BACKGROUND: Incongruity between irregularly shaped vertebral endplates and the uniform surfaces of stock interbody fusion cages has been identified as contributing to cage subsidence, pseudarthrosis, and unpredictable alignment. Advances in manufacturing techniques have driven the development of personalized interbody cages (PICs) that can match individual endplate morphology and provide the exact shape and size needed to fill the disc space and achieve the planned correction. This study used computed tomography (CT) imaging to evaluate the implant-endplate contact area, fusion, subsidence, and achievement of planned alignment correction in patients receiving PIC devices.
METHODS: This retrospective study included patients treated for adult spinal deformity at a single site and implanted with PIC devices at L4 to L5 or L5 to S1 for segmental stabilization and alignment correction, who received 1-year postoperative CT images as part of their standard of care. An evaluation using 3-dimensional thin-section scans was conducted. Implant-endplate contact and signs of fusion were assessed in each CT slice across both endplates. The degree of subsidence as well as measures of segmental and global lumbar alignment were also assessed.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients were included in the study, with a mean age of 68.2 years. Follow-up ranged between 9 and 14 months. Twenty-six total lumbar levels were implanted; 20 with PIC devices via the anterior lumbar interbody fusion approach, 2 with stock cages via the anterior lumbar interbody fusion approach, and 4 with PIC devices via the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion approach. CT analysis of PIC-implanted levels found an overall implant-endplate contact area ratio of 93.9%, a subsidence rate of 4.5%, a fusion rate of 100%, and satisfactory segmental and global lumbar correction compared with the preoperative plan.
CONCLUSIONS: PIC implants can provide nearly complete contact with endplate surfaces regardless of the individual endplate morphology. Subsidence, fusion, and alignment assessments in this tomographic study illustrated results consistent with the benefits of a personalized interbody implant.
METHODS:

BACKGROUND: Emerging data have highlighted the significance of planning and aligning total and segmental lumbar lordosis with pelvic morphology when performing short-segment fusion with the goal of reducing the risk of adjacent segment disease while also decreasing spine-related disability. This study evaluates the impact of personalized interbody implants in restoring pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch compared with a similar study using stock interbody implants.
METHODS: This multicenter retrospective analysis assessed radiographic pre- and postoperative spinopelvic alignment (PI-LL) in patients who underwent 1- or 2-level lumbar fusions with personalized interbody implants for degenerative (nondeformity) indications. The aim was to assess the incidence of malalignment (PI-LL ≥ 10°) both before and after fusion surgery and to determine the rate of alignment preservation and/or correction in this population.
RESULTS: There were 135 patients included in this study. Of 83 patients who were aligned preoperatively, alignment was preserved in 76 (91.6%) and worsened in 7 (8.4%). Among the 52 preoperatively malaligned patients, alignment was restored in 23 (44.2%), and 29 (55.8%) were not fully corrected. Among patients who were preoperatively aligned, there was no statistically significant difference in either the \"preserved\" or \"worsened\" groups between stock devices and personalized interbody devices. In contrast, among patients who were preoperatively malaligned, there was a statistically significant increase in the \"restored\" group (P = 0.046) and a statistically significant decrease in the \"worsened\" groups in patients with personalized interbodies compared with historical stock device data (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a historical cohort with stock implants, personalized interbody implants in short-segment fusions have shown a statistically significant improvement in restoring patients to normative PI-LL. Using 3-dimensional preoperative planning combined with personalized implants provides an important tool for planning and achieving improvement in spinopelvic parameters.
METHODS:

BACKGROUND: Lumbar lordosis distribution has become a pivotal factor in re-establishing the foundational alignment of the lumbar spine. This can directly influence overall sagittal alignment, leading to improved long-term outcomes for patients. Despite the wide availability of hyperlordotic stock cages intended to achieve optimal postoperative alignment, there is a lack of correlation between the lordotic shape of a cage and the resultant intervertebral alignment. Recently, personalized spine surgery has witnessed significant advancements, including 3D-printed personalized interbody implants, which are customized to the surgeon\'s treatment and alignment goals. This study evaluates the reliability of 3D-printed patient-specific interbody implants to achieve the planned postoperative intervertebral alignment.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 217 patients with spinal deformity or degenerative conditions. Patients were included if they received 3D-printed personalized interbody implants. The desired intervertebral lordosis (IVL) angle was prescribed into the device design for each personalized interbody (IVL goal). Standing postoperative radiographs were measured, and the IVL offset was calculated as IVL achieved minus IVL goal.
RESULTS: In this patient population, 365 personalized interbodies were implanted, including 145 anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs), 99 lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIFs), and 121 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions. Among the 365 treated levels, IVL offset was 1.1° ± 4.4° (mean ± SD). IVL was achieved within 5° of the plan in 299 levels (81.9%). IVL offset depended on the approach of the lumbar interbody fusion and was achieved within 5° for 85.9% of LLIF, 82.6% of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions and 78.6% of ALIFs. Ten levels (2.7%) missed the planned IVL by >10°. ALIF and LLIF levels in which the plan was missed by more than 5° tended to be overcorrected.
CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of 3D-printed personalized interbody implants to achieve planned sagittal intervertebral alignment.
CONCLUSIONS: Personalized interbody implants can consistently achieve IVL goals and potentially impact foundational lumbar alignment.
METHODS:

