Transaxial Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the AxiaLIF System

Published on 10/03/2015 by admin

Filed under Neurosurgery

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 2341 times

Chapter 36 Transaxial Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using The AxiaLIF System

The rate of minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) has increased in recent years because of the development of technology and new approaches to the spine. Open lumbar surgery is disadvantageous because of the need of muscle and neural retraction, ligamentous and osseous dissection, disruption of the anulus, and vascular exposure [1]. For most MISS techniques, the approach is like those used in open approaches to the spine—that is, posterolateral and extraforaminal exposure of the disc space and incision or excision of the anulus [29].

When stabilization of the lumbosacral spine is indicated, however, a less invasive axial lumbosacral surgery offers significant advantages over MISS techniques [10–13]. This technique, transaxial anterior lumbar interbody fusion, uses a percutaneous, presacral approach. Use of the AxiaLIF System, manufactured by TranS1, Inc. (Wilmington, NC), is described in this chapter, first for stabilization at one level, and then for stabilization at two levels.*

Presacral anatomy

Axial anterior spinal access is accomplished by dilating an osseous tract through the upper sacrum. The midline entry point in to the sacral promontory at approximately the S1-S2 interspace is relatively bare area compared with the more complex vascular and neural structures encountered over the lower lumbar spine (Fig. 36-1) [14,15]. At the sacral level, the iliac vessels and their accompanying sympathetic hypogastric nerves have diverged by several centimeters. The middle sacral artery follows a variable course over the sacrum but is usually small at the S1-S2 level. The rectum and sigmoid colon are easily mobilized in the presacral region. The presacral space is filled with areolar tissue and fat between the parietal peritoneum on the anterior sacrum and the visceral peritoneum on the rectum (see Fig. 36-1). The space is relatively easily traversed with a blunt obturator or needle.

AxiaLIF at one level

Procedure

Patient Positioning

In the AxiaLIF technique, multiplanar imaging with magnetic resonance (MRI) and/or computed tomography (CT) is essential to determine whether the patient is a proper surgical candidate. A standard bowel preparation is performed. The patient is placed on a fluoroscopically compatible surgical table in the prone position (Fig. 36-2). Bolsters are positioned under the hips and shoulders to raise the sacrum and establish proper lumbosacral posture. A catheter is inserted into the rectum to allow insufflation of air. The operative site is prepared with an adhesive barrier to exclude the perineum. Two C-arm fluoroscopic units are positioned to allow frontal and lateral (biplanar) fluoroscopic visualization of the lumbosacral region. The procedure is currently performed using general anesthesia.

Radial Discectomy

Axial disc access is accomplished through the 9-mm sacral working cannula. Custom MISS instruments for discectomy, end plate preparation, tissue removal, and bone grafting are inserted through the working cannula (Fig. 36-4). The instruments are monitored with biplanar fluoroscopy. Axial disc space entry facilitates the use of expansible, radial instruments that are aligned in the plane of the disc space and end plates. Thus minimally invasive discectomy is potentially easier and more complete with axial disc space entry than with horizontally oriented, posterolateral approaches.

Case Series [16,17]

The authors conducted a case series involving 19 patients with a median age of 51 years. Subjects were evaluated preoperatively, postoperatively, and at discharge, 1 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12, 24, and 30 months.

Assessment consisted of the following:

Fixation of the lumbosacral junction was performed through a 14-mm access cannula via an axial presacral approach. Treatment was facilitated by insertion of an axial interbody fusion construct coupled with osteogenic material and posterior minimal invasive pedicle screw instrumentation. The 360-degree minimally invasive fusion approach was accomplished through three small (2-in.) incisions. Mean surgical time was 122 minutes. In all cases measured blood loss was less than 60 mL.

