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.

466 Primary Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, With and Without Posterior Instrumentation: A 1377 Patient Cohort From a Multicenter Spine Registry

Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined with Lateral Plate VS. Combined with Posterior Pedicle Screw Fixation in Lumbar Degenerative Diseases

Anterior Selective Lumbar Fusion Saving More Distal Fusion Segments Compared with Posterior Approach in the Treatment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis with Lenke Type 5: A Cohort Study with More Than 8-Year Follow-up

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

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

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

Is stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion superior to instrumented lateral lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of single-level, low-grade, lumbar spondylolisthesis?

Retrospective analysis of medium-term outcomes following anterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery performed in a tertiary spinal surgical centre

Complications and Prevention Strategies of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion Technique.

Transforaminal Versus Lateral Interbody Fusions for Treatment of Adjacent Segment Disease in the Lumbar Spine

Instrumentation choice and early radiographic outcome following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF): Lateral instrumentation versus posterior pedicle screw fixation

Oblique lateral interbody fusion treats adjacent segment diseases after lumbar spinal fusion

P265. Is standalone ALIF a safe and effective treatment for low grade Isthmic spondylolisthesis?

Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of postoperative outcomes

Comparison of Stand-alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Open Laminectomy and Posterolateral Instrumented Fusion in the Treatment of Adjacent Segment Disease Following Previous Lumbar Fusion Surgery

Meta-analysis of Instrumented Posterior Interbody Fusion Versus Instrumented Posterolateral Fusion in the Lumbar Spine.

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion for adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar fusion: a case-controlled study

Biomechanical Analysis of Stand-alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Adjacent Segment Disease

Fusion technique does not affect short-term patient-reported outcomes for lumbar degenerative disease

Perioperative Clinical Features and Long-term Prognosis After Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion (OLIF), OLIF With Anterolateral Screw Fixation, or OLIF With Percutaneous Pedicle Fixation: A Comprehensive Treatment Strategy for Patients With Lumbar Degenerative Disease

Supine anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus lateral position oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1: A comparison of two approaches to the lumbosacral junction