METHODS: Retrospective Cohort Study.
OBJECTIVE: Restoration of lumbar lordosis (LL) is a principal objective during spinal fusion procedures, traditionally focusing on achieving an LL within 10° of the pelvic incidence (PI). Recent studies have demonstrated a relatively constant L4-S1 alignment of 35-40° at L4-S1 and at least 15° at L4-5, regardless of PI. Based on these results, this study was created to examine the success rate of achieving a minimum of 15° at L4-5 through two differing prone-based techniques: Prone Lateral (pLLIF) and Trans Foraminal Interbody Fusion (TLIF).
METHODS: One hundred patients with a primary single-level L4-5 interbody fusion (50 pLLIF and 50 TLIF) were retrospectively analyzed. Pre and post-operative radiographs were measured to examine the segmental change at each level in the lumbar spine and calculate the success rate for achieving a minimum L4-5 segmental lordosis of 15° at the final follow-up.
RESULTS: The overall success rate of achieving an L4-5 segmental alignment >15° at the final follow-up was 70%. Prone LLIF was significantly more likely than TLIF to achieve this goal, achieving L4-5 > 15° 84% of the time vs TLIFs 56% (P = 0.002). Prone LLIF demonstrated an average L4-5 increase of 5.6 ± 5.9° which was larger than the mean increase for TLIF 0.4 ± 3.8° (P < 0.001). In both techniques, there was an inverse correlation between pre-operative L4-5 angle and L4-5 angle change.
CONCLUSIONS: Prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion demonstrates a high success rate for achieving a post-operative L4-5 angle >15° and achieves this at a higher rate than TLIF.

UNASSIGNED: Adjacent segment disease (ASD) is a late complication of lumbar fusion characterized by persistent symptoms correlating to radiographic changes in the levels immediately above or below the prior fusion. Lateral interbody fusion (LIF) through a direct lateral approach is a minimally invasive and effective surgical treatment for ASD. Biomechanically, LIF for ASD provides significantly decreased motion in multiple planes. While hardware failure and injury to the lumbar plexus are potential complications, these risks may be outweighed by decreased blood loss, shorter operating room (OR) times, and possibly superior patient reported visual analog scale (VAS) scores compared to traditional posterior spinal fusion (PSF) alone. The purpose of this review is to summarize the history, uses, outcomes, and future directions of LIF for ASD.
UNASSIGNED: A review of national databases (PubMed and SCOPUS) was performed using literature from 1900 to 2022. Keywords included terms \"LATERAL\" and \"LUMBAR\" and \"INTERBODY\" and \"FUSION\" and \"ADJACENT\" and \"SEGMENT\" and \"DISEASE\". Studies that aimed to describe the biomechanical, clinical course and complications, radiological outcomes, biomechanical aspects, need for revision surgery, and/or patient reported outcomes of the XLIF/LIF technique were included.
UNASSIGNED: This review includes a brief overview of the natural history of ASD and current approaches to address it. It then summarizes the main indications and utilization of LIF to address ASD, summarizing reported outcomes in regard to biomechanical, clinical, and radiographic outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: LIF has emerged as a minimally invasive and effective surgical treatment for ASD. This mini-review suggests that LIF provides a solid foundational biomechanical construct that has been paired with good patient-reported, clinical, and radiographic outcomes. While further research is required, current literature suggests that LIF for ASD results in fewer complications, decreased morbidity, and decreased need for subsequent surgery compared to other commonly utilized techniques.

Objectives  Expandable transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) devices have been developed to introduce more segmental lordosis through a narrow operative corridor, but there are concerns about the degree of achievable correction with a small graft footprint. In this report, we describe the technical nuances associated with placing bilateral expandable cages for correction of iatrogenic deformity. Materials and Methods  A 60-year-old female with symptomatic global sagittal malalignment and a severe lumbar kyphotic deformity after five prior lumbar surgeries presented to our institution. We performed multilevel posterior column osteotomies, a L3-4 intradiscal osteotomy, and placed bilateral lordotic expandable TLIF cages at the level of maximum segmental kyphosis. Results  We achieve a 21-degree correction of the patient\'s focal kyphotic deformity and restoration of the patient global sagittal alignment. Conclusion  This case demonstrates both the feasibility and utility of placing bilateral expandable TLIF cages at a single disc space in the setting of severe focal sagittal malalignment. This technique expands the implant footprint and, when coupled with an intradiscal osteotomy, allows for a significant restoration of segmental lordosis.

