Abstract:Posterior lumbar fusion is a popular technique for managing lumbar spine degenerative diseases including disc hernia, canal stenosis, scoliosis, spondylosis and degenerative spondylolisthesis. One of the commonest complications is adjacent segment disease (ASD). About 4.7% patients who have undergone lumbar fusion need revision surgery for ASD1. There are various revision procedures; they include anterior and posterior approaches. Due to the previous posterior procedure, the risks of a posterior revision approach are obviously high and include dural tear injury, nerve root injury, and secondary damage to posterior structures. Thus, a retroperitoneal approach to performing minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) would avoid all the risks mentioned above and might therefore be a better treatment option2, 3. A 45-year-old female had undergone posterior lumbar interbody fusion at the L3–4 to L4–5 level and posterolateral fusion of the L5S1 level 6 months previously for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine in a local hospital with an initially satisfactory outcome. However, five months after this surgery, she had developed progressive low back pain with numbness and tingling throughout her right leg. Careful physical examination showed tenderness on the right side of the L5 spinous process. She had a positive Lasègue sign and straight leg raising test in the right leg. There was also decreased sensation over the lateral aspect of the leg, lateral malleolus and lateral aspect of the foot. Plantar flexion was weaker in her right foot than in her left. The ankle jerk was reduced on the right side. Routine laboratory investigations were normal. X-ray films revealed that L3–S1 had been fixed with pedicle screws and there were cages in the L3–4 and L4–5 interspaces. Osteolysis was noted around the pedicle screws in the S1 vertebral body. MRI revealed disc herniation on the right side at the L5S1 level. Therefore, the preoperative diagnosis was disc herniation of L5S1 and ASD (L5S1). ALIF with an integrated titanium plate and a poly(ether-ether-ketone) (PEEK) cage (SynFix-LR, Synthes, Solothurn, Switzerland) was planned. To avoid vessel injury and identify an appropriate operating area, computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the abdominal aorta was performed preoperatively. After induction of general anesthesia, the patient was positioned supine on a table with a break at the level of the lumbar spine to exaggerate lumbosacral lordosis. A Pfannenstiel incision was made between the level of the umbilicus and symphysis pubis. The left side of the rectus sheath was dissected parallel to the midline and the left rectus abdominis was retracted laterally, after which the retroperitoneal space was entered by retracting all the periosteum to the right4. After the L5S1 level had been exposed and fluoroscopically verified, a SynFrame Retractor System (Synthes) was used to create a stable surgical field5. Before performing discectomy, the median sacral vessels were carefully ligatured or electrocoagulated. Then an adequate discectomy was performed6 and the nerve root was carefully decompressed. The adjacent vertebral endplates were scratched appropriately. After a trial cage had been tested, an appropriately sized cage with allograft was inserted into the intervertebral space. The cage was anchored by four diverging angle-stable locking screws into the adjacent vertebrae and its position was fluoroscopically confirmed. The operation time was 110 min with an estimated blood loss of 120 mL. The duration of hospitalization was 7 days. With the improved PEEK cage integrated with a titanium locking plate and four angle-stable screws (SynFix-LR, Synthes), stand-alone ALIF can meet the biomechanical needs of lumbar fusion7, 8. The improved cage is biomechanically superior to cages with separate plates9 and has a zero profile construct, which reduces the rates of vessel and visceral organ injury. The SynFrame Retractor System provides a more stable operative field and allows a smaller skin incision, reducing the risk of vessel and organ injury during the procedure5. A preoperative CTA of the abdominal aorta and careful handling of median sacral vessels increase the safety of this procedure. This technique facilitates more direct discectomy and more complete nerve decompression and involves a larger cage which results in higher fusion rates10. As a revision for ASD after posterior lumbar fusion, ALIF offers direct anterior column support without disturbing the posterior scars around the dural sac and nerve roots. It also shortens operative time and thus expedites patient recovery. Video Clip S1. Mini-invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Anterior Column Realignment Through Open Pre-posterior Release-Anterior-Posterior Fusion Versus Hybrid Minimally Invasive-Anterior-Posterior Fusion for Dynamic Sagittal Imbalance of the Spine

The comprehensive anatomical spinal osteotomy and anterior column realignment classification

Radiographic Outcomes and Complications of Anterior Column Realignment (ACR): A Systematic Review

Which Strategy Is Superior?

Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Adjacent Segment Disease after Posterior Lumbar Fusion

Incidence and Risk Factors for Mechanical Failure after Anterior Column Realignment in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery

Reassessment System and Staged Surgical Strategy with Minimally Invasive Techniques for Treatment of Severe Adult Spinal Deformities

Comparison of Anterior Controllable Antedisplacement and Fusion Versus Laminoplasty in the Treatment of Multisegment Ossification of Cervical Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical

Surgical sequence in anterior column realignment with posterior osteotomy is important for degree of adult spinal deformity correction: advantages and indications for posterior to anterior sequence

Cervical Spine Alignment and Clinical Outcomes after Multilevel Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion with or Without Plate A Minimal 5-Year Follow-Up of a CONSORT-compliant Article

Incidence and Risk Factors of Proximal Junctional Complications and Rod Fractures After Long-Segment Fusion Surgery With Anterior Column Realignment for Adult Spinal Deformity: A Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

Comparison of two minimally invasive surgery strategies to treat adult spinal deformity

Biomechanical Comparison of Anterior Cervical Corpectomy Decompression and Fusion, Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion, and Anterior Controllable Antedisplacement and Fusion in the Surgical Treatment of Multilevel Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A Finite Element Analysis

Comparison Of Posterior Vertebral Column Resection And Anterior Corpectomy And Instrumentation For Correcting Late Post-Traumatic Thoracolumbar Kyphosis

The CT Classification of Multilevel Cervical Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament to Guide Hybrid Anterior Controllable Antedisplacement and Fusion vs. Posterior Laminoplasty

Cervical alignment and clinical outcome of anterior decompression with fusion vs. posterior decompression with fixation in kyphotic cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Posterior Atlantoaxial Lateral Mass Joint Fusion (MIS-PALF): A Muscle-Sparing Procedure for Atlantoaxial Instability or Dislocation

278 Lateral Anterior Column Release in Short Construct... Is It Worth It?

1076 3-Level ACDF Versus 3-Level Laminectomy and Fusion: Are There Differences in Outcomes? An Analysis of the QOD CSM Cohort

Anterior cervical hybrid constructs reduce superior adjacent segment burden compared to multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Lateral Anterior Column Release in Short Lumbar Fusion... Is it worth it?