Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 8, 2025
Three-dimensional Navigation-guided, Prone, Single-position, Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Technique
Published on: July 15, 2021
Early Experiences With Single-Position Prone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Safety and Outcomes
Tejas Subramanian1,2, Omri Maayan1,2, Pratyush Shahi1
1Department of Spine Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Background:
Performing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) in a single prone position may pose many advantages over the traditional lateral decubitus position, but there are questions concerning its safety profile and outcomes.
Purpose:
We sought to study the safety and efficacy of LLIF performed with the patient in the prone position.
Methods:
We conducted a retrospective cohort study including patients who underwent primary LLIF in the prone position for degenerative lumbar conditions. Complications and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], and visual analogue scale [VAS] scores for leg and back pain) were collected. Patients who underwent single-position prone LLIF were then propensity score matched for age, race, comorbidity index, number of levels, body mass index, and smoking status with patients who underwent single-position lateral LLIF. Patient-reported outcome measures and complications were compared between the 2 groups. Two postoperative timepoints were defined: early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months).
Results:
Twenty single-position prone LLIF patients were included (35% 1-level, 35% 2-level, 15% 3-level, and 15% 4-level). No intraoperative complications were reported. Eleven (55%) patients experienced transient postoperative anterior thigh weakness. Five (25%) patients experienced postoperative complications such as anemia, urinary retention, ileus, and new-onset sensory symptoms. Oswestry Disability Index, VAS leg, and VAS back scores all improved at the >6-month time point compared with preoperative states. There were no significant differences at any postoperative time point for PROMs between prone and lateral LLIF groups. Among the matched cohort, complications were observed in 3 (21%) of patients compared with only 1 (7%) in the lateral group although this difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion:
This retrospective study suggests that prone LLIF procedures may be safe and effective. Ergonomic and logistic benefits from the approach may make it a beneficial approach for surgeons to begin implementing.
