Abstract:Background context: The oblique prepsoas retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion or oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) provides safe access to nearly all lumbar levels. A wide interval between the psoas and aorta allows for a safe and straightforward left-sided oblique approach to the discs above L5. Inclusion of L5-S1 in this approach, however, requires modifications in the technique to navigate the complex and variable vascular anatomy distal to the bifurcation of the great vessels. While different oblique approaches to L5-S1 have been described in the literature, to our knowledge, no previous study has provided guidance for the choice of technique. Purpose: Our objectives were to evaluate our early experience with the safety of including L5-S1 in OLIF using 3 different approach techniques, as well as to compare early complications between OLIF with and without L5-S1 inclusion. Study design: Retrospective cohort study. Patient sample: Of the 87 patients who underwent lumbar interbody fusion at 167 spinal levels via an OLIF approach, 19 included L5-S1 (group A) and 68 did not (group B). Outcome measures: Demographics, levels fused, indications, operative time (ORT), estimated blood loss (EBL), vascular ligation, intraoperative blood transfusion, length of stay (LOS), discharge to rehabilitation facility, and complications (intraoperative, early ≤90 days, and delayed >90 days) were retrospectively assessed and compared between the groups. Methods: A retrospective chart and imaging review of all consecutive patients who underwent OLIF at a single institution was performed. Indications for OLIF included symptomatic lumbar degenerative stenosis, deformity, and spondylolisthesis. The L5-S1 level, when included, was approached via one of the following 3 techniques: (1) a left-sided intrabifurcation approach; (2) left-sided prepsoas approach; and (3) right-sided prepsoas approach. Vascular anatomic variations at the lumbosacral junction were evaluated using the preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and a "facet line" was proposed to assess this relationship. A minimum of 6 months of follow-up data were assessed for approach-related morbidities. Results: Demographics and operative indications were similar between the groups. The mean follow-up was 10.8 (6-36) months. ORT was significantly longer in group A than in group B (322 vs. 256.3 min, respectively; p=.001); however, no difference in ORT between the two groups was found in the subanalyses for 2- and 3-level surgeries. Differences in EBL (260 vs. 207.91 cc, p=.251) and LOS (2.76 vs. 2.48 days, p=.491) did not reach statistical significance. Ligation of the iliolumbar vein, segmental veins, median sacral vessels, or any vascular structure, as needed for adequate exposure, was required in 13 (68.4%) patients from group A and 4 (5.9%) from group B (p<.00001). Two patients suffered minor vascular injuries (1 in each group); however, no major vascular injuries were seen. Complications were not significantly different between groups A and B, or between the three approaches to L5-S1, and trended lower in the latter part of the series as the learning curve progressed. Conclusions: Inclusion of L5-S1 in OLIF is safe and feasible through three different approaches but likely involves greater operative complexity. In our early experience, inclusion of L5-S1 showed no increase in early complications. This is the first series that reports the use of 3 different oblique approaches to L5-S1. The proposed "facet line" in the preoperative MRI may guide the choice of approach.

A novel surgical approach using the "lateral corridor" for minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1: a clinical series and technical note

A Modified Surgical Technique of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Rooting, and Growing with Luxuriant Branches and Leaves-the Story of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion in China

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined With Lateral Plate Fixation for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: a Preliminary Clinical Study

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined with Lateral Plate Fixation for the Treatment of Degenerative Diseases of the Lumbar Spine: A Retrospective Study.

Anteroinferior Psoas Technique for Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Case Series

Complications and Prevention Strategies of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Technique.

Comparison of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF) and Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MI-TLIF) for Treatment of Lumbar Degeneration Disease A Prospective Cohort Study

The technical note and approach related complications of modified lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Neuro-navigation assisted pre-psoas minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion (MI-OLIF): New roads and impediments

Early Complications Associated with Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases

[Application of oblique lateral interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration in patients with Modic change and endplate sclerosis].

From Clinic to Hypothesis, an Innovative Operation for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis in a Minimal Invasive Way.

Inclusion of L5-S1 in oblique lumbar interbody fusion-techniques and early complications-a single center experience

Pearls and Pitfalls of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases

Endoscopic Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Note and Case Series

An Expanded Surgical Corridor of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion at L4–5: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study

Clinical results and complications associated with oblique lumbar interbody fusion technique

Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5-S1 Segment Through an Approach Between the Psoas Muscle and the Great Vessels

Development and Application of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion