Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_6031_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
24 Мб
Скачать
29 MIS Thoracic Interbody Surgery
291
retropleural and retroperitoneal spaces may need to be connected to gain full access to the spine/ spinal canal and to place the instrumentation. The retroperitoneal space is entered by dividing the costal cartilage of the 11th or 12th ribs [ 22 , 32 , 37 , 52 ] and the psoas muscle is bluntly split en route to the spine [ 4 , 6 , 17 , 24 , 45 , 48 , 54 ]. The extent of associated rib removal depends on both individual anatomy and required surgical access dimensions. In contradistinction to the origi­nal descriptions of thoracolumbophrenic access [ 37 , 38 ], extensive division of the diaphragm itself is not required. Only the most proximal diaphragmatic insertions on the thoracolumbar spine (L1, L2) are dissected off the lateral spinal surface to connect the retropleural and retroperi­toneal spaces [ 11 , 17 , 45 , 55 ] – schematic line drawing). Overlying skin, soft tissues, pleura, diaphragm, and peritoneal sac are retracted by multiple valves of a table-fi xed retractor to allow for simultaneous visualization of supra- and infradiaphragmatic extensions of the combined approach. Closed chest tube drainage usually is not required. If a visceral pleural leak (i.e., air fi stula) or a parietal pleural tear should occur that cannot be addressed by direct suture or applica­tion of a sealant (e.g., a fi brin-coated collagen sponge), a small chest tube is placed directly through from the approach site. Otherwise, a single large vacuum drain (12Ch) is left in the retropleural space to promote reattachment of the parietal pleura to the chest wall for 3–4 days. Mid-thoracic (true) ribs are approximated and secured with nonabsorbable sutures. The wound is closed anatomically in layers, with the skin either sutured or sealed with cyanoacrylate. Postoperative chest X-rays to exclude clinically relevant pneumo-/hemothorax are obligatory before discharge of the patient from the ICU.

29.7 Extracoelomic Approach to the Thoracolumbar Junction

The thoracolumbar junction may be accessed either via a primarily transthoracic retropleural route [ 1 , 2 , 13 , 14 , 30 , 34 , 42 , 43 , 57 ] (working
downward with transdiaphragmatic extension into the retroperitoneal space at L1 or L2) or via a retroperitoneal approach working upward through the insertion of the medial diaphragm arcade [ 11 ] with subsequent retropleural dissec- tion along the lateral spine surface [ 3 , 17 , 45 , 54 ]. The choice of the most suitable approach is dictated by individual chest cage anatomy (posi­tion, angulation, and length of the 10th to 12th ribs), the intended instrumentation, and surgeon preference.

29.8 MIS Thoracic Interbody Surgery via Posterolateral Extracavitary Approach

Our preferred MIS variant of the posterolateral extracavitary approach (PECA) involves partial removal of the proximal 8–10 cm of the rib at the level of the pathology with the patient in regu­lar prone position (Fig. 29.2 ). The approach side needs to be ipsilateral to the location or major extension of pathology, respectively, since the PECA does not offer a lateral working trajec­tory tangential to the spinal canal – schematic line drawing). This feature of PECA precludes the treatment of lesions that require radical VBR, comprehensive anterior column manipulation, division of the ALL, or full pedicle-to- pedicle visualization of the spinal canal. However, poste­rior pedicle screw fi xation can easily be performed without repositioning the patient. Therefore, in our hands this approach is a preferred option in the treatment of spinal metastasis, rather than deformity. Like in retropleural thoracotomy, blunt dissection of the parietal pleura commences at the site of rib removal. This retropleural plane is progressively developed to expose the rib head(s) and then the lateral vertebral body wall, up to its anterior border – schematic line drawing). For VBR, at least one spinal nerve root needs to be divided to gain enough space for insertion of the distraction cage. In contradistinction to the lateral retropleural approach, the trajectory during VBR cage insertion is invariably oblique. For lordotic anterior column reconstruction, instrumenta­tion systems allowing for insertion of lordotic
292
K.-M. Scheufl er
Fig. 29.2 MIS lateral extracavitary approach to Th12. Left image – overview showing skin markings of midline, pedi- cle rows, and positions of Th10–L2 pedicles. Lower left mark indicates posterior iliac crest. Right image – operative
VBR devices from variable oblique angles (e.g., Obelisk ® , Ulrich Medical, Ulm, Germany) [ 45 , 54 ] are recommended.

