Добавил:
Sekretar
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
X
- •Foreword
- •Reference
- •Contents
- •References
- •1: The Epidemiology of Adult Spinal Deformity and the Aging Population
- •1.1 The Aging Population
- •1.2 Incidence of Spinal Disorders and Deformity in Our Aging Population
- •1.3 Incidence of Spinal Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity in Our Aging Population
- •1.4 Incidence of Medical Morbidity Associated with Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity in Our Aging Population
- •Conclusion
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.2.1 The King System
- •2.2.2 The Coonrad System
- •2.2.3 The Lenke System
- •2.3.2 The Schwab System
- •2.3.3 The SRS System
- •2.3.4 The SRS-System
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •3: Indications for Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 Symptom-Driven Treatment
- •3.2.1 Pain
- •3.2.2 Axial Pain
- •3.2.3 Radicular Pain
- •3.2.4 Disability
- •3.4.1 Imaging Analysis and Diagnosis
- •3.4.2 X-Ray
- •3.4.3 MRI
- •3.4.4 CT
- •3.4.5 EMG
- •3.5 Operative Indications
- •3.7 Risks of Surgical Treatment
- •3.8 Risk Factors for Surgical Complications
- •3.9 Minimizing Surgical Risk
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •4: Sagittal Balance
- •4.1 Local Spinal Alignment
- •4.2 Global Alignment
- •4.3 Imaging
- •4.4 Outcomes
- •References
- •5: Lumbopelvic Parameters
- •5.1 Introduction
- •5.2 Pelvic Incidence
- •5.3 Pelvic Tilt
- •5.4 Sacral Slope
- •5.5 Lumbar Lordosis
- •5.6 Pelvic Obliquity
- •5.7 The Spinopelvic Relationship and Pelvic Translation
- •5.8 Clinical Relevance
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •6: The Importance of the Fractional Curve
- •6.1 Introduction
- •6.2 Biomechanics of the Fractional Curve
- •6.5.1 Curve Under-Correction
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •7: Radiation Safety
- •7.1 Introduction
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •8: Costs of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery
- •8.1 Introduction: Costs of Spinal Surgery
- •8.2 Cost Analysis
- •8.4 Increased Costs with MIS Spine Surgery
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •9: The MiSLAT Algorithm: Minimally Invasive Evaluation and Treatment for Adult Degenerative Deformity
- •9.1 Introduction
- •9.3 Patient Evaluation
- •9.5 The MiSLAT Algorithm
- •9.5.1 MiSLAT Treatment Level I
- •9.5.2 MiSLAT Treatment Level II
- •9.5.3 MiSLAT Treatment Level III
- •9.5.4 MiSLAT Treatment Level IV
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •10: Fluoroscopic Techniques in MIS Surgery
- •10.1 Introduction
- •10.4 Standard Fluoroscopic Images of the Spine
- •10.5 Tips and Tricks for Successful C-Arm Usage
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •11: Image Guidance for Minimally Invasive Deformity Surgery
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of CAS
- •11.5 One- or Two-Level MIS TLIF
- •12.2 Anatomy
- •12.2.1 Pedicle
- •12.2.2 Thoracic Spine
- •12.2.3 Lumbar Spine
- •11.6 Complex and Deformity Surgery
- •11.7 Navigation Without K-Wires
- •11.8 Radiation Exposure
- •11.10 Impact of Navigation on Screw Accuracy and Clinical Outcome
- •11.11 Robotic Surgery
- •11.12 Future Developments and Outlook
- •References
- •12: Nuances of Percutaneous Thoracolumbar Pedicle Screw Fixation
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.3 Principles of Minimally Invasive Spinal Instrumentation
