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.

Extra lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) has been established in recent years as an effective approach to address degenerative lumbar disc disease (DLDD). Although neurological and vascular complications during XLIF have been reported, to our knowledge, a combination of simultaneous vascular and neurovascular complication during XLIF has not been reported to date. A 72-year-old female patient was admitted to our orthopaedic department because of back pain associated with severe neuropathic radicular pain to her both lower extremities, incomplete paraplegia and low back fistula with serous secretion for several weeks. She had been wheel-chair bound since nine years before her admission in our department when she had her initial XLIF operation in another institution. Intraoperatively, an aorta lesion occurred, which was emergently addressed, along with lumbar plexus injury. Since then, she had an extensive history of subsequent operations that ended with a T10-S1 posterior lumbar fusion, with no improvement of her neurological condition, complicated by hardware-induced infection. She underwent her last operation in our department; removal of the posterior lumbar construct and extensive debridement of the posterior lumbar spine. We present this rare case and we perform an extensive literature review. Although XLIF has been established in recent years, the report of major vascular injuries, although rare, has questioned its safety profile. Spine surgeons should be aware of catastrophic major neurovascular complications associated with this procedure and be prepared to address them.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on how to evaluate segmental fusion after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). Bone bridges (BB) between two contiguous vertebra are reported as pathognomonic criteria for anterior fusion. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no radiological investigations on zygapophyseal joints (ZJ) status after LLIF. The aim of this radiological study was to investigate the different fusion patterns after LLIF.
METHODS: This is a retrospective single-centre radiological study. Patients who underwent LLIF and posterior percutaneous screw fixation for degenerative spondylolisthesis, on a single lumbar level, were considered for eligibility. Complete radiological data and a minimum follow-up of 1 year were the inclusion criteria. Intervertebral BB were investigated for evaluating anterior fusion and ZJ ankylotic degeneration was evaluated according Pathria et al., as a matter of proof of posterior fusion and segmental immobilization.
RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were finally included in the present study. Twelve months after surgery, intervertebral BB were recognized in 58 segments (78.3%), whereas ZJ Pathria grade was I in 8 (10.8%) patients, II in 15 (20.3%) and III in 51 (68.9%) that were considered posteriorly fused. The overlapping rate between anteriorly and posteriorly fused segments was 72.4% (42 segments), whereas 10 (13.5%) did not achieve any fusion, anterior or posterior, and 6 (8.1%) were posteriorly fused only.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results seem to suggest that anterior fusion is not sufficient to achieve segmental immobilization. Further properly designed investigations are needed to investigate eventual clinical-radiological correlations.

Symptomatic far-lateral lumbar disc herniation is a less common causes of lumbar radiculopathy than paracentral or central disc herniation. Treatment of far-lateral disc herniation with a retroperitoneal, transpsoas approach and disc fragment excision has been described. However, treatment of far-lateral disc herniation using lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) without neural manipulation has not been described. We report one case in which symptom resolution was accomplished via indirect decompression with anterior column support via LLIF without disc fragment excision and review the current literature. The patient noted immediate relief of his preoperative leg pain in the recovery room and ambulation began the same day. Narcotics were effective in treating his incisional pain and mild back pain. The patient was seen two weeks postoperatively and he had stopped all narcotics. At six weeks, the patient continued to have significant improvement and was able to take hour-long walks. At five months, the patient did not have any pain and continued to have improvement in his left quadriceps strength. Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion has allowed surgeons to provide both direct and indirect neural decompression through a retroperitoneal approach. This technique may be ideal for far-lateral disc herniation as it also allows a lateral visualization of the herniation without bony, posterior muscular, or ligamentous disruption.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies generated antithetic results regarding the safety of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) use in spine surgery, and the effect of this biologic adjunct on myeloma cells remains to be fully elucidated.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to present a case of multiple myeloma (MM) exacerbation after BMP-2 implantation in the setting of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).
METHODS: Case report and literature review.
METHODS: The medical records, laboratory findings, and radiographic imaging studies of an 86-year-old female patient with exacerbation of previously undiagnosed MM were reviewed.
RESULTS: The patient presented with a 10-year history of debilitating lower back pain and bilateral lower extremity claudication. Radiographic studies depicted lumbar scoliosis and lateral spondylolisthesis. Preoperative serum immunofixation electrophoresis showed a serum immunoglobulin A kappa paraprotein-peak; however, the patient had never been diagnosed with MM or reported any unexplained fever, night sweats, or weight loss indicative of MM. The patient underwent LLIF from L1-L5 supplemented by BMP-2. On postoperative day 1, the patient was evaluated by the hematology department for paraproteinemia. Serum electrophoresis showed decreased albumin, hypogammaglobulinemia, and suspicious broadening of the complement component in the beta region. Postoperative imaging studies (19 weeks) depicted progression of a previously visible intraosseous lesion, and anterior cortical breakthrough (L5), in addition to a soft tissue mass at the T10 level. Histological examination of iliac crest and T10 vertebral biopsies showed fatty marrow infiltration by plasma cells and plasma cell dyscrasia, proving the diagnosis of MM. The patient died 10 months after surgery due to complications related to a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present case, perhaps one should consider that in patients with abnormal electrophoresis results, even in the absence of a prior diagnosis of MM as well as in the absence of symptoms indicative of MM, BMPs should be administered only after preoperative exclusion of neoplastic disease.