The Prone Transpsoas (PTP) approach to lumbar spine surgery, emerging as an evolution of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), offers significant advantages over traditional methods. PTP has demonstrated increased lumbar lordosis gains compared to LLIF, owing to the natural increase in lordosis afforded by prone positioning. Additionally, the prone position offers anatomical advantages, with shifts in the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus, reducing the likelihood of postoperative femoral plexopathy and moving critical peritoneal contents away from the approach. Furthermore, operative efficiency is a notable benefit of PTP. By eliminating the need for intraoperative position changes, PTP reduces surgical time, which in turn decreases the risk of complications and operative costs. Finally, its versatility extends to various lumbar pathologies, including degeneration, adjacent segment disease, and deformities. The growing body of evidence indicates that PTP is at least as safe as traditional approaches, with a potentially better complication profile. In this narrative review, we review the historical evolution of lateral interbody fusion, culminating in the prone transpsoas approach. We also describe several adjuncts of PTP, including robotics and radiation-reduction methods. Finally, we illustrate the versatility of PTP and its uses, ranging from \'simple\' degenerative cases to complex deformity surgeries.

•Key anterior approaches differences in LSTV include vascular (aortic bifurcation/iliocaval confluence), muscular (psoas) and osseus anatomy (inter-crestal tangent/pubic symphysis), when compared to non-LSTV.•There are increased surgical deviations but not significantly greater complications for anterior approaches in LSTV.•Vascular awareness while accessing L45 will be in the presence of a more cephalad ABF and ICC with sacralized L5, and access to the deeper L56 level will be in the presence of a more caudal ABF and ICC in lumbarized S1.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a workhorse surgical approach for lumbar arthrodesis. There is growing interest in techniques for performing single-position surgery in which LLIF and pedicle screw fixation are performed with the patient in the prone position. Most studies of prone LLIF are of poor quality and without long-term follow-up; therefore, the complication profile related to this novel approach is not well known. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and pooled analysis to understand the safety profile of prone LLIF.
A systematic review of the literature and a pooled analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All studies reporting prone LLIF were assessed for inclusion. Studies not reporting complication rates were excluded.
Ten studies meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Overall, 286 patients were treated with prone LLIF across these studies, and a mean (SD) of 1.3 (0.2) levels per patient were treated. The 18 intraoperative complications reported included cage subsidence (3.8% [3/78]), anterior longitudinal ligament rupture (2.3% [5/215]), cage repositioning (2.1% [2/95]), segmental artery injury (2.0% [5/244]), aborted prone interbody placement (0.8% [2/244]), and durotomy (0.6% [1/156]). No major vascular or peritoneal injuries were reported. Sixty-eight postoperative complications occurred, including hip flexor weakness (17.8% [21/118]), thigh and groin sensory symptoms (13.3% [31/233]), revision surgery (3.8% [3/78]), wound infection (1.9% [3/156]), psoas hematoma (1.3% [2/156]), and motor neural injury (1.2% [2/166]).
Single-position LLIF in the prone position appears to be a safe surgical approach with a low complication profile. Longer-term follow-up and prospective studies are needed to better characterize the long-term complication rates related to this approach.

The objective of this study was to discuss our experience performing LLIF in the prone position and report our complications.
A retrospective chart review was conducted that included all patients who underwent single- or multi-level single-position pLLIF alone or as part of a concomitant procedure by the same surgeon from May 2019 to November 2022.
A total of 155 patients and 250 levels were included in this study. Surgery was most commonly performed at the L4-L5 level (n = 100, 40%). The most common preoperative diagnosis was spondylolisthesis (n = 74, 47.7%). In the first 30 cases, 3 surgeries were aborted to an MIS TLIF. Complications included 3 unintentional ALL ruptures (n = 3/250, 1.2%), and 1 malpositioned implant impinging on the contralateral foramen requiring revision (n = 1/250, 0.4%), which all occurred within the first 30 cases. Out of 147 patients with more than 6-week follow-ups, there were 3 cases of femoral nerve palsy (n = 3/147, 2.0%). Two cases of femoral nerve palsy improved to preoperative strength by the 6th week postoperatively, while one improved to 4/5 preoperative strength by 1 year. There were no cases of bowel perforation or vascular injury.
Our single-surgeon experience demonstrates the initial learning curve when adopting pLLIF. Thereafter, we experienced reproducibility in our technique and large improvements in our operative times, and complication profile. We experienced no technical complications after the 30th case. Further studies will include long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes to understand the complete utility of this approach.