- •12.3.1 Preoperative Planning
- •12.3.2 Fluoroscopic Imaging
- •12.3.3 Facet or Intertransverse Fusion
- •12.3.4 Marking Out the Surgical Incision
- •12.3.5 Percutaneous Pedicle Targeting
- •12.3.6 Pedicle Screw and Rod Insertion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •13: Rod Contouring, Passage, and Connection
- •References
- •14: Percutaneous Sacropelvic Fixation
- •14.1 Introduction
- •14.2 Surgical Technique for Image-Based Iliac Targeting
- •14.3 Clinical Applications
- •References
- •15: Management of Osteoporotic Bone
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.3 Preoperative Evaluation and Medical Management
- •15.4 Surgical Strategies for the Osteoporotic Spine
- •15.5 Vertebroplasty/Kyphoplasty for Osteoporotic Fractures
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •16: Minimally Invasive Cement-Augmented Pedicle Screw Fixation
- •16.2 Augmentation Techniques
- •16.3 Screw Geometry/Insertion
- •16.4 Cement Augmentation
- •16.5 Conclusion
- •16.6 Technique
- •16.6.1 Technique
- •16.6.2 Case Example Number 2
- •References
- •17: Interbody Cage Options
- •17.1 Material Options
- •17.1.1 Metallic Devices
- •17.1.2 Polymer Devices
- •17.1.3 Biodegradable
- •17.2 Design Options
- •17.2.2 Size of Cages: Just Fit into Versus Distraction of the Intervertebral Space
- •17.2.3 Number of Cages: One Versus Two
- •17.2.5 Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Cages
- •17.3 Consequences of the Material Types: Subsidence
- •17.4 Ideal Interbody Cage
- •References
- •18: Multilevel TLIF for Spinal Deformity
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Use of Open Multilevel TLIF for Coronal and Sagittal Deformity Correction
- •18.3 The Use of MIS Multilevel MIS TLIF in Adult Deformity Surgery
- •18.4 Surgical Technique
- •18.5 Future Advances
- •References
- •19: Expandable Cages for Thoracic Spinal Deformity
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Kyphotic Deformity of the Thoracic Spine
- •19.3 Conservative Management and Treatment of Thoracic Kyphotic Deformity
- •19.4 Indications and Goals for Surgical Correction of Thoracic Kyphotic Deformity
- •19.5 Surgical Approaches to Treating Thoracic Kyphotic Deformity
- •19.5.1 Posterior
- •19.5.2 Anterolateral
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •20: Expandable Cages for Lumbar Spinal Deformity
- •20.1 Introduction
- •20.4 Kambin’s Triangle and the Geometry of Interbody Cages
- •20.5 The Role of Expandable Cages
- •20.6 Case Illustration
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •21: Lumbar Endoscopic Fusion
- •21.1 Introduction
- •21.2 ETLIF
- •21.2.1 Indications: Special Considerations
- •21.2.2 Surgical Technique
- •21.3 LALIF
- •21.3.2 Surgical Technique
- •21.4 ELLIF
- •21.4.2 Surgical Technique
- •21.5 PELIF
- •21.5.1 Indications: Special Considerations
- •21.5.2 Surgical Technique
- •21.6 Final Considerations
- •References
- •22: Minimally Invasive Osteotomy Techniques
- •22.1 Introduction
- •22.3 Posterior Column Osteotomies (Grades I and II)
- •22.4 Three-Column Osteotomies (Grades III through IV)
- •22.6 Future Directions
- •References
- •23: Thoracoscopic Approaches
- •References
- •24: Role of Neuromonitoring in Minimally Invasive Lateral Approaches to the Spine
- •24.1 Introduction
- •24.2 Anatomy
- •24.3 Types of Monitoring
- •24.5 Recommendations
- •References
- •25: Lateral Interbody Decompression and Fusion: Which Side to Approach From?
