Skip to main content
  • Retroperitoneal Oblique Corridor to the L2-S1 Intervertebral Discs in the Lateral Position: an Anatomic Study

    Final Number:

    Timothy T Davis MD, DABNM; Richard A. Hynes MD; Scott W Spann; Michael MacMillan; Brian Kwon MD, PhD; John C. Liu MD; Frank L. Acosta MD; Thomas E Drochner; Daniel A Fung MD

    Study Design:
    Laboratory Investigation

    Subject Category:

    Meeting: Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2013 Annual Meeting

    Introduction: Access to the intervertebral discs from L2-S1 in one surgical position can be challenging. The direct lateral transpsoas approach poses potential risk to the lumbar plexus as it courses through the psoas. The plexus and iliac crest cause access to the L4-5 disc to be more complex and makes the L5-S1 level inaccessible. This studies purpose is to investigate a MIS oblique approach to the L2-S1 intervertebral disc space while keeping the patient in a lateral decubitus position with minimal disruption of the psoas and lumbar plexus.

    Methods: Twenty one fresh frozen cadaveric specimens were dissected. An oblique anatomic corridor to access the L2-S1 discs was examined. Measurements were taken with and without retraction of the psoas. The access corridor was defined at L2-3, L3-4, and L4-5 as the left lateral border of the aorta (or iliac artery) and the anterior medial border of the psoas. The L5-S1 corridor of access was defined transversely from the mid-sagittal line of the inferior endplate of L5 to the medial border of the common iliac vessel and vertically to the first vascular structure that crosses midline.

    Results: The mean static/retracted access corridor was as follows; L2-3 = 17.7mm/24.4mm, L3-4 = 18.3mm/25.9mm, L4-5 = 14.3mm/23.6mm. The L5-S1 disc space means were 14.8mm between midline and left common iliac vessel, and 24mm from the first midline vessel to the inferior endplate of L5.

    Conclusions: The MIS oblique corridor allows access to the L2 -S1 discs while keeping the patient in a lateral decubitus position. Minimal psoas retraction without significant tendon disruption allowed for a generous corridor to the disc space. The L5-S1 disc space can be accessed from an oblique angle consistently with gentle retraction of the iliac. This study supports the potential of an MIS oblique retroperitoneal approach to the L2-S1 discs.

    Patient Care: Introduce a alternative and potentially safer approach to L2-S1 interbody fusion all in the lateral decubitus position.

    Learning Objectives: This studies purpose is to investigate a MIS oblique approach to the L2-S1 intervertebral disc space while keeping the patient in a lateral decubitus position with minimal disruption of the psoas and lumbar plexus.