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion arose as a revolutionary approach to treating several spinal pathologies because the techniques were able to promote indirect decompression and lordosis restoration through a minimally invasive approach allowing for reduced blood loss and early recovery for patients. However, it is still not clear how the technique compares to other established approaches for treating spinal degenerative diseases, such as TLIF, PLIF, and PLF.
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published in the last 10 years comparing lateral approaches to posterior techniques. The authors included articles that compared the LLIF technique to one or more posterior approaches, treating only degenerative pathologies, and containing at least one of the key outcomes of the study. Exclusion articles that were not original and the ones that the authors could not obtain the full text; also articles without the possibility to calculate the standard deviation or mean were excluded. For count variables, the odds ratio was used, and for continuous variables, the standard means difference (SMD) was used, and the choice between random or fixed-effects model was made depending on the presence or not of significant (p < 0.05) heterogeneity in the sample.
Twenty-four articles were included in the quantitative review. As for the intra-/perioperative variables, the lateral approaches showed a significant reduction in blood loss (SMD-1.56, p < 0.001) and similar operative time (SMD =  - 0.33, p = 0.24). Moreover, the use of the lateral approaches showed a tendency to lead to reduced hospitalization days (SMD =  - 0.15, p = 0.09), with significantly reduced odds ratios of complications (0.53, p = 0.01). As for the clinical outcomes, both approaches showed similar improvement both at improvement as for the last follow-up value, either in ODI or in VAS-BP. Finally, when analyzing the changes in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis, the lateral technique promoted significantly higher correction in both outcomes (p < 0.05).
Lateral approaches can promote significant radiological correction and similar clinical improvement while reducing surgical blood loss and postoperative complications.

Degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine are often treated with posterior interbody fusion surgery (posterior lumbar interbody fusion [PLIF]) for spinal instability or intractable back pain with neurologic impairment. Several lateral, less invasive procedures have recently been described (lateral lumbar interbody fusion [LLIF]/direct lateral interbody fusion/extreme lateral interbody fusion [XLIF]). The aim of this systematic review is to compare structural and functional outcomes of lateral surgical approaches to PLIF.
We conducted a MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library search for studies focusing on outcomes and complications comparing LLIF (direct lateral interbody fusion/XLIF) and PLIF. The systematic review was reported using the PRISMA criteria.
In total, 1000 research articles were identified, of which 5 studies were included comparing the outcomes and complications between the lateral and posterior approach. Three studies found significantly less perioperative blood loss with a lateral approach. Average hospital stay was shorter in populations who underwent the lateral approach compared with PLIF. Functional outcomes (visual analog scale score/Oswestry Disability Index) were similar or better with LLIF. In most of the included studies, complication rates did not differ between the posterior and lateral approach. Most of the neurologic deficits with XLIF/LLIF were temporary and healed completely within 1 year follow-up.
A lateral approach (XLIF/LLIF) is a good and safe alternative for PLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar diseases, with comparable functional outcomes, shorter hospital stays, and less blood loss. Future prospective studies are needed to establish the role of lateral minimally invasive approaches in spinal degenerative surgery.

