Anterior spinal fusion through a minimally invasive retroperitoneal approach in the treatment of patients with pseudoarthrosis after decompression and stabilization surgeries for degenerative-dystrophic diseases of the lumbar spine

Objective. To analyze the clinical efficacy of anterior fusion through a minimally invasive retroperitoneal approach in the treatment of patients with pseudoarthrosis after decompression and stabilization surgery for degenerative spinal stenosis.

Material and Methods. Twenty six patients with previously performed decompression and stabilization surgeries for degenerative spinal canal stenosis underwent repeated surgical interventions using anterior/anterolateral fusion due to clinical and radiographic signs of pseudoarthrosis resistant to complex conservative therapy for at least 12 weeks. The outcomes of surgical treatment were analyzed based on the assessment of clinical and radiological characteristics before and after surgery.

Results. At a follow-up examination 12 months after surgery, leg pain aggravated after exercise bothered 5 patients (19.2 %). According to CT data, 16 (61.5 %) patients had signs of the formation of grade 1 interbody bone block. In 2 (7.7 %) patients, instability of the fixation system developed and there were no signs of union, which required repeated surgical interventions.

Conclusion. Anterior interbody fusion in the treatment of patients with pseudoarthrosis allows safe removal of the preinstalled interbody implant and creation of optimal conditions for the formation of interbody fusion. Despite clinical improvement, significant functional disorders persist in most patients.

1. Афаунов А.А., Басанкин И.В., Кузьменко А.В., Шаповалов В.К. Анализ причин ревизионных операций при хирургическом лечении больных с поясничными стенозами дегенеративной этиологии // Хирургия позвоночника. 2014. № 1. С. 86–93. [Afaunov AA, Basankin IV, Kuzmenko AV, Shapovalov VK. Analysis of reasons for revision surgery in patients treated for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Hir. Pozvonoc. 2014;(1):86–93]. DOI: 10.14531/ss2014.1.86-93.

2. Tokuhashi Y, Ajiro Y, Umezawa N. Follow-up of patients with delayed union after posterior fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Spine. 2008;33:786–791. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31816956f7.

3. Martin BI, Mirza SK, Comstock BA, Gray DT, Kreuter W, Deyo RA. reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine. 2007;32:382–387. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000254104.55716.46.

4. Ботов А.В., Шнякин П.Г., Ермакова И.Е. Сравнительная характеристика эффективности использования различных доступов к сегменту L5–S1 поясничного отдела позвоночника при рецидивирующем дегенеративном процессе // Оперативная хирургия и клиническая анатомия (Пироговский научный журнал). 2017. Т. 1. № 2. С. 13–16. [Botov AV, Shnyakin PG, Ermakova IE. Comparative characteristics of the efficiency of using various accesses to the lumbar spinal segment LV–SI in a recurrent degenerative process. Operativnaya khirurgiya i klinicheskaya anatomiya (Pirogovskii nauchnyi zhurnal). 2017;1(2):13]. DOI: 10.17116/operhirurg20171213-16.

5. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Thayaparan GK, Rao PJ. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion as a salvage technique for pseudarthrosis following posterior lumbar fusion surgery. Global Spine J. 2016;6:14–20. DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1555656.

6. Yun DJ, Yu JW, Jeon SH, Lee HC, Lee SH. Salvage anterior lumbar interbody fusion for pseudoarthrosis after posterior or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 10 patients. World Neurosurg. 2018;111:e746–e755. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.155.

7. Owens RK 2nd, Djurasovic M, Crawford CH 3rd, Glassman SD, Dimar JR 2nd, Carreon LY. Impact of surgical approach on clinical outcomes in the treatment of lumbar pseudarthrosis. Global Spine J. 2016;6:786–791. DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1582390.

8. Dede O, Thuillier D, Pekmezci M, Ames CP, Hu SS, Berven SH, Deviren V. Revision surgery for lumbar pseudarthrosis. Spine J. 2015;15:977–982. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.05.039.

9. Kiner DW, Wybo CD, Sterba W, Yeni YN, Bartol SW, Vaidya R. Biomechanical analysis of different techniques in revision spinal instrumentation: larger diameter screws versus cement augmentation. Spine. 2008;33:2618–2622. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181882cac.

10. Huang RC, Meredith DS, Kepler CK, Tropiano P. Salvage of lumbar pseudarthrosis with customized large-diameter pedicle screws. Spine. 2011;36:E1489–E1492. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820285cf.

11. Tan GH, Goss BG, Thorpe PJ, Williams RP. CT-based classification of long spinal allograft fusion. Eur Spine J. 2007;16:1875–1881. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0376-0.

12. Масевнин С.В., Волков И.В., Коновалов Н.А., Пташников Д.А. Влияние позвоночно-тазовых параметров на частоту развития нестабильности смежного сегмента при моносегментарной фиксации в поясничном отделе // Журнал «Вопросы нейрохирургии» им. Н.Н. Бурденко. 2019. Т. 83. № 2. С. 80–84. [Masevnin SV, Volkov IV, Konovalov NA, Ptashnikov DA. The impact of spinopelvic parameters on the rate of adjacent segment instability after short-segment spinal fusion. Zhurnal Voprosy Neirokhirurgii Imeni N.N. Burdenko. 2019;83(2):80–84]. DOI: 10.17116/neiro20198302180.

13. Albert TJ, Pinto M, Denis F. Management of symptomatic lumbar pseudarthrosis with anteroposterior fusion. A functional and radiographic outcome study. Spine. 2000;25:123–129. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200001010-00021.

14. Bassani R, Morselli C, Baschiera R, Brock S, Gavino D, Prandoni L, Cirullo A, Mangiavini L. New trends in spinal surgery: less invasive anatomical approach to the spine. The advantages of the anterior approach in lumbar spinal fusion. Turk Neurosurg. 2021;31:484–492. DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.33958-21.1.

15. Kim KT, Lee SH, Lee YH, Bae SC, Suk KS. Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine. Spine. 2006;31:1351–1357. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000218635.14571.55.

16. Cassinelli EH, Wallach C, Hanscom B, Vogt M, Kang JD. Prospective clinical outcomes of revision fusion surgery in patients with pseudarthrosis after posterior lumbar interbody fusions using stand-alone metallic cages. Spine J. 2006;6:428–434. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.11.003.