the PTP regarding the segmental lordosis correction was Large (r = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [0.04, 0.58]).
Correlation analysis and matching
After the correlation analysis, four parameters showed significance regarding the segmental lordosis correction: technique, preoperative segmental lumbar lordosis, cage position, and preoperative pelvic tilt.
The pairing occurred using the following covariates: preoperative segmental lordosis cage position, and preoperative pelvic tilt, while the technique divided the groups. The matching model followed a 1:1 ratio. The model respected the thresholds for balance stipulated in the methodology section.
After the matching
After the propensity-score matching, 36 patients composed the model, 18 in the LLIF group and 18 in the PTP group. The preoperative segmental lordosis of the LLIF group increased to 6.1° (± 5.1°), and as expected, the PTP group remained with the same value of 6.8° (± 6°), p = 0.83. Finally, after pairing, the segmental lordosis, correction of the LLIF group decreased to 1.9° (± 4.7°) while the PTP remained at 6.6° (± 5.5°) (p = 0.02) (Table 3). The effect of the PTP regarding the segmental lordosis correction was very large (r = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [0.06, 0.69]).
Discussion
Studies point out the need for manutention or the correction of the spinopelvic parameters, even in degenerative cases, to achieve successful surgery [25, 26]. Moreover, in cases of minor degeneration, studies show that segmental lordosis correction is paramount to avoiding pathologies such as adjacent level disease [27, 28]. The present study showed that the PTP allowed for significantly higher correction power for segmental lordosis correction when compared to the traditional lateral approach.
Parameters associated with segmental lordosis correction
Many factors play a significant role in restoring the segmental lordosis, with some researchers showing that cage geometry and position are critical factors in achieving good correction in segmental lordosis, such as cage angulation, cage position, and cage height [12, 29, 30]. Moreover, other studies show that one of the main drivers of segmental lordosis correction is preoperative segmental lordosis [31, 32]. Findings aligned with the present article findings that showed the cage position (cage position) and the preoperative segmental lordosis as significantly correlated to the segmental lordosis correction.
Segmental lordosis correction with LLIF and PTP
Studies showed the positive impacts of the LLIF technique in correcting segmental lordosis. Sembrano et al. reported on 35 patients who underwent LLIF at 54 levels. The authors reported that LLIF resulted in statistically significant increases in SL of 3.2°. Similarly, Walkins et al. reported sixty patients who underwent LLIF at 86 levels, showing that the LLIF increased SL by 2.2°. Furthermore, when comparing the gain of lordosis of the LLIF technique with other procedures, only the ALIF technique enables higher gains of segmental lordosis than the LLIF. Despite those excellent results, recent literature reviews showed that the LLIF segmental lordosis correction presents higher variability with gains of around 2° [33]. Like those found with the LLIF cohort of this study with a mean correction of 2.7° in segmental lordosis.
As for the PTP, one of the proposed advantages of the prone position is to allow a lordotic-friendly frame. A positive sign of these affirmations comes from a study published by Polina et al., 2021, showing that patients had a significant increase in segmental and lumbar lordosis when positioned in a prone frame compared to patients in lateral decubitus [14]. Moreover, Amaral et al. 2021 [15], in an MRI study, showed that patients positioned in prone decubitus had an increase in lumbar lordosis compared to themselves in lateral or dorsal decubitus. Finally, Pimenta et al., 2020 showed a mean increase of 6.1° segmental lordosis correction after performing the PTP technique [34].
Limitations
The main limitation of the work is the small sample size that does not allow a more robust pairing and limits the predictive power of the regression. The authors chose the variables that they considered more correlated to the segmental lordosis correction phenomenon to tackle this limitation. Another limitation was that the surgeries occurred at different periods. The authors performed the sample pairing based on significant predictors of the segmental lordosis correction to tackle this issue. Also, the surgeons for both the LLIF and PTP cases were the same.
Conclusion
The prone transpsoas approach can significantly enhance the correction of segmental lordosis proportioned to the traditional LLIF approach. This might help reduce even more the occurrence of pathologies such as adjacent level disease, which are commonly associated with insufficient lumbar lordosis correction.
Data availability
There are no associated data with this manuscript.
