Case Reports
. 2021 Mar 26;13(3):e14123.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.14123.
Affiliations
Affiliations
- 1 Department of Orthopaedics, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, SAU.
- 2 Department of Surgery, King Salman Hospital, Riyadh, SAU.
Item in Clipboard
Case Reports
Anwar M Al-Rabiah et al.
Cureus.
.
Display options
Format
. 2021 Mar 26;13(3):e14123.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.14123.
Affiliations
- 1 Department of Orthopaedics, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, SAU.
- 2 Department of Surgery, King Salman Hospital, Riyadh, SAU.
Item in Clipboard
Display options
Format
Abstract
Minimally invasive techniques have gained popularity in spine surgery in recent years. Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) is one of these techniques. The rapid increase in the use of this approach in either primary or revision surgeries is related to its several advantages including less operative time, less blood loss and reduced length of hospital stay with fast recovery. We report a case of a failed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in L4-L5 level, one year after the primary procedure with persistent pain due to failed fusion. Underwent revision, by using XLIF with the removal of old cage and exchange with new large cage. Revision of failed interbody fusion can be achieved through anterior, posterior or lateral approach. The decision to proceed with either method depends on several factors, including previous surgeries, fibrosis and risk of neurovascular injury and surgeon’s preference. XLIF approach should be considered in revision surgeries of failed interbody fusion. As it can provide several advantages compared to anterior or posterior approaches, in terms of better fusion rates and lower risk of neurovascular injuries by avoiding the use of the previous passage.
Keywords:
interbody cage migration; lateral interbody fusion; percutaneous pedicle screw; pseudoarthrosis; revision surgery.
Copyright © 2021, Al-Rabiah et al.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Similar articles
-
Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: the effect of various instrumentation techniques on the flexibility of the lumbar spine.
Harris BM, Hilibrand AS, Savas PE, Pellegrino A, Vaccaro AR, Siegler S, Albert TJ.
Harris BM, et al.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Feb 15;29(4):E65-70. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000113034.74567.86.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004.PMID: 15094547
-
Extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion: Do the cons outweigh the pros?
Epstein NE.
Epstein NE.
Surg Neurol Int. 2016 Sep 22;7(Suppl 25):S692-S700. doi: 10.4103/2152-7806.191079. eCollection 2016.
Surg Neurol Int. 2016.PMID: 27843688
Free PMC article. -
Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases.
Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson J.
Rodgers WB, et al.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011 Jan 1;36(1):26-32. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e1040a.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011.PMID: 21192221
-
Interspinous Process (ISP) Devices in Comparison to the Use of Traditional Posterior Spinal Instrumentation.
Faulkner JE, Khalifeh K, Hara J, Ozgur B.
Faulkner JE, et al.
Cureus. 2021 Mar 14;13(3):e13886. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13886.
Cureus. 2021.PMID: 33868850
Free PMC article.Review.
-
Comparison of ALIF vs. XLIF for L4/5 interbody fusion: pros, cons, and literature review.
Winder MJ, Gambhir S.
Winder MJ, et al.
J Spine Surg. 2016 Mar;2(1):2-8. doi: 10.21037/jss.2015.12.01.
J Spine Surg. 2016.PMID: 27683688
Free PMC article.Review.
Cite