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.

Analyzing the L4-5 Segmental Alignment Change of Two Minimally Invasive Prone-Based Interbody Fusions

Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Scoliosis with Selective Segmental Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Spinal Fusion

What is the Fate of the Adjacent Segmental Angles 6 months After Single-level L3-4 or L4-5 Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion?

474 Comparing the Reciprocal Changes of Single Level Transforaminal Interbody Fusions Versus Lateral Interbody Fusions: A Radiographic Analysis for Sagittal Alignment and Spinopelvic Parameters

Predictors of Postoperative Segmental and Overall Lumbar Lordosis in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Consecutive Case Series

Impact of Segmental Lordosis Restoration During Degenerative Spinal Fusion on Two-Year Adjacent Segment Disease and Revision Rates

Comparative study of three surgical procedures of lumbar interbody fusion for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis

Reciprocal changes in sagittal spinal alignment after L5-S1 anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Mismatch Between Pelvic Incidence and Lumbar Lordosis After Personalized Interbody Fusion: The Importance of Preoperative Planning and Alignment in Degenerative Spine Diseases

L5-S1 Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Is Associated with Increased Revisions Compared to L4-L5 TLIF at Two Years

Posterolateral lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar scoliosis

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

Comparison of Long-Term Effect Between Minimally Invasive and Open Approaches in One-Level Posterior Lumbar Inter-Body Fusion: a 10-12 Year Prospective Study

Prone Single Position Approach to Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Influences of lumbo-sacral transitional vertebrae for anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Does Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Decrease the Grading of Lenke-Silva Classification and Determine the Optimal Fusion Level in Severe Adult Degenerative Scoliosis?

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

[Effects of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lordosis Correction in Degenerative Lumbar Diseases].

Restoring L4-S1 Lordosis Shape in Severe Sagittal Deformity: Impact of Correction Techniques on Alignment and Complication Profile

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

Single Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of the Current Literature