- •25.1 Background
- •25.2 Anterior Interbody Versus Posterior Interbody
- •25.3 Approaching from the Concave or Convex Side of the Spine
- •25.4 Concave Approach
- •25.5 Convex Approach
- •25.6 Other Considerations
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •26: Stand-Alone Lateral Surgery for Spinal Deformity
- •26.1 Introduction
- •26.2 Patient Selection
- •26.4 Biomechanics
- •26.5 Anatomical Considerations
- •26.6 Operative Considerations
- •26.7 Case Illustration
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •27: Complications of the Lateral Lumbar Transpsoas Approach
- •27.1 Complications of Positioning
- •27.3 Complications Encountered During Discectomy and Graft Placement
- •27.4 Complications Encountered in the Postoperative Period
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •28: Minimally Invasive Anterior Column Reconstruction for Sagittal Plane Deformities
- •28.1 Introduction
- •28.2 Patient Selection
- •28.3 Advantages and Disadvantages
- •28.4 Anterior Longitudinal Ligament Section via the Lateral Transpsoas Approach
- •28.5 Anatomic Consideration
- •28.5.1 Anterior Longitudinal Ligament
- •28.5.2 Lumbar/Sympathetic Plexus
- •28.5.3 Great Vessels
- •28.6 Operative Considerations
- •28.7 Case Illustration
- •28.8.1 Introduction
- •28.9 Case Illustration
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •29: MIS Thoracic Interbody Surgery
- •29.1 Evolution of MIS Thoracic Interbody Techniques
- •29.2 Anterior Techniques
- •29.3 Posterior Techniques
- •29.4 Indications for MIS Thoracic Interbody Surgery
- •29.5 Contraindications for MIS Thoracic Interbody Surgery
- •29.7 Extracoelomic Approach to the Thoracolumbar Junction
- •29.8 MIS Thoracic Interbody Surgery via Posterolateral Extracavitary Approach
- •29.9 MIS Corpectomy and Vertebral Body Replacement
- •29.10 MIS Deformity Correction
- •29.12 Clinical Results
- •References
- •30: Mini-Open ALIF for Fusing the Lumbosacral Junction
- •30.1 Indications
- •30.2 Contraindications
- •30.3 Alternative Treatments
- •30.4 Results
- •30.5 Technique
- •30.5.1 Setup
- •30.5.2 Instruments
- •30.5.3 Procedure
- •30.5.4 Wound Closure
- •30.5.5 Postoperative Regimen
- •References
- •31: Presacral Approach for Discectomy and Interbody Fusion in the Setting of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Deformity Correction
- •31.1 Indications for Fusion to the Sacrum in Deformity Correction
- •31.1.1 Surgical Anatomy
- •31.1.2 Device
- •31.2.1 AxiaLIF in the Setting of Deformity
- •31.2.1.1 Procedure
- •31.3 Outcomes in Terms of Deformity Correction
- •31.4 Complications
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •32: Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion
- •References
- •33: Bone Graft Extenders
- •33.1 Introduction
- •33.2 Bone Formation
- •33.2.1 Autograft
- •33.2.2 Allograft-Based Extenders
- •33.2.3 Growth Factor-Based Extenders
- •33.2.4 Cell-Based Extenders
- •33.2.5 Ceramic-Based Extenders
- •33.2.6 Polymer-Based Extenders
- •33.3 Clinical Research
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •34: Minimally Invasive Wiltse Approaches for Posterolateral Fusion
- •34.1 Introduction
- •34.2 Intermuscular Approach
- •34.3 Facet Fusion
- •34.5 Medialized Screw Fixation
- •34.6 Discussion
- •References
- •35: Minimally Invasive Thoracolumbar Facet Joint Fusion
- •35.1 Introduction
- •35.3 Surgical Technique Section
- •35.4 Clinical Data
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •36: Clinical Research in MIS Surgery: Current State and Future Challenges
- •36.1 Introduction
- •36.3.2 Complication Rates
- •36.3.3 Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
- •36.7 Clinical Research in MIS Surgery: Future Challenges
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •37: MIS in Adolescent Deformity
- •37.1 Indications for MIS in AIS
- •37.2 Technique of MIS in AIS
- •References
- •38: The Future of MIS Spine Surgery
- •38.1 Introduction
- •38.2 What Is MISS?
- •38.3 Where Should MISS Go in the Future?
- •38.4.1 Patient Demand
- •38.4.2 Skill Level and Education
- •38.4.3 Instrumentation
- •38.4.4 Image Guidance
- •38.4.5 Cost, Quality of Life (QOL)
- •38.4.6 Health-Care Policy
- •References
- •Index

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 [ 1 – 4 , 12 – 14 , 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 , 43 – 45 , 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
[ 18 – 20 , 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 [ 1 – 3 ,
12 – 14 , 25 – 27 , 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
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