Postoperative pain was minimal. There were no cases of bowel, vascular, or nerve damage. Improvements were observed

CASE STUDY 36.1

A 45-year-old woman had discogenic-type low back pain that intensified with standing and flexion. In addition, she had neurogenic claudication symptoms. Preoperative MRI and radiography showed narrowing and desiccation of the L5-S1 disc space with a spondylolisthesis grade II (Fig. 36-7). She underwent the AxiaLIF procedure at the L5-S1 level (Fig. 36-8). Radiographs obtained 12 months after surgery showed osseous bridging of L5-S1 and reduction of the spondylolisthesis (Fig. 36-9). CT scans demonstrated no evidence of radiolucency on the pedicle screws and the distraction rod (Fig. 36-10) and, along with a three-dimensional reconstruction, also showed solid osseous fusion of the L5-S1 interspace (Fig. 36-11).

image

Figure 36–7 Case Study 36.1: Preoperative sagittal MRI (B) and lateral radiograph (A) shows narrowing and desiccation of the L5-S1 disc space with a spondylolisthesis grade II.

image

Figure 36–8 Case Study 36.1: AxiaLIF procedure step by step.

image

Figure 36–9 Case Study 36.1: Lateral (A) and anteroposterior (B) radiographs obtained 12 months after surgery show osseous bridging of the L5-S1 interspace and reduction of the spondylolisthesis.

image image image

Figure 36–10 Case Study 36.1: (A) Axial computed tomography CT) scan obtained 12 months after surgery shows no evidence of radiolucency on the pedicle screws and the distraction rod. Sagittal (B) and coronal (C) CT scans demonstrates osseous fusion of the L5-S1 interspace.

image

Figure 36–11 Case Study 36.1: One year postoperatively, three-dimensional reconstruction shows solid fusion.

in VAS, Oswestry, and SF-36 values measured again at 2 years after surgery. The mean VAS score decreased from a preoperative value of 8.3 to 3.4. The mean Oswestry Disability Index improved from 43.1 to 21.0. Radiographic analysis concluded that there was no evidence of implant back-out, damage, bone resorption, fractures, or sacral abnormalities.

Two measurements of the disc height were made preoperatively and postoperatively, one in the midline and the other in the posterior border of the disc space. Preoperatively, mean midline disc height was 6.06 (range 2-11), and mean posterior border disc height was 4.8 (range 2-9). Postoperatively, the mean midline disc height was 7.5 [range 511], and mean posterior border disc height was 6.06 (range 3-9). CT scans demonstrated of fusion rate to be 89.5% at 12-month follow-up, and 94.7% at 30 months after surgery (18 of 19 patients).

AxiaLIF at two levels

The AxiaLIF (Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion) 2L System (TranS1, Inc.) includes surgical instruments for “creating a safe and reproducible presacral access route to the L4-S1 vertebral bodies [18].” The technique features instrumentation to enable standard of care fusion principles, distraction, and stabilization of the anterior lumbar column while mitigating the soft tissue trauma associated with traditional lumbar fusion through open surgical incisions. With the use of this system, the lumbar spine is accessed through an axial channel in the sacrum. This approach spares the supporting soft tissue including muscles and ligaments which reduces pain in recovery and the chances of soft tissue associated complications.

Preoperative Planning

Radiographic images including a full sacral view are used to determine whether the anatomy is suitable for the AxiaLIF 2L procedure. The standard field of view for lumbar MRI and CT is expanded to include the coccyx, to provide for trajectory and anatomical preoperative planning.

Trajectory is extremely important with the AxiaLIF 2L procedure. Templates are available and should be used to help the surgeon determine whether the patient is a candidate for this procedure, as follows:

Match the scale of the MRI or CT image with the magnification scale on the template. The template’s magnification scale is relative to the actual size of the implants but does not necessarily correlate with the scale size printed on the MRI or CT image. If a magnification scale does not exactly match the scale on the image, err on the side of the larger template magnification scale. Adjust the chosen template so that the implants are positioned within the vertebral bodies and do not breach the cortex of the vertebral body. Examine the location of the lines of the guide pin introducer relative to the coccyx. The patient is probably a candidate for this procedure if the lines are reasonably close to the tip of the coccyx.

Additionally, a true lateral radiograph should be taken of the lumbosacral region, including the coccyx, with the patient in a prone position and the hips in flexion. It should be used as follows to further determine whether the AxiaLIF procedure is appropriate for the individual patient: Draw a line on the radiograph from the anterior aspect of the superior L4 end plate parallel to the anterior cortex of the L5 vertebral body toward and beyond the coccyx. Draw another line coincident with the posterior cortex of the L5 vertebral body toward and beyond the coccyx. The patient is likely a candidate for the procedure if any portion of the tip of the coccyx lies between the two lines.

