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.

UNASSIGNED: Disadvantages of lateral interbody fusion (LIF) through a direct, transpsoas approach include difficulties associated with lateral decubitus positioning and limited sagittal correction without anterior longitudinal ligament release or posterior osteotomy. Prior technical descriptions advocate anchoring or docking the retractor into the posterior to middle aspect of the disc space.
UNASSIGNED: 72 patients who underwent 116 total levels of Prone Transpsoas (PTP) LIF with anterior docking with a single surgeon between December 2021 and May 2023 were included. Patient characteristics, perioperative data, as well as postoperative functional and radiographic outcomes were recorded. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients who underwent single-level PTP LIF with single-level percutaneous fixation (SLP). Patients in the SLP subgroup did not undergo direct decompression, release, or osteotomy.
UNASSIGNED: N=41 (56.9%) of cases included the L4-5 level. No vascular, bowel, or other visceral complications occurred. No patients developed a permanent motor deficit. Both the total cohort and the SLP group demonstrated statistically significant improvements in functional outcomes including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) as well as all radiographic parameters measured. Mean total operative time (incision to completion of closure for lateral and posterior fusion) in the SLP group was 104.3 minutes with a significant downward trend with increasing surgeon experience. The SLP group demonstrated a 9.9° increase in segmental lordosis (SL), a 7.5° increase in lumbar lordosis (LL), 5.3° reduction in pelvic tilt (PT), and a decrease in pelvic incidence - lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL) from 11.0° preoperatively to 3.9°, postoperatively (p<.01).
UNASSIGNED: PTP LIF with anterior docking may address shortcomings associated with traditional lateral interbody fusion by producing safe and reproducible access with improved restoration of segmental lordosis and optimization of spinopelvic parameters.

This retrospective cohort study aims to examine the potential differences in bone fusion between autologous bone and artificial bone in the lumbar lateral interbody fusion at 2two years post-surgery. The bone fusions performed in 15 cases and at 34 intervertebral levels were compared to assess the differences between the artificial bone, Affinos® (Kuraray Co., Tokyo, Japan), and autogenous bone. Two years post-surgery, we evaluated computed tomography (CT) multi-planar reconstruction images in the coronal and sagittal planes. One year after surgery, out of the 24 windows, 17 (70.8%) windows transplanted with autologous bones showed bone fusion. Additionally, out of the 38 windows, 18 (47.4%) windows transplanted with Affinos® showed bone fusion. Two years post-surgery, out of the 24 windows, 19 (79.2%) windows transplanted with autologous bones showed bone fusion. Additionally, out of the 38 windows, 30 (79.0%) windows transplanted with Affinos® showed bone fusion, and no difference was observed in the fusion rate at two years post-surgery (P = 0.238). In cases using Affinos® for transplanted bone, the bone fusion rate increased between one and two years. The rate of bony fusion using Affinos® in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) cages is at par with that of autologous bone grafts at two years post-surgery. Affinos® is a promising candidate for graft material in LLIF surgery.