OBJECTIVE: Lateral interbody fusion (LIF) is an increasingly popular minimally-invasive spine procedure. This study identifies notable trends in LIF literature and provides a detailed review of the bibliometric aspects of the top 100 most-cited articles.
METHODS: Articles were queried from the Web of Science database. Inclusion criteria consisted of peer-reviewed articles, full-text availability, and LIF focus. Network analysis including co-authorship mapping and bibliographic coupling were complemented by trend analysis to determine prominent contributors and themes. Analyses were conducted using VOSviewer and Bibliometrix (RStudio).
RESULTS: There has been a rapid increase in LIF publication and citation count since 1998. Leading journals were Spine (n = 24), Journal of Neurosurgery Spine (n = 22), and European Spine Journal (n = 12). NuVasive funded the most publications (n = 17), followed by DePuy Synthes Spine (n = 4). The United States was the most represented country (n = 81); however, trend analysis suggests a steadily growing international contribution. The most prolific author was J.S. Uribe (n = 16), followed by a tie in second place by E. Dakwar and L. Pimenta (n = 8). The most frequent keywords, \"complication\" (n = 34), \"surgery\" (n = 30), and \"outcomes\" (n = 24), demonstrated a patient-centric theme.
CONCLUSIONS: This bibliometric analysis provides in-depth insights into the evolution and trends of LIF over the last two decades. The trends and themes identified demonstrate the innovative, collaborative, and patient-focused characteristics of this subfield. Future researchers can use this as a foundation for understanding the past and present state of LIF research while designing investigations.

OBJECTIVE: The transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure is a minimally invasive lumbar spine approach that provides indirect neural decompression, improved sagittal alignment, and a high fusion rate. Typically accompanied by posterior pedicle screw insertion, there has been interest in performing LLIF in a single position to decrease cost and time under anesthesia. However, there is a paucity of direct comparisons between single-position LLIF via prone versus lateral decubitus positioning. Therefore, this study aims to compare the outcomes of a single surgeon performing prone versus lateral single-position LLIF, inclusive of the L4-L5 level.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of a consecutive case series of patients who underwent either prone or lateral, single-position LLIF by a single surgeon. All cases involved the L4-L5 level. Demographic data, perioperative details, clinical outcomes, and preoperative and postoperative lumbar lordosis were recorded.
RESULTS: Sixty-three patients underwent lateral and 16 patients underwent prone single-position LLIF. Demographics and average interbody size were similar between groups. Operative time, change in lumbar lordosis, and length of hospital stay did not differ between the 2 positions. Both groups performed similarly in terms of preoperative and postoperative visual analog score pain score and complications. Patients who underwent lateral position LLIF ambulated farther on postoperative day 1 (250 feet vs. 200 feet, P = 0.015). Average time to follow up was 53 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates promising preliminary results indicating that single-position LLIF performs well, even at the L4-L5 level, in both the prone and lateral positions.

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a popular technique as it allows for the placement of a large interbody implant through a retroperitoneal, transpsoas working corridor. Historically, the interbody is placed with the patient in lateral decubitus and then repositioned to prone for the posterior instrumentation. While this has been an effective and successful technique, removing the interoperative flip would improve the efficiency of these cases. This has led to modified LLIF approaches including single-position prone LLIF (pLLIF). This modification has shown to be an efficient and powerful technique; however, learning to navigate the LLIF approach in the prone position has its own challenges. The purpose of this article is to provide a detailed description of our pLLIF technique while simultaneously introducing surgical tips to overcome the challenges of the approach and optimize the implantation of the interbody device.

METHODS: Retrospective analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate resolution of radiculopathy in one-level lumbar fusion with indirect or direct decompression techniques.
METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age with preoperative radiculopathy undergoing single-level lumbar fusion with up to 2-year follow-up were grouped by indirect and direct decompression. Direct decompression (DD) group included ALIF and LLIF with posterior DD procedure as well as all TLIF. Indirect decompression (ID) group included ALIF and LLIF without posterior DD procedure. Propensity score matching was used to control for intergroup differences in age. Intergroup outcomes were compared using means comparison tests. Logistic regressions were used to correlate decompression type with symptom resolution over time. Significance set at P < .05.
RESULTS: 116 patients were included: 58 direct decompression (DD) (mean 53.9y, 67.2% female) and 58 indirect decompression (ID) (mean 54.6y, 61.4% female). DD patients experienced greater blood loss than ID. Additionally, DD patients were 4.7 times more likely than ID patients to experience full resolution of radiculopathy at 3 months post-op. By 6 months, DD patients demonstrated larger reductions in VAS score. With regard to motor function, DD patients had improved motor score associated with the L5 dermatome at 6 months relative to ID patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Direct decompression was associated with greater resolution of radiculopathy in the near post-operative term, with no differences at long term follow-up when compared with indirect decompression. In particularly debilitated patients, these findings may influence surgeons to perform a direct decompression to achieve more rapid resolution of radiculopathy symptoms.