Procedure

The AxiaLIF 2L procedure is performed as follows; the instruments with capitalized names are proprietary instruments available from Trans1, Inc.

Step 1: Access and Trajectory

Step 2: Discectomy at L5-S1

A series of instruments is used to sequentially dilate the soft tissue and sacral corticocancellous bone to create the working channel, as follows:

A series of Nitinol Disc Cutters, varying in length and cutting action, is used to prepare the disc space. Each of the four cutters is designed to debulk the nucleus pulposus and to lightly abrade the end plates circumferentially up to a 3-cm diameter footprint while creating a bleeding bed for fusion. The Radial Cutters are designed to debulk the nucleus pulposus and to the scrape the superior end plate. The Radial Downcutters are specifically designed to abrade the inferior end plate. They are used as follows:

NOTE: The blade must be retracted before being removed from the disc space.

Tissue Extractors are used to remove disc material loosened by the cutters. Tissue Extractors may be used after each cutter or after cutting is mostly complete, as follows:

NOTE: Flush and aspirate as needed with saline, adding antibiotic according to standard procedure.

Step 4: Advance Access to L4-L5

NOTE: The blade must be retracted before being removed from the disc space.

Tissue Extractors are used to remove disc material loosened by the cutting devices. Tissue Extractors may be used after each cutter or after cutting is mostly complete (Fig. 36-39), as follows:

NOTE: Flush and aspirate as needed with saline, adding an antibiotic according to standard procedure.

Step 7: Implant Selection and Delivery

L4-L5 implant selection

The .092-inch Guide Pin is used under fluoroscopy to determine the appropriate implant size, as follows:

The desired distraction should be selected on the basis of the patient’s anatomy. The distal rod will engage in the L4 vertebral body and then span the L4-L5 disc space and the L5 vertebral body. The distal rod may extend into the L5-S1 disc space or may be recessed slightly into the L5 vertebral body.

A Fixation Wire is then used to anchor the Exchange Cannula to the sacrum, as follows:

Case Series [19]

In a prospective single-center clinical trial, 10 patients with a median age of 51.6 years (range 29-70 years) underwent axial lumbosacral surgery in two levels. Subjects were evaluated preoperatively as well as at discharge and postoperatively at 1 and 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Analysis consists of measurement of disc height and fusion through radiographs and CT evaluation by an independent radiologist. Pain assessment

CASE STUDY 36.2

A 38-year-old man had axial pain with 2 years’ evolution. Results of a discogram were positive at L4-L5 and L5-S1. MRI and lateral radiographs showed spondylolisthesis grade I as well as narrowing and desiccation of the L5-S1 disc space with Modic II changes (Fig. 36-52A). The patient underwent the AxiaLIF 2L Procedure. Radiographs performed 12 months after surgery demonstrated solid fusion of L4-L5 and L5-S1, and CT scanning confirmed solid fusion of the L4-L5 and L5-S1 interspaces (Fig. 36-52B to D).

image image

Figure 36–52 Case Study 36.2: (A) Preoperative sagittal magnetic resonance image and lateral radiograph show a black disc L4-L5 with spondylolisthesis grade I and a narrowing and desiccation of the L5-S1 disc space with Modic II changes. (B) Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs shows solid fusion of the L4-L5 and L5-S1 interspaces 12 months after surgery. (C) One year postoperatively, sagittal and coronal computed tomography scans show solid fusion of the L4-L5 and L5-S1 interspaces. (D) Three-dimensional reconstruction shows fusion at both levels.

was conducted by means of the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, and SF-36 Health Survey.

Fixation of lumbosacral junction was performed through a 14-mm access cannula using an axial presacral approach. Treatment of the patients was facilitated by insertion of an axial interbody fusion construct coupled with osteogenic material and posterior minimal invasive pedicle screw instrumentation. The 360-degree minimally invasive stabilization and fusion approach was accomplished through three small incisions. Mean surgical time was 130.7 minutes.