Introduction The retroperitoneal approach for lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) originally described an initial posterolateral fascial incision enabling finger dissection from behind the peritoneum and guidance of instruments through a second direct-lateral fascial incision. It has since become common for single direct-lateral incisional access to the retroperitoneum. This study attempted to quantify the distance of the peritoneum from posterior landmarks in the space, assess the risk of peritoneal violation in each access trajectory (i.e., posterolateral versus direct lateral retroperitoneal dissection), and determine whether there are differences based on patient position (prone versus lateral decubitus). Methods In three prone cadaveric torsos, Steinman pins were percutaneously placed mid-disc at each level L2-5 bilaterally (for a total of 18 prone approaches). Open dissections exposed the retroperitoneum including the quadratus lumborum and psoas muscles, maintaining the natural reflection of the peritoneum. Visual assessment qualified whether any pin violated any retroperitoneal structure. Distance from the anterior border of the quadratus lumborum to the posterior-most reflection of the peritoneum was measured. For comparison, three additional torsos were positioned in lateral decubitus, and the above steps were repeated, only unilaterally (for a total of nine lateral decubitus approaches). Results In prone, no pin violated the peritoneum; three (3/18 total approaches) violated the kidney, all at L2-3 (3/6 approaches at L2-3). In lateral decubitus, all three L2-3 pins violated the kidney (3/3 approaches at L2-3); five of the six remaining pins from L3-5 violated the peritoneum (totaling eight violations in the nine total approaches). The incidence of any violation was significantly greater in lateral decubitus vs. prone (8/9 vs. 3/18, p=0.0006). The structure at risk (kidney vs. peritoneum) was significantly associated with disc level (p=0.0041): all kidney violations occurred at L2-3 and all peritoneal violations occurred at L3-4 or L4-5. Distance from the quadratus lumborum to the posterior-most reflection of the peritoneum averaged 8.7 cm (range: 6-10) in prone, and 2.9 cm (range: 2.5-3.2) in lateral decubitus (p=0.0129). Conclusion A cadaveric study of retroperitoneal anatomy demonstrates that there is an increased distance from the quadratus lumborum to the peritoneum in prone versus lateral decubitus and that the trajectory of approach to the lumbar discs risks violation of the peritoneum more frequently when accessing directly laterally versus posterolaterally. In either approach, care should be taken to identify and release the peritoneal reflection to create a safe passage to the lumbar discs.

UNASSIGNED: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has been introduced in Japan in 2013. Despite the effectiveness of this procedure, several considerable complications have been reported. This study reported the results of a nationwide survey performed by the Japanese Society for Spine Surgery and Related Research (JSSR) on the complications associated with LLIF performed in Japan.
UNASSIGNED: JSSR members conducted a web-based survey following LLIF between 2015 and 2020. Any complications meeting the following criteria were included: (1) major vessel, (2) urinary tract, (3) renal, (4) visceral organ, (5) lung, (6) vertebral, (7) nerve, and (8) anterior longitudinal ligament injury; (9) weakness of psoas; (10) motor and (11) sensory deficit; (12) surgical site infection; and (13) other complications. The complications were analyzed in all LLIF patients, and the differences in incidence and type of complications between the transpsoas (TP) and prepsoas (PP) approaches were compared.
UNASSIGNED: Among the 13,245 LLIF patients (TP 6,198 patients [47%] and PP 7,047 patients [53%]), 389 complications occurred in 366 (2.76%) patients. The most common complication was sensory deficit (0.5%), followed by motor deficit (0.43%) and weakness of psoas muscle (0.22%). Among the patient cohort, 100 patients (0.74%) required revision surgery during the survey period. Almost half of the complications developed in patients with spinal deformity (183 patients [47.0%]). Four patients (0.03%) died from complications. Statistically more frequent complications occurred in the TP approach than in the PP approach (TP vs. PP, 220 patients [3.55%] vs. 169 patients [2.40%]; p<0.001).
UNASSIGNED: The overall complication rate was 2.76%, and 0.74% of the patients required revision surgery because of complications. Four patients died from complications. LLIF may be beneficial for degenerative lumbar conditions with acceptable complications; however, the indication for spinal deformity should be carefully determined by the experience of the surgeon and the extent of the deformity.

UNASSIGNED: Evaluating the effects of indirect decompression obtained through lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) by clinical improvements and radiological parameters on MRI scans. Identifying predictors of better decompression and clinical outcome.
UNASSIGNED: From 2016 to 2019, patients who underwent single- or double-level indirect decompression LLIF were consecutively reviewed. Radiological signs of indirect decompression were evaluated in preoperative and follow-up MRI studies and were subsequently correlated to clinical data, expressed as axial/radicular pain (VAS back/leg), index of disability (Oswestry Disability Index) and clinical severity of lumbar stenosis (Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire).
UNASSIGNED: 72 patients were enrolled. The mean follow-up was 24 months. Differences in vertebral canal area (p < 0.001), height of the foramina (p < 0.001), thickness of the yellow ligament (p = 0.001) and anterior height of the interbody space (p = 0.02) were observed. Older age (p = 0.042), presence of spondylolisthesis (p = 0.042), presence of intra-articular facet effusion (p = 0.003) and posterior height of the implanted cage (p = 0.020) positively affected the increase of the canal area. Change in root canal area (p < 0.001), height of the implanted cage (p = 0.020) and younger age (p = 0.035) were predictive factors of root pain relief, while increased vertebral canal area (p = 0.020) and height of the interbody fusion cage (p = 0.023) positively affected the severity of clinical stenosis.
UNASSIGNED: LLIF indirect decompression showed both clinical and radiological improvements. Presence and degree of spondylolisthesis, presence of intra-articular facet effusion, age of the patient and height of the cage were predictive factors of major clinical improvements.