29.9 MIS Corpectomy and Vertebral Body Replacement

Removal of adjacent discs greatly facilitates anatomical orientation during subsequent cor­pectomy. Discectomy and/or corpectomy is per­formed using long-handled instruments (chisels, elevators, rongeurs, curettes, or a power burr). If spinal canal decompression is required, the pos­terior vertebral wall is initially left intact during corpectomy, then progressively thinned down, and fi nally displaced ventrally into the corpec­tomy defect with a long slim Cobb dissector,
situs following resection of proximal left 12th rib and retro­pleural dissection to the costovertebral joint. Cobb elevator is placed below rib head. The dissection remains entirely lateral to and therefore spares the erector trunci muscle
directing it away from the thecal sac – schematic line drawing). Adequacy of decompression may be assessed by either passing a blunt nerve hook along the posterior vertebral surface and below the thecal sac to the contralateral side, epidural contrast medium instillation with subsequent fl uoroscopy (intraoperative epidurography), or intraoperative 3D imaging (isocentric C-arm or intraoperative CT technology).
A variety of interbody devices may be used for anterior column reconstruction [ 1 , 15 , 29 , 33 , 40 , 45 , 47 , 53 , 54 ]. Implants of specifi c interest for deformity surgery are (a) hyperlordotic inter­vertebral cages (lordosis angle 16°–25°) and dis­tractable VBR cages with variable angle end plates. The individual choice of implant depends on correction requirements, the size of gap that needs to be closed, the number of segments addressed, and availability of instrumentation
29 MIS Thoracic Interbody Surgery
293
Fig. 29.3 MIS bisegmental (Th4 and Th5) vertebral body replacement (VBR) via right-sided retropleural approach. The aortic arch is overlying the left lateral vertebral sur­face in the upper thoracic spine. Left image – the parietal pleura is held below two retractor blades ( upper image
suitable for MIS. We use individually trimmed titanium mesh cylinders as hyperlordotic inter­vertebral cage to close PSO gaps. For VBR, our preferred implant is a hollow cylindrical tita­nium distractable device equipped with variable angle end plates (Fig. 29.3 ) that is manufactured in various sizes to bridge corpectomy voids of up to three segments (Obelisk ® , Ulrich Medical, Ulm, Germany) [ 45 , 54 ]. In the elderly and in patients with questionable or proven poor bone quality, we routinely reinforce the vertebral bod­ies fl anking distractable VBR devices with PMMA (i.e., intraoperative vertebroplasty) to prevent subsidence and vertebral stress fracture (Fig. 29.4 ).