    References: 1. Mundis GM, Akbarnia BA, Phillips FM. Adult deformity correction through minimally invasive lateral approach techniques. Spine 2010; Vol 35, N265: S312-S321. 2. Shen FH, Samartizis D, Khanna AJ, Anderson DG. Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar interbody fusions. Orthop Clin N Am 2007; 38:373-386. 3. Le TV, Uribe JS. The minimally invasive retroperitoneal transpsoas approach. Spine Surgery 2012, Dr. Kook Jin Chung (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51-0469-8, InTech. 4. Youssef JA, McAfee PC, Patty CA, Raley E, DeBauche S, Shucosky E, Chotikul L. Minimally invasive surgery: lateral approach interbody fusion. SPINE 2010; Vol 35, N265: S302-S311. 5. Hu WK, He SS, Zhang SC, Liu YB, Li M, Hou TS, Ma XL, Wang J. An MRI study of psoas major and abdominal large vessels with respect to the X/DLIF approach. Eur Spine J 2011; 20:557-562. 6. Moller DJ, Slimack NP, Acosta FL, Koski TR, Fessler RG, Liu JC. Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transpsoas approach-related morbidity. Neurosurg Focus 2011; 31(4):E4 1-5. 7. Davis TT, Bae HW, Mok JM, Rasouli A, Delamarter RB. Lumbar plexus anatomy within the psoas muscle: implications for the tranpsoas lateral approach to the L4-L5 disc. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93:1482-7. 8. Houten JK, Alexandre LC, Nasser R, Wollowick AL. Nerve injury during the transpsoas approach for lumbar fusion: report of 2 cases. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 15:280-284. 9. Hussain NS, Perez-Cruet MJ. Compilcation management with minimally invasive spine procedures. Neurosurg Focus 2011; 31(4):E2, 1-9. 10. Benglis DM, Vanni S, Levi AD. An anatomical study of the lumbosacral plexus as related to the minimally invasive transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine, laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 2009; 10:139-144. 11. Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, Uribe JS. Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 2010; 28(3): E8 1-7. 12. Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. Indications: operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 1953; 10:154-68. 13. Silvestre C, Thiong JM, Hilmi R, Roussouly P. Complications and morbidities of mini-open anterior retroperitoneal lumbar interbody fusion: Oblique lumbar interbody fusion in 179 patients. Asian Spine Journal 2012; Vol. 6, No. 2:89-97. 14. Burkus JK, Gornet MF, Dickman CA, Zdeblick TA. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion using rhBMP-2 with tapered interbody cages. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 2002; Vol.35, No.2:337-349. 15. Brau SA, Delamarter RB, Kropf M, Watkins RG, Williams LA, Schiffman ML, Bae HW. Access Strategies for Revision in Anterior Lumbar Surgery. Spine 2008; Vol. 33, Issue 15:409-12. 16. Pimenta L, Oliveira L, Schaffa T, Coutinho E, Marchi L. Lumbar total disc replacement from an extreme lateral approach: clinical experience with a minimum of 2 years follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine 2001; 14(1):38-45. 17. Dakwar E, Vale FL, Uribe JS. Trajectory of the main sensory and motor branches of the lumbar plexus outside the psoas muscle related to the lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach, Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine 2011; 14:290-295. 18. Uribe JA, Arredondo N, Dakwar E, Vale FL. Definiing the safe working zones using the minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: an anatomical study. J Neurosurg Spine 2010; 13:260-266. 19. Anand et al. Mid-term to long-term clinical and functional outcomes of minimally invasive correction and fusion for adults with scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus 28 (3):E6, 2010. 20. Berjano et al. Direct lateral access lumbar and thoracolumbar fusion: preliminary results. Eur Spine J (2012) 21 (Suppl 1):S37–S42. 21. Cahill et al. Motor nerve injuries following the minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach. J Neurosurg: June 29, 2012. 22. Cummock et al. An analysis of postoperative thigh symptoms after minimally invasive transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 15:11–18, 2011. 23. Isaacs et al. A prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis: perioperative outcomes and complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Dec 15;35(26 Suppl):S322-30. 24. Kepler et al. Lateral Transpsoas Interbody Fusion (LTIF) With Plate Fixation and Unilateral Pedicle Screws A Preliminary Report. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011;24:363–367. 25. Knight et al. Direct Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Conditions Early Complication Profile. J Spinal Disord Tech 2009;22:34–37. 26. Pumberger et al. Neurologic deficit following lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J (2012) 21:1192–1199. 27. Sharma et al. Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes at 1 Year A Preliminary Report. J Spinal Disord Tech 2011;24:242–250. 28. Tohmeh et al. Dynamically evoked, discrete-threshold electromyography in the extreme lateral interbody fusion approach. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011 Jan;14(1):31-7. Epub 2010 Dec 17. 29. Tormenti et al. Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus 28 (3):E7, 2010. 30. Wang et al. Minimally invasive surgery for thoracolumbar spinal deformity: initial clinical experience with clinical and radiographic outcomes. Neurosurg Focus 28 (3):E9, 2010. 31. Mayer HM. A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 1997; 22:691-9. 32. Saraph V, Lerch C, Walochnik N, Bach CM, Krismer M, Wimmer C. Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2005; 13:425-31.

We use cookies to improve the performance of our site, to analyze the traffic to our site, and to personalize your experience of the site. You can control cookies through your browser settings. Please find more information on the cookies used on our site. Privacy Policy