The modality of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) in lateral approaches for interbody fusion varies. We aim to examine the types of neuromonitoring used in lateral approaches for lumbar interbody fusion and associated neurologic complications.
A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines. PubMed and Embase databases were searched from inception to July 2022 for articles examining lateral approaches for lumbar interbody fusion of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) or oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) with IONM modalities. Lateral approaches for lumbar interbody fusion with/without IONM was included. Articles without original patient data, case reports with fewer than 2 patients, non-English articles, nonlateral procedures, and nonhuman studies were excluded. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tool was used to assess for bias.
A total of 34 studies were included. Twenty LLIF articles had IONM, whereas 1 LLIF article did not have IONM. Three OLIF articles specified IONM, whereas 6 OLIF articles did not have IONM. Two articles had patients undergoing either LLIF or OLIF. For LLIF, overall neurologic complications, motor weakness, and sensory deficits were 19.8%, 7.6%, and 10.6%, respectively. OLIF overall neurologic complications, motor weakness, and sensory deficits were 5.9%, 2.9%, and 3.2%, respectively. Neurologic outcomes with IONM were not superior compared to without IONM in either LLIF or OLIF.
Neurologic complication rates in LLIF remain high despite utilization of IONM. Use of IONM did not benefit neurologic outcomes. More prospective studies with different IONM modalities and without IONM are needed before determining specific benefits or shortcomings of each IONM modality.

METHODS: Retrospective cohort study.
OBJECTIVE: To determine safety and short-term outcomes of single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with bilateral posterior instrumentation and robotic assistance. The article also describes surgical technique considerations for the procedure.
METHODS: 20 patients underwent single-position LLIF with posterior instrumentation and robotic assistance. The patients were followed for a minimum of 3 months post-operatively.
RESULTS: Average operative time was 211 ± 34 minutes, average blood loss was 51.25 ± 17 cc\'s, and average length of stay was 1.4 ± .75 days. There were no intraoperative complications, readmissions, revision surgeries, and no incidence of hardware malposition. Significant improvement in pain and ODI scores was noted at 3 month follow up.
CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated safety and short-term clinical efficacy of minimally invasive single-position lateral lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral posterior instrumentation utilizing robotic assistance and navigation. There are certain surgical technique considerations that must be followed to ensure optimal surgical workflow and predictable outcomes.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a powerful tool in minimally invasive spine surgery with high rates of fusion, excellent indirect decompression, and deformity correction. LLIF offers advantages compared with anterior lumbar interbody fusion including a more favorable complication profile. Traditionally, the interbody fusion is performed in the lateral position and fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screw fixation performed with the patient repositioned prone. The evolution of both pedicle screw technology and intraoperative navigation has enhanced the feasibility of single (lateral)-position surgery. Early reports using fluoroscopy-assisted pedicle screws and computer or robotic navigation suggest this technique can be performed safely and accurately. The purpose of this brief report is to provide the technical steps, workflow, as well as pearls and pitfalls for single-position LLIF with true intraoperative computed tomography navigation-guided percutaneous pedicle screw fixation. A case example is included for illustration.

UNASSIGNED: Surgery for adult spine deformity presents a challenging issue for spinal surgeons with high morbidity rates reported in the literature. The minimally invasive lateral approach aims at reducing these complications while maintaining similar outcomes as associated with open spinal surgeries. The aim of this paper is to review the literature on the use of lateral lumbar interbody fusion in the cases of adult spinal deformity.
UNASSIGNED: A literature review was done using the healthcare database Advanced Research on NICE and NHS website using Medline. Search terms were \"XLIF\" or \"LLIF\" or \"DLIF\" or \"lateral lumbar interbody fusion\" or \"minimal invasive lateral fusion\" and \"adult spinal deformity\" or \"spinal deformity\".
UNASSIGNED: A total of 417 studies were considered for the review and 44 studies were shortlisted after going through the selection criteria. The data of 1722 patients and 4057 fusion levels were analysed for this review. The mean age of the patients was 65.18 years with L4/5 being the most common level fused in this review. We found significant improvement in the radiological parameters (lordosis, scoliosis, and disk height) in the pooled data. Transient neurological symptoms and cage subsidence were the two most common complications reported.
UNASSIGNED: LLIF is a safe and effective approach in managing adult spinal deformity with low morbidity and acceptable complication rates. It can be used alone for lower grades of deformity and as an adjuvant procedure to decrease the magnitude of open surgeries in high-grade deformities.