29.10 MIS Deformity Correction

MIS correction of thoracic hyperkyphosis or scoliosis by interbody techniques involves either multiple thoracic discectomies (Fig. 29.4 ) or columnotomy (oligosegmental corpectomy) with subsequent (hyper)lordotic intervertebral cage or VBR device insertion (Fig. 29.5 ). The thoracic and combined thoracoabdominal retropleural/ retroperitoneal approaches provide suitable access for such procedures, specifi cally by grant­ing visualization and control of prevertebral ves­sels and thecal sac during release and subsequent instrumentation. Spinal deformity correction
border ); the spinal canal is oriented parallel to lower image border . VBR device is fully expanded, and the
locking nut is engaged. Right image – corresponding post- operative coronal CT reconstruction, demonstrating VBR device and lateral plate
maneuvers as well as VBR implant size and shape may be planned individually with the aid of spe­cifi cally designed software, allowing for assess­ment of correction results and required hardware ahead of the actual intervention. The importance of meticulous surgical planning for successful completion of a complex MIS deformity pro­cedure cannot be overstated. Comprehensive spinal fi xation and deformity reduction usually involve either posterior pedicle- based fi xation or anterolateral screw-rod fi xation (Fig. 29.4 ). Posterior instrumentation may either be placed prior to or during the anterior procedure [ 25 , 54 ]. Surgical options include insertion of provi- sional rods, which are replaced by defi nitive rods during anterior correction, and image- guided single-step circumferential instrumentation in the lateral decubitus position. Various surgical sequence strategies are currently evolving, as are specifi c implants, correction tools, as well as integration of surgical image- guidance and plan­ning software.
29.11 Complications Avoidance
and Management
The complication profi le of MIS deformity pro­cedures generally resembles that of conventional open procedures. Complications specifi cally related to MIS may arise from inability of the
294
K.-M. Scheufl er
Fig. 29.4 MIS correction of thoracolumbar scoliosis (degenerative adult scoliosis) in a 62-year-old male via left-sided DLIF. Upper left image – intraoperative situs after insertion of the tubular retractor. Upper right image – initial intraoperative A-P radiograph before correction. Note solid lateral syndesmophytes on concave right side ,
surgeon to accomplish the surgical goal(s) within the confi nes of an MIS exposure. In our experi­ence, true MIS-related problems are rare and mostly due to inadequate surgical planning or experience. Few events may warrant conversion to a “standard” size approach:
– Uncontrollable bleeding from laceration of a
large vessel in the depth of the operative fi eld
– Inability to safely dissect the soft tissues ante-
rior to the spine in severe rotational scoliosis
– Inability to safely perform anterior instrumen-
tation due to inadequate trajectory in severe rotational scoliosis
Pleural tears or dural lacerations with CSF egress do not warrant access extension. Pleural tears are not uncommon and easy to deal with (direct suture and/or application of fi brin-soaked gelatin sponge) and do not per se warrant inser­tion of a chest tube. The anesthesia team is asked to increase the PEEP of mechanical ventilation to expand the lung. If there is contact between vis­ceral and parietal pleura, a chest drain is not
requiring aggressive intersomatic release during correc­tion. Lower row – intraoperative radiographs during sequential intersomatic release and insertion of interverte­bral cages. Note the frontal correction release following release of syndesmophytes on fi nal image
required. However, if the pleural gap does not close or in case of a visceral pleural tear (air fi s­tula), placement of a chest tube is mandatory. Dural lacerations are best treated by application of fi brin glue and fi brin-soaked gelatin sponge in several layers. In this event, the retropleural drain should be placed more anteriorly and the retro­pleural space adjacent to the spine obliterated with Floseal (Baxter).

29.12 Clinical Results

The recent steep increase in lateral lumbar fusion procedures may be attributed to the ease and effi ­cacy of the direct lateral approach [ 4 , 6 , 17 , 21 , 24 , 45 ]. Various MIS deformity procedures uti- lize the unique features offered by the lateral tra­jectory to the thoracolumbar spine. Both VATS and mini-open lateral trans-/retropleural approach share the lateral route that allows for direct visu­alization of the vertebral body and anterior spinal
29 MIS Thoracic Interbody Surgery
295
Fig. 29.5 MIS correction of thoracolumbar kyphoscoliosis (degenerative adult scoliosis) in a 67-year-old female via left-sided mini-open combined thoracolumbar extracoelo­mic approach. Upper left image – coronal CT reconstruction demonstrating fracture and lateral rotational displacement of the Th12, L1, and L2 vertebrae. Upper right image – full spine standing X-ray showing severe thoracolumbar kypho­sis with marked compensatory pelvic retroversion. The patient was unable to walk for pain and sagittal imbalance.
canal, comprehensive anterior correction maneu­vers, and high fusion rates [ 14 , 1214 , 25 , 45 , 48 , 54 ]. Both of these features are advantageous for the treatment of fi xed thoracic hyperkyphosis and kyphoscoliosis. MIS anterior thoracic inter­body surgery has been applied for a variety of indications, including trauma, tumor, infection,
Lower left image – postoperative coronal CT reconstruction after deformity correction by trisegmental corpectomy/ VBR (Th12–L2), DLIF L3/L4, and L4/L5 and complemen­tary posterior fi xation from T8 to sacropelvis. Note PMMA reinforcement of vertebra fl anking the VBR device and placement of morcellized rib autograft lateral to the VBR device to promote fusion. Lower right image – postoperative sagittal CT reconstruction showing correction of sagittal profi le, decompression of the spinal canal
and deformity with promising results [ 1 , 3 , 14 , 17 , 25 , 4345 , 48 , 54 ]. Readily connecting to the retroperitoneal space, the MIS lateral retropleural approach is specifi cally suited for complex thora­columbar interventions requiring anterior release and anterior column support. The complication spectrum of MIS generally resembles that of
296
K.-M. Scheufl er
Fig. 29.5 (continued)
conventional “open” surgery, while signifi cant complications such as duropleural fi stula may be effectively prevented by using the MIS retropleu­ral approach. Both VATS and mini-open approaches reduce postoperative pain and pul­monary dysfunction and promote early mobiliza­tion. In comparison to “standard” open technique [ 1820 , 27 , 35 , 45 ], no study has yet demon-
strated signifi cant shortcomings or inferior clini­cal results of MIS thoracic procedures conducted under the proviso of sound surgical indication making. Moreover, favorable results regarding operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and neurological outcomes have been reported [ 13 , 1214 , 2527 , 29 , 45 , 48 , 54 , 55 ]. While MIS thoracic interbody surgery has only recently
29 MIS Thoracic Interbody Surgery
297
been introduced to the treatment of spinal defor­mity, preliminary experience indicates its poten­tial as a powerful adjunct to the surgical armamentarium.