OBJECTIVE:  This study assessed the quality of educational content for lateral spine fusion procedures on YouTube™.
METHODS:  YouTube™ was searched using the following keywords and phrases: \"Lateral lumbar interbody fusion,\" \"lateral lumbar spine surgery,\" \"Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF),\" \"Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF),\" and \"Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).\" An expert panel of three senior-level spine surgeons [rater one to three (R1-R3)] rated videos on 13 qualitative evaluation parameters via a modified Delphi approach.
RESULTS:  Thirty-eight videos were included for evaluation. Interrater reliability analysis indicated a moderate agreement between R1 and R2 (κ=0.50; standard error, SE = 0.05), R1 and R3 (κ = 0.60, SE = 0.04), and a substantial agreement between R2 and R3 (κ = 0.65, SE = 0.04). Unanimously positive assessments of the quality of the intraoperative presentation varied between 42% and 63% of the rated videos. However, perioperative quality features were unanimously rated positively less than 21% of the videos.
CONCLUSIONS:  With regard to the surgical approach and execution of lateral lumbar fusions, YouTube™ videos can be seen as a valuable addition to academic education. The main problem, however, is the lack of control mechanisms that check the quality of the content offered before it is consumed by patients, students, and doctors in training.

Prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion is the newest frontier in surgical approach to the lumbar spine. Prone positioning facilitates segmental lordosis and facile posterior segmental fixation. However, even in experienced hands, transitioning from a lateral decubitus to prone position necessitates alterations to the traditional technique. In this video, the authors highlight the nuances of adopting the prone transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion technique and strategies to overcome them. The video can be found here: https://stream.cadmore.media/r10.3171/2022.3.FOCVID2224.

UNASSIGNED: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a minimally invasive fusion procedure that may be performed with or without supplemental instrumentation. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the effect of supplemental instrumentation technique on perioperative morbidity and fusion rate in LLIF.
UNASSIGNED: A single-institutional retrospective review of patients who underwent LLIF for lumbar spondylosis was conducted. Patients were grouped according to supplemental instrumentation technique: stand-alone LLIF, LLIF with laterally placed instrumentation, or LLIF with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF). Outcomes included fusion rates, peri-operative complication, and reoperation; estimated blood loss (EBL); surgery duration; length of stay; and length of follow-up.
UNASSIGNED: 82 patients underwent LLIF at 114 levels. 35 patients (42.7%) received supplemental lateral instrumentation, 30 (36.6%) received supplemental PPSF, and 17 (20.7%) underwent stand-alone LLIF. More patients in the lateral instrumentation group had prior lumbar fusion at adjacent levels (23/35, 65.71%) versus stand-alone (3/17, 17.6%) or PPSF (2/30, 6.67%) groups (p = 0.003). 4/17 patients (23.5%) with stand-alone LLIF and 4/35 patients (11.42%) with lateral instrumentation underwent reoperation, versus 0/30 with PPSF (p = 0.030). There was no difference in fusion rates between groups (p = 0.717). Operation duration was longer in patients with PPSF (p < 0.005) and length of follow-up was longer for PPSF than lateral instrumentation (p = 0.001). Choice of instrumentation group was a statistically significant predictor of reoperation.
UNASSIGNED: While rates of complete radiographic fusion on imaging follow-up didn\'t differ, patients receiving PPSF were less likely than stand-alone or lateral instrumentation groups to require reoperation, though operative time was significantly longer. Further study of choice of supplemental instrumentation with LLIF is indicated.