• KOSASS
  • Contact us
  • E-Submission
ABOUT
BROWSE ARTICLES
EDITORIAL POLICY
FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Page Path

2
results for

"direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion"

Filter

Article category

Keywords

Publication year

Authors

"direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion"

Case Report

Vertebral Fracture After Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Ki-Hyoung Koo, Jae Hyun Kim
J Adv Spine Surg 2017;7(2):75-79.   Published online December 31, 2017
A 77-year-old female suffering from severe degenerative scoliosis, spinal stenosis and lumbar disc herniation underwent Direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion (DLIF) at L2-4. On the 3rd postoperative day, she complained of severe back pain without any trauma history. Simple radiograph revealed L3 vertebral fracture and cage subsidence. Pain was subsided after conservative treatment including TLSO and medication. Radiographic union was achieved at fractured vertebra after 3 months. Solid fusion was observed at operated level after 6 months. Patient has visited our clinic without any pain. DLIF is one of novel minimally invasive spine procedures available today. It is designed to maximize benefits and minimize risks of other traditional techniques such as anterior approach and posterior approach. However, there can be some risk of cage subsidence and vertebral fracture after DLIF. Therefore, care should be taken to avoid cage subsidence during the operation.
  • 8 View
  • 0 Download
Original Article
Mini-open Approach for Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Chong-Suh Lee, Sung-Soo Chung, Young-Ryeol Pae, Kyung-Jung Kang, Chulhee Jung
J Adv Spine Surg 2011;1(2):77-84.   Published online December 31, 2011
Introduction
Recently, minimally invasive lateral approach for the lumbar spine is revived and getting popularity under the name of XLIF or DLIF by modification of mini-open method using sequential tubular dilator and special expandable retractor system. Purposes: The purposes of this study were to introduce the mini-open lateral approach for the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and to investigate the advantages, technical pitfalls and complications & to provide basic knowledge on XLIF or DLIF
Materials and Methods
Seventy-four patients who underwent surgery by the mini-open lateral approach from September 2000 to April 2008 with various disease entities were included. Blood loss, operation time, incision size, postoperative time to mobilization, length of hospital stay, technical problems and complications were analyzed.
Results
With this approach, we can reach form T12 to L5 subdiaphragmatically. The blood loss and operation time of patients who underwent simple ALIF were 61.2 ml and 86 minutes for one level, 107 ml and 106 minutes for two levels, 250 ml and 142.8 minutes for three levels, and 400 ml and 190 minutes for four levels of fusion, respectively. The incision sizes were on average 4.5cm for one level, 6.3 cm for two levels, 8.5 cm for three levels and 10.0 cm for four levels of fusion. The complications were retroperitoneal hematoma in two cases, pneumonia in one case and transient lumbosacral plexus palsy in three cases.
Conclusion
The mini-open lateral approach is simpler & safer than XLIF or DLIF with very short learning curve. Trial of mini-open lateral approach would be helpful before trial of XLIF or DLIF. However, special attention is required to complications such as transient lumbosacral plexus palsy.
  • 8 View
  • 1 Download
TOP