References

1. Amini A, Beisse R, Schmidt MH. Thoracoscopic
spine surgery for decompression and stabilization of the anterolateral thoracolumbar spine. Neurosurg Focus. 2005;19:E4.
2. Anand N, Regan JJ. Video-assisted thoracoscopic
surgery for thoracic disc disease: classifi cation and outcome study of 100 consecutive cases with a 2-year minimum follow-up period. Spine. 2002;27: 871–9.
3. Barone GW, Eidt JF, Webb JW, Hudec WA, Pait TG.
The anterior extrapleural approach to the thoracolum­bar junction revisited. Am Surg. 1998;64: 372–5.
4. Benglis DM, Elhammady MS, Levi AD, Vanni S.
Minimally invasive anterolateral approaches for the treatment of back pain and adult degenerative defor­mity. Neurosurgery. 2008;63:191–6.
5. Bergey DL, Villavicencio AT, Goldstein T, Regan JJ.
Endoscopic lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar spine. Spine. 2004;29:1681–8.
6. Bertagnoli R, Vazquez RJ. The Anterolateral Trans-
Psoatic Approach (ALPA): a new technique for implanting prosthetic disc-nucleus devices. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:398–404.
7. Bohlman HH, Zdeblick TA. Anterior excision of her-
niated thoracic discs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1988; 20:1038–47.
8. Capener N. The evolution of lateral rhachotomy.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1954;36-B:173–9.
9. Chen LH, Chen WJ, Niu CC, Shih CH. Anterior
reconstructive spinal surgery with Zielke instrumen­tation for metastatic malignancies of the spine. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2000;120:27–31.
10. Chi JH, Dhall SS, Kanter AS, et al. The Mini-Open
transpedicular thoracic discectomy: surgical tech­nique and assessment. Neurosurg Focus. 2008;25: 1–5.
11. Dakwar E, Ahmadian A, Uribe JS. The anatomical
relationship of the diaphragm to the thoracolum­bar junction during the minimally invasive lateral extracoelomic (retropleural/retroperitoneal) approach. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:359–64.
12. Delfi ni R, Di Lorenzo N, Ciappretta P, et al. Surgical
treatment of thoracic disc herniation: a reappraisal of Larson’s lateral extracavitary approach. Surg Neurol. 1996;45:517–23.
13. Deviren V, Kuelling FA, Poulter G, Pekmezci M. Minimal invasive anterolateral transthoracic trans­pleural approach: a novel technique for thoracic disc herniation. A review of the literature, descrip­tion of a new surgical technique and experience with fi rst 12 consecutive patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24:E40–8.
14. Dickman CA, Rosenthal D, Karahalios DG, et al. Thoracic vertebrectomy and reconstruction using a microsurgical thoracoscopic approach. Neurosurgery. 1996;38:279–93.
15. Dvorak MF, Kwon BK, Fisher CG, Eiserloh 3rd HL, Boyd M, Wing PC. Effectiveness of titanium mesh cylindrical cages in anterior column reconstruction after thoracic and lumbar vertebral body resection. Spine. 2003;28:902–8.
16. Elsaghir H. Endoscopic medial parascapular approach to the thoracic spine. Surg Endosc. 2005;19: 389–92.
17. Elsaghir H. Extracoelomic mini approach for anterior reconstructive surgery of the thoracolumbar area. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(Suppl):118–22.
18. Faciszewski T, Winter RB, Lonstein JE, Denis F, Johnson L. The surgical and medical perioperative complications of anterior spinal fusion surgery in the thoracic and lumbar spine in adults: a review of 1223 procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20: 1592–9.
19. Faro FD, Marks MC, Newton PO, Blanke K, Lenke LG. Perioperative changes in pulmonary function after anterior scoliosis instrumentation: thoraco­scopic versus open approaches. Spine. 2005;30: 1058–63.
