Dr.Shrijith MB
MS(Ortho),DNB
Fellow ,Spine Surgery
All India Institute of Medical Sciences ,New Delhi
 WHY ANTERIOR APPROACH ?
 ADVANTAGES - BIOMECHANICAL
 - FUSION OUTCOMES
 - SAGGITAL PROFILE
 SURGICAL ANATOMY
 ANT VS POST
 BIOMECHANICAL
 SAFETY PROFILE
 CHALLENGES IN APPROACH
 APPROACHES :
Indications
 ALIF Surgical route
 OLIF Unique challenges
 LLIF Bail out options
 XLIF

 Case example
 World literature on each Approach and what the future lies ahead
SURGICALANATOMY :
ANT VS POST APPROACH :
1 . APPROACH ROAD
DESTRUCTIVE VS PHYSIOLOGICAL
 a) FUSION AREA

 A
Neuro vascular challenges
1
 Retroperitoneal approach
 Position
 Expected Complication
 Critical Step


 RATIONAL :
 Wolf’s Law
 1.Weight bearing axis
 2. Fusion area and vascularity
 INDICATIONS

1 Retrograde
Ejaculation
Blunt dissection
Peanut vs Cautery
2 Bleeding Microscope
Vascular clips and proximal and
distal control
3 Visceral
injury
Back upVascular /Urology
Surgeon
 RATIONAL
 Retroperitoneal
 Anterior to Psos Major
 No lumbar plexus injury
 No need for Neuromonitoring
 Decompression (Indirect) + Stabilization + Deformity Correction
 No Spinal canal entry Torsional stability Height restoration
 No dural injury Fusion rates Larger Cage
 INDICATION

 Retroperitoneal
 Anterior to Psos Major
 No lumbar plexus injury

 No need for Neuromonitoring
 Bare area of disk CT Angio

 RATIONAL
 INDICATIONS
1 .Retro peritoneal approach
2 . Position
3. Approach
4 .Expected Complication
5.Absolute Pre requiste
 Femoral nerve
 Cage subsidence
 StandaloneXLIF
Footprint of the cages
1
2
3 4 5

Anterior / lateral lumbar interbody Fusion