Stereotactic navigation for the prepsoas oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion: technical note and case series

DiGiorgio, Anthony M; Edwards, Caleb S.; Virk, Michael S.; Mummaneni, Praveen V.; Chou, Dean

doi:10.3171/2017.5.focus17168

Cited by 51 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there have been previous publications on OLIF and navigation, most of these papers did not specifically report cage placement accuracy. 5,6,27 However, Joseph et al, 7 Liu et al, 8 and Park 9 have previously reported navigation accuracy in LLIF surgery, and our findings are consistent with their previously reported accuracy rates. One issue, however, is the added radiation exposure to the patient with the second O-Arm spin for the pedicle screw fixation.…”

Section: A B Csupporting

confidence: 92%

“…4,5 This oblique angle can be somewhat disorienting for surgeons, and navigation may be one method to help abate this disorientation. 6 Although navigation has been reported as an alternative to fluoroscopy to perform the OLIF, there is limited data as to the accuracy of navigated OLIF in a large number of patients. 5 We wished to report how navigation affects the OLIF accuracy, complications, and surgical time.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Navigated Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Accuracy Rate, Effect on Surgical Time, and Complications

Chou

Mummaneni

et al. 2020

Neurospine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) can be done with either fluoroscopy or navigation. However, it is unclear how navigation affects the overall flow of the procedure. We wished to report on the accuracy of this technique using navigation and on how navigation affects surgical time and complications. Methods: A retrospective review was undertaken to evaluate patients who underwent OLIF using spinal navigation at University of California San Francisco. Data collected were demographic variables, perioperative variables, and radiographic images. Postoperative lateral radiographs were analyzed for accuracy of cage placement. The disc space was divided into 4 quadrants from anterior to posterior, zone 1 being anterior, and zone 4 being posterior. The accuracy of cage placement was assessed by placement. Results: There were 214 patients who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 350 levels were instrumented from L1 to L5 using navigation. The mean follow-up time was 17.42 months. The mean surgical time was 211 minutes, and the average surgical time per level was 129.01 minutes. After radiographic analysis, 94.86% of cages were placed within quartiles 1 to 3. One patient (0.47%) underwent revision surgery because of suboptimal cage placement. For approach-related complications, transient neurological symptoms were 10.28%, there was no vascular injury. Conclusion: The use of navigation to perform OLIF from L1 to L5 resulted in a cage placement accuracy rate of 94.86% in 214 patients.

show abstract

Section: A B Csupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Navigated Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Accuracy Rate, Effect on Surgical Time, and Complications

Chou

Mummaneni

et al. 2020

Neurospine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patient positioning and setup for OLIF are similar to those for LLIF. Key differences are the lack of any need for neurological monitoring with OLIF and the substitution of intraoperative CT with stereotactic navigation for OLIF rather than the fluoroscopic imaging used for LLIF (37). With the patient in a lateral decubitus position, the projected disc space is marked along the patient's flank, and a transverse incision is planned, centered on the anterior margin of the disc space.…”

Section: Surgical Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lumbar interbody fusion involves insertion of a structural graft into an intervertebral disc space to promote bony arthrodesis. It is a well-established surgical strategy for multiple spinal disorders ranging from degenerative conditions to trauma, neoplastic diseases, and deformities requiring correction. Since the inception of lumbar interbody fusion, the most established techniques have been two posterior approaches, the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Within the past 15 years, multiple anterolateral approaches to the spine have become widely adopted. These approaches can be performed minimally invasively and spare disruption of the paraspinal muscles and posterior spinal column while enabling wide exposure of the disc space for insertion of interbody grafts much larger than PLIF and TLIF instrumentation. This review highlights three minimally invasive anterolateral approaches: the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), the transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), and prepsoas or anterior to the psoas oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Relevant topics for discussion and comparison include patient selection, surgical techniques, outcomes, and complications for the three surgical approaches.

show abstract

“…The authors concluded that navigation is a safe alternative to fluoroscopy for OLIF, and that it can eliminate radiation exposure to the surgeon and decrease exposure to the patient. In the same year, DiGiorgio et al published on a larger series of 49 patients who underwent similar navigated OLIF [26]. They reported improvement in back and leg pain scores postoperatively.…”

Section: Navigated Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Fixationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer Navigation in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Sembrano

Yson

Theismann

2019

Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review The goal of the review is to discuss the common general applications of navigation in the context of minimally invasive spine surgery and assess its value in the published literature comparing against non-navigated or navigated techniques. Recent Findings There is increasing utilization of computer navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery. There is synergy between navigation and minimally invasive technologies, such that one enhances or facilitates the other, thus leading to wider applications for both. Specifically, navigation has been shown to improve performance of percutaneous pedicle screw placement, vertebral augmentation, and minimally invasive fusion procedures. Overall, clinical studies have shown better accuracy and less radiation exposure with the use of navigation in spine surgery. Summary The use of navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery enhances the accuracy of instrumentation and decreases radiation exposure. It is yet to be determined whether patient-reported outcomes will differ. Further research on its effect on clinical outcomes may further define the future impact of navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery.

show abstract

Stereotactic navigation for the prepsoas oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion: technical note and case series

Cited by 51 publications

References 15 publications

The Navigated Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Accuracy Rate, Effect on Surgical Time, and Complications

The Navigated Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Accuracy Rate, Effect on Surgical Time, and Complications

Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review

Computer Navigation in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About