20. Fessler RG, Sturgill M. Review: complications of sur­gery for thoracic disc disease. Surg Neurol. 1998;49: 609–18.
21. Graham III AW, Mac Millan M, Fessler RG. Lateral extracavitary approach to the thoracic and thoraco­lumbar spine. Orthopedics. 1997;20:605–10.
22. Hollinshead WH. Textbook of anatomy. 3rd ed. Hagerstown: Harper & Row; 1974. p. 496–501.
23. Huang TJ, Hsu RW, Li YY, Cheng CC. Minimal access spinal surgery (MASS) in treating thoracic spine metastasis. Spine. 2006;31:1860–3.
24. Isaacs RE, Hyde J, Goodrich JA, Rodgers WB, Phillips FM. 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;35:S322–30.
25. Jain AK, Dhammi IK, Jain S, Kumar J. Simultaneously anterior decompression and posterior instrumenta­tion by extrapleural retroperitoneal approach in tho­racolumbar lesions. Indian J Orthop. 2010;44: 409–16.
26. Kasliwal MK, Deutsch H. Minimally invasive retro­pleural approach for central thoracic disc herniation. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2011;54:167–71.
298
K.-M. Scheufl er
27. Khoo LT, Smith ZA, Asgarzadie F, Barlas Y, Armin SS, Tashjian V, et al. Minimally invasive extracavi­tary approach for thoracic discectomy and interbody fusion: 1-year clinical and radiographic outcomes in 13 patients compared with a cohort of traditional anterior transthoracic approaches. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14:250–60.
28. Kim DH, Jaikumar S, Kam AC. Minimally inva­sive spine instrumentation. Neurosurgery. 2002;51: S15–25.
29. Kim DH, O’Toole JE, Ogden AT, et al. Minimally invasive posterolateral thoracic corpectomy: cadav­eric feasibility study and report of four clinical cases. Neurosurgery. 2009;64:746–52.
30. Kossmann T, Jacobi D, Trentz O. The use of a retractor system (SynFrame) for open, minimal invasive reconstruction of the anterior column of the thoracic and lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 2001;10: 396–402.
31. Larson SJ, Holst RA, Hemmy DC, Sances Jr A. Lateral extracavitary approach to traumatic lesions of the thoracic and lumbar spine. J Neurosurg. 1976;45: 628–37.
32. Louis R. Surgery of the spine. New York: Springer;
1983. p. 228–31.
33. Maciejczak A, Barnas P, Dudziak P, Jagiello-Bajer B, Litwora B, Sumara M. Posterior keyhole corpectomy with percutaneous pedicle screw stabilization in the surgical management of lumbar burst fractures. Neurosurgery. 2007;60:232–41.
34. Mack MJ, Regan JJ, McAfee PC, Picetti G, Ben­Yishay A, Acuff TE. Video-assisted thoracic surgery for the anterior approach to the thoracic spine. Ann Thorac Surg. 1995;59:1100–6.
35. McAfee PC. Complications of anterior approaches to the thoracolumbar spine: emphasis on Kaneda instru­mentation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;306: 110–9.
36. McCormick PC. Retropleural approach to the thoracic and thoracolumbar spine. Neurosurgery. 1995;37: 908–14.
37. Mirbaha MM. Anterior approach to the thoracolum­bar junction of the spine by a retroperitoneal­extrapleural technique. Clin Orthop. 1973;91: 41–7.
38. Moskovich R, Benson D, Zhang ZH, Kabins M. Extracoelomic approach to the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:886–93.
39. Musacchio M, Patel N, Bagan B, Deutsch H, Vaccaro AR, Ratliff J. Minimally invasive thoraco­lumbar costotransversectomy and corpectomy via a dual-tube technique: evaluation in a cadaver model. Surg Technol Int. 2007;16:221–5.
40. Oskouian Jr RJ, Shaffrey CI, Whitehill R, Sansur CA, Pouratian N, Kanter AS, et al. Anterior stabilization of three-column thoracolumbar spinal trauma. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;5:18–25.
