• Spine · Mar 1997

    A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

    • H M Mayer.
    • Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Freie Universität Berlin, Oskar-Helene-Heim, Germany.
    • Spine. 1997 Mar 15;22(6):691-9; discussion 700.

    Study DesignA series of patients were prospectively studied to determine the morbidity and possible complications of minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion by two new microsurgical approaches (retroperitoneal for segments L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5, and transperitoneal for L5-S1).ObjectivesTo investigate the feasibility of performing an anterior lumbar interbody fusion through a 4-cm skin incision and a standardized muscle-splitting approach.Summary Of Background DataThe utility of anterior lumbar interbody fusion with or without posterior instrumentation for the treatment of various degenerative or postoperative lesions associated with low back pain is still a matter of debate. Regardless of the indications for surgery, use of the anterior approach in the lumbar spine is known to be associated with considerable surgical trauma, a high postoperative morbidity, and, occasionally, unacceptably high complication rates. Laparoscopic anterior interbody fusion of L5-S1 to eliminate some of these problems has been recently described. However, a minimally invasive surgical concept that covers all lumbar segments from L2 to S1 has not been described before now.MethodsA standardized, microsurgical retroperitoneal approach to levels L2-L3, L3-L4, and L4-L5 and a microsurgical transperitoneal approach through a "minilaparotomy" to L5-S1 are described. The first 25 patients (retroperitoneal, n = 20; transperitoneal, n = 5) treated with these methods are evaluated with respect to intraoperative data such as blood loss, operating time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, as well as preliminary fusion results.ResultsThere were no general or technique-related complications in the first series of 25 patients. Postoperative morbidity was low in all patients, with negligible wound pain. Average blood loss was 67.8 ml for the retroperitoneal technique and 168 ml for the transperitoneal approach. No blood transfusion was necessary. All patients showed solid bony fusion.ConclusionsThe microsurgical approaches described in this article are atraumatic techniques to reach the lumbar spinal levels L2-L3, L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1. They represent microsurgical modifications of the surgical approaches well known to the spine surgeon. They can be learned in a step-by-step fashion, starting with a conventional skin incision and, once the surgeon is familiar with the instruments, moving on to the microsurgical technique. The approaches are not restricted to the type of fusion (iliac crest autograft) presented in this series.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…