Lateral approach to the lumbar spine: The utility of an access surgeon.

Background: Lateral lumbar interbody fusions (LLIFs) utilize a retroperitoneal approach that avoids the intraperitoneal organs and manipulation of the anterior vasculature encountered in anterior approaches to the lumbar spine. The approach was championed by spinal surgeons; however, general/vasculature surgeons may be more comfortable with the approach.

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare short-term outcomes following LLIF procedures based on whether a spine surgeon or access surgeon performed the approach.

Materials And Methods: We retrospectively identified all one- to two-level LLIFs at a tertiary care center from 2011 to 2021 for degenerative spine disease. Patients were divided into groups based on whether a spine surgeon or general surgeon performed the surgical approach. The electronic medical record was reviewed for hospital readmissions and complication rates.

Results: We identified 239 patients; of which 177 had approaches performed by spine surgeons and 62 by general surgeons. The spine surgeon group had fewer levels with posterior instrumentation (1.40 vs. 2.00; < 0.001) and decompressed (0.94 vs. 1.25, = 0.046); however, the two groups had a similar amount of two-level LLIFs (29.9% vs. 27.4%, = 0.831). This spine surgeon approach group was found to have shorter surgeries (281 vs. 328 min, = 0.002) and shorter hospital stays Length of Stay (LOS) (3.1 vs. 3.6 days, = 0.019); however, these differences were largely attributed to the shorter posterior fusion construct. On regression analysis, there was no statistical difference in postoperative complication rates whether or not an access surgeon was utilized ( = 0.226).

Conclusion: Similar outcomes may be seen regardless of whether a spine or access surgeon performs the approach for an LLIF.