41. Patterson Jr RH, Arbit E. A surgical approach through the pedicle to protruded thoracic discs. J Neurosurg. 1978;48:768–72.
42. Regan JJ, Mack MJ, Picetti III GD. A technical report on video-assisted thoracoscopy in thoracic spinal sur­gery: preliminary description. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20:831–7.
43. Rosenthal D, Marquardt G, Lorenz R, Nichtweiss M. Anterior decompression and stabilization using a microsurgical endoscopic technique for metastatic tumors of the thoracic spine. J Neurosurg. 1996;84: 565–72.
44. Sasso RC, Renkens K, Hanson D, Reilly T, McGuire Jr RA, Best NM. Unstable thoracolumbar burst fractures: anterior-only versus short-segment pos­terior fi xation. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19: 242–8.
45. Scheufl er KM. Technique and clinical results of mini­mally invasive reconstruction and stabilization of the thoracic and thoracolumbar spine with expandable cages and ventrolateral plate fi xation. Neurosurgery. 2007;61:798–808.
46. Schmidt MH, Larson SJ, Maiman DJ. The lateral extracavitary approach to the thoracic and lumbar spine. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2004;15: 437–41.
47. Shen FH, Marks I, Shaffrey C, Ouellet J, Arlet V. The use of an expandable cage for corpectomy reconstruc­tion of vertebral body tumors through a posterior extracavitary approach: a multicenter consecutive case series of prospectively followed patients. Spine J. 2008;8:329–39.
48. Smith WD, Dakwar E, Le TV, Christian G, Serrano S, Uribe JS. Minimally invasive surgery for traumatic spinal pathologies: a mini-open, lateral approach in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Spine. 2010;35: S338–46.
49. Smith ZA, FesslerRG. Nature reviews neurology.
10.1038/nrneurol.2012.110
doi:
50. Stillerman CB, Chen TC, Couldwell WT, et al. Experience in the surgical management of 82 symp­tomatic herniated thoracic discs and review of the lit­erature. J Neurosurg. 1998;88:623–33.
51. Sundaresan N, Shah J, Foley KM, Rosen G. An ante­rior surgical approach to the upper thoracic vertebrae. J Neurosurg. 1984;61:686–90.
52. Thiel W. Photographic atlas of practical anatomy. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2003.
53. Uchida K, Kobayashi S, Nakajima H, Kokubo Y, Yayama T, Sato R, et al. Anterior expandable strut cage replacement for osteoporotic thoracolumbar ver­tebral collapse. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4: 454–62.
54. Uribe JS, Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Vale FL. Minimally invasive lateral retropleural thoracolumbar approach: cadaveric feasibility study and report of 4 clinical cases. Neurosurgery. 2011;68:32–9.
29 MIS Thoracic Interbody Surgery
299
55. Uribe JS, Smith WD, Pimenta L, Härtl R, Dakwar E, Modhia UM, et al. Minimally invasive lateral approach for symptomatic thoracic disc herniation: initial multicenter clinical experience. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:264–79.
56. Vedantam R, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, Haas J, Linville DA. A prospective evaluation of pulmonary function in patients with adolescent idiopathic scolio-
sis relative to the surgical approach used for spinal arthrodesis. Spine. 2000;25:82–90.
57. Verheyden AP, Hoelzl A, Lill H, Katscher S, Glasmacher S, Josten C. The endoscopically assisted simultaneous posteroanterior reconstruction of the thoracolumbar spine in prone position. Spine J. 2004;4:540–9.
Part V
Dealing with the Lumbo-Pelvic Junction