References
Xu DS, Walker CT, Godzik J, Turner JD, Smith W, Uribe JS (2018) Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Ann Transl Med 6:104–104
Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg (Hong Kong) 1:2–18
Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR (2006) Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:435–443
Goyal A, Kerezoudis P, Alvi MA, Goncalves S, Bydon M (2018) Outcomes following minimally invasive lateral transpsoas interbody fusion for degenerative low grade lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 167:122–128
Elowitz EH, Yanni DS, Chwajol M, Starke RM, Perin NI (2011) Evaluation of indirect decompression of the lumbar spinal canal following minimally invasive lateral transpsoas interbody fusion: radiographic and outcome analysis. Minim Invasive Neurosurg 54:201–206
Oliveira L, Marchi L, Coutinho E, Pimenta L (2010) A radiographic assessment of the ability of the extreme lateral interbody fusion procedure to indirectly decompress the neural elements. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022db0
Pereira EAC, Farwana M, Lam KS (2017) Extreme lateral interbody fusion relieves symptoms of spinal stenosis and low-grade spondylolisthesis by indirect decompression in complex patients. J Clin Neurosci 35:56–61
Pimenta L, Turner AWL, Dooley ZA, Parikh RD, Peterson MD (2012) Biomechanics of lateral interbody spacers: going wider for going stiffer. Sci World J 2012:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/381814
Saadeh YS, Joseph JR, Smith BW, Kirsch MJ, Sabbagh AM, Park P (2019) Comparison of segmental lordosis and global spinopelvic alignment after single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 126:e1374–e1378
Nakashima H, Kanemura T, Satake K, Ishikawa Y, Ouchida J, Segi N et al (2019) Comparative radiographic outcomes of lateral and posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative lumbar kyphosis. Asian Spine J 13:395–402. https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2018.0204
Salzmann SN, Shue J, Hughes AP (2017) Lateral lumbar interbody fusion—outcomes and complications. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 10:539–546
Sembrano JN, Horazdovsky RD, Sharma AK, Yson SC, Santos ERG, Polly DW (2017) Do lordotic cages provide better segmental lordosis versus nonlordotic cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF)? Clin Spine Surg 30:E338–E343
Pimenta L, Taylor WR, Stone LE, Wali AR, Santiago-Dieppa DR (2020) Prone transpsoas technique for simultaneous single position access to the anterior and posterior spine. Oper Neurosurg 20:E5–E12
Smith TG, Pollina J, Joseph SA, Howell KM (2021) Effects of surgical positioning on L4–5 accessibility and lumbar lordosis in lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of prone and lateral decubitus in asymptomatic adults. World Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.01.113
Amaral R, Daher MT, Pratali R, Arnoni D, Pokorny G, Rodrigues R et al (2021) The effect of patient position on psoas morphology and in lumbar lordosis. World Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.06.067
Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res 46:399–424
Qinyu Z, Tu G-W, Luo Z (2021) Propensity score matching with R: conventional methods and new features. Ann Transl Med. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-3998
Austin PC (2011) An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivar Behav Res 46:399–424
Rubin DB (2001) Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method 2:169–188
Bunn A, Korpela M (2013). Crossdating in dplR. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2008.01.002
Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R et al (2019) Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Softw 4:1686
Kaplan J (2020) Fast creation of dummy (binary) columns and rows from categorical variables [R package fastDummies version 1.6.3]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=fastDummies. Accessed 30 May 2021
Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA (2011) MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J Stat Softw 42:1–28
Greifer N (2021) Covariate balance tables and plots [R package cobalt version 4.3.1]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cobalt. Accessed 18 May 2021
Zachary T, Gurpeet G, Brian B, Nicolas K, Philip P, Yue-Fang C, David O, Adam K (2017) The influence of pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis mismatch on development of symptomatic adjacent level disease following single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 1:880–886
Rothenfluh DA, Mueller DA, Rothenfluh E, Min K (2015) Pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch predisposes to adjacent segment disease after lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 24:1251–1258
Tian H, Wu A, Guo M, Zhang K, Chen C, Li X et al (2018) Adequate restoration of disc height and segmental lordosis by lumbar interbody fusion decreases adjacent segment degeneration. World Neurosurg 118:e856–e864
Serratrice N, Gennari A, Yuh S-J, Sabah Y, Gavotto A, Paquis P et al (2021) Delta segmental lordosis is a prognostic radiological factor of good functional outcome after the implantation of a single-level prosthesis or a hybrid construct for lumbar disc degeneration. World Neurosurg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.06.005
Gambhir S, Wang T, Pelletier MH, Walsh WR, Ball JR (2019) How does cage lordosis influence postoperative segmental lordosis in lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 126:e606–e611
Park SJ, Lee CS, Chung SS, Kang SS, Park HJ, Kim SH (2017) The ideal cage position for achieving both indirect neural decompression and segmental angle restoration in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Clin Spine Surg 30:E784–E790
Kepler CK, Huang RC, Sharma AK, Meredith DS, Metitiri O, Sama AA et al (2012) Factors influencing segmental lumbar lordosis after lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. Orthop Surg 4:71–75
Otsuki B, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Kimura H, Shimizu T, Murata K et al (2020) Analysis of the factors affecting lumbar segmental lordosis after lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 45:E839–E846
Rothrock RJ, McNeill IT, Yaeger K, Oermann EK, Cho SK, Caridi JM (2018) Lumbar lordosis correction with interbody fusion: systematic literature review and analysis. World Neurosurg 118:21–31
Pimenta L, Amaral R, Taylor W, Tomeh A, Pokorny G, Rodrigues R et al (2020) The prone transpsoas technique: preliminary radiographic results of a multicenter experience. Eur Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06471-y
Funding
There was no funding for this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
GH, RA, RM, FM and LP were involved in the conceptualization of the study. GH, RM, JM were involved into the writing of the manuscript and dta curation. DA, RA, IB were involved in the investigation part of the study. GH were responsible for the formal analysis and data visualization. GH, DA, RM, FM and RA were involved in the methodology section of the study.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Dr. Luiz Pimenta receives consultant fees from Alphatec; Dr. Rodrigo Amaral receives consultant fees from Alphatec, Nuvasive, and Astrolab. The other authors have no conflicts to disclose.
Ethical approval
The ethics committee approved the research.
Informed consent
All patients fulfilled a informed consent regarding have their data collected to the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Amaral, R., Moriguchi, R., Pokorny, G. et al. Comparison of segmental lordosis gain of prone transpsoas (PTP) vs. lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 5485–5490 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04821-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04821-1