There was minimal post-operative pain. The preoperative mean VAS of 9.2 (SD 0.90) had decreased to 2.2 (SD 1.2) at 12 months’ follow-up. The mean Oswestry Disability Index decreased from 63.3% (SD 18.5) to an average of 17.6% (SD 6.5) at 12 months’ follow-up. All data were statistically significant (P = 0.05). Six months after surgery, the rate of fusion was 60% (6 patients) and at 12 months’ follow-up, the fusion rate had increased to 90% (9 patients). The other patient appeared to be developing bridging bone. The overall satisfaction rate of the patients was 100%.

Tips and Tricks

References

1 Perez-Cruet M.J., Fessler R.G., Perin N.I. Review: Complications of minimally invasive spinal surgery. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(Suppl.):S26-S36.

2 Leu H.F., Hauser R.K. Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar spine fusion. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 1996;7:107-117.

3 Mathews H.H. Percutaneous interbody fusion. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29:647-653.

4 McAfee P.C., Regan J.J., Geis W.P., Fedder I.L. Minimally invasive anterior retroperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine: Emphasis on the lateral BAK. Spine. 1998;23:1476-1484.

5 Muhlbauer M., Pfisterer W., Eyb R., Knosp E. Minimally invasive retroperitoneal approach for lumbar corpectomy and anterior reconstruction: Technical note. J Neurosurg. 2000;93(Suppl.):161-167.

6 O’Dowd J.K. Laparoscopic lumbar spine surgery. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(Suppl. 1):S3-S7.

7 Olinger A., Hildebrandt V., Mutschler W., Menger M.D. First clinical experience with an endoscopic retroperitoneal approach for anterior fusion of lumbar spine fractures from levels T12 to L5. Surg Endosc. 1999;13:1215-1219.

8 Regan J.J., Yuan H., McAfee P.C. Laparoscopic fusion of the lumbar spine: Minimally invasive spine surgery: A prospective multicenter study evaluating open and laparoscopic lumbar fusion. Spine. 1999;24:402-411.

9 Thalgott J.S., Chin A.K., Ameriks J.A., et al. Minimally invasive 360 degrees instrumented lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J. 2000;9(Suppl. 1):S51-S56.

10 Cragg A., Carl A., Casteneda F., et al. New percutaneous access method for minimally invasive anterior lumbosacral surgery. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17:21-28.

11 Cragg A., Carl A., Casteneda F., et al. Percutaneous axial lumbar spine surgery (AxiaLIF). In: Perez Cruet M., Khoo L., Fessler R.G., editors. An Anatomical Approach to Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. St. Louis: Quality Medical, 2006. 38-1–38-17

12 Ledet E., Tymeson M., Salerno S., et al. Biomechanical evaluation of a novel lumbosacral axial fixation device. J Biomech Eng. 2005;127:929-933.

13 Khoo L., Marotta N., Cosar M., Pimenta L. Novel minimally-invasive presacral approach and instrumentation technique for anterior l5–s1 intervertebral discectomy and fusion: Technical description and case presentations. Neurosurg Focus. 2006;20(1):E9.

14 Ledet E.H., Carl A.L., Cragg A. Novel lumbosacral axial fixation techniques. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2006;3:327-334.

15 Yuan P., Day T., Albert T., et al. Anatomy of the percutaneous presacral space for a novel fusion technique. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19:237-241.

16 Asgarzadie F., Khoo L., Cosar M., Marotta N., Pimenta L. One Year Outcomes of Minimally-Invasive Presacral Approach And Instrumentation Technique For Anterior Lumbosacral Intervertebral Discectomy And Fusion. Spine J. 2007;7(5):26S-27S.

17 Minimal Invasive Percutaneous Presacral Axial Lumbar Fusion (AxiaLIF) – Prospective Clinical and Radiographic Results After 36 Months Follow-up. Presented at Weill Cornell Medical College Meeting in 2007.

18 AxiaLIF®. The Least Invasive Solution to Lumbar Fusion. 2009 Available at http://www.trans1.com/products

19 Two Levels Presacral Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion (AxiaLIF) – A Prospective 12 Months Follow up: Clinical And Radiological Results. Presented at SpineWeek 2008 in Geneva.