Evaluation of Indirect Decompression Effect After Extreme Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Three-Dimensional Volumetric Measurements—A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Background: Two-dimensional (2D) radiographic methods are suggested for evaluating radiographic outcomes following indirect decompression via extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF). Nonetheless, assessing neural decompression in a single imaging plane could potentially lead to an underestimation of the effects on central canal and foraminal volumes.

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the radiographic changes associated with XLIF procedures using three-dimensional (3D) volumetric measurements and to investigate the effect of indirect decompression achieved through this procedure.

Methods: The retrospective clinical and radiological data of 44 patients between June 2019 and June 2022 who underwent single- or multilevel XLIF were analyzed. Preoperative and postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans facilitated 3D reconstructions. The effect of indirect decompression, manifesting as the elevation of the cranial vertebra, was quantified by measuring the volumetric change in the spinal canal, calculated through the subtraction of the spinal canal's geometry from a cylinder predefined both preoperatively and postoperatively. The relationship between these volumetric changes and clinical outcomes was then determined. Correlations between changes in volumetric measurements and clinical outcomes were assessed using Pearson's or Spearman's correlation coefficients, depending on the data distribution.

Results: Change in the spinal canal volume (ΔV) due to the XLIF proved to be significant (mean ΔV = 1629.28 ± 775.43 mm³, n = 44, p < 0.05). A significant, positive correlation was found between ΔV significant association between pain intensity (low back and leg pain) and the magnitude of the volumetric increase of the spinal canal was shown (p < 0.05 for LP and ODI, p = 0.06 for LBP).

Conclusion: The developed method demonstrates accuracy, reproducibility, and applicability for analyzing XLIF, with significant potential for application in other spinal surgical methods. The volumetric changes exhibit predictive capability regarding the extent of indirect spinal canal decompression. A larger ΔV correlates with greater clinical benefits observed in XLIF surgery.

Keywords

computed tomography / extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion / indirect decompression / patient-specific simulation / three-dimensional / volumetric measurements

References

[1] C. Q. Zhao, L. M. Wang, L. S. Jiang, and L. Y. Dai, “The Cell Biology of Intervertebral Disc Aging and Degeneration,” Ageing Research Reviews 6, no. 3 (2007): 247-261.

[2] H. Jia, X. Lin, D. Wang, et al., “Injectable Hydrogel With Nucleus Pulposus-Matched Viscoelastic Property Prevents Intervertebral Disc Degeneration,” Journal of Orthopaedic Translation 33 (2022): 162-173.

[3] Y. Dou, Y. Zhang, Y. Liu, et al., “Role of Macrophage in Intervertebral Disc Degeneration,” Bone Research 13, no. 1 (2025).

[4] H. W. Wang, Y. C. Hu, Z. Y. Wu, et al., “Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Unilateral Fixation for Degenerative Lumbar Disease,” Orthopaedic Surgery 9, no. 3 (2017): 277-283.

[5] Y. Zhang, J. Yang, W. Wan, et al., “Evaluation of Biological Performance of 3D Printed Trabecular Porous Tantalum Spine Fusion Cage in Large Animal Models,” Journal of Orthopaedic Translation 50 (2025): 185-195.

[6] N. E. Epstein, “Review of Risks and Complications of Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF),” Surgical Neurology International 10 (2019): 237.

[7] B. M. Ozgur, H. E. Aryan, L. Pimenta, and W. R. Taylor, “Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): A Novel Surgical Technique for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Spine Journal 6, no. 4 (2006): 435-443.

[8] P. E. Eltes, L. Kiss, F. Bereczki, et al., “A Novel Three-Dimensional Volumetric Method to Measure Indirect Decompression After Percutaneous Cement Discoplasty,” Journal of Orthopaedic Translation 28 (2021): 131-139.

[9] Y. Zhang, D. Lu, W. Ji, et al., “Which Is the Most Effective Treatment for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Decompression, Fusion, or Interspinous Process Device? A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Orthopaedic Translation 26 (2021): 45-53.

[10] G. M. Malham, N. J. Ellis, R. M. Parker, et al., “Maintenance of Segmental Lordosis and Disk Height in Stand-Alone and Instrumented Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF),” Clinical Spine Surgery: A Spine Publication 30, no. 2 (2017): E90-E98.

[11] G. M. Malham, R. M. Parker, B. Goss, and C. M. Blecher, “Clinical Results and Limitations of Indirect Decompression in Spinal Stenosis With Laterally Implanted Interbody Cages: Results From a Prospective Cohort Study,” European Spine Journal 24, no. Suppl 3 (2015): 339-345.

[12] B. C. Gabel, R. Hoshide, and W. Taylor, “An Algorithm to Predict Success of Indirect Decompression Using the Extreme Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Procedure,” Cureus 7, no. 9 (2015): e317.

[13] L. Oliveira, L. Marchi, E. Coutinho, and L. Pimenta, “A Radiographic Assessment of the Ability of the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion Procedure to Indirectly Decompress the Neural Elements,” Spine 35, no. 26 Suppl (2010): S331-S337.

[14] M. Alimi, C. P. Hofstetter, G. T. Cong, et al., “Radiological and Clinical Outcomes Following Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 20, no. 6 (2014): 623-635.

[15] M. Alimi, C. P. Hofstetter, A. J. Tsiouris, E. Elowitz, and R. Härtl, “Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion for Unilateral Symptomatic Vertical Foraminal Stenosis,” European Spine Journal 24 (2015): 346-352.

[16] K. Khajavi and A. Y. Shen, “Two-Year Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of a Minimally Invasive, Lateral, Transpsoas Approach for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Adult Degenerative Scoliosis,” European Spine Journal 23, no. 6 (2014): 1215-1223.

[17] E. H. Elowitz, D. S. Yanni, M. Chwajol, R. M. Starke, and N. I. Perin, “Evaluation of Indirect Decompression of the Lumbar Spinal Canal Following Minimally Invasive Lateral Transpsoas Interbody Fusion: Radiographic and Outcome Analysis,” Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery 54, no. 5-6 (2011): 201-206.

[18] G. Lang, M. Perrech, R. Navarro-Ramirez, et al., “Potential and Limitations of Neural Decompression in Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion-A Systematic Review,” World Neurosurgery 101 (2017): 99-113.

[19] X. B. Zhao, H. J. Ma, B. Geng, H. G. Zhou, and Y. Y. Xia, “Percutaneous Endoscopic Unilateral Laminotomy and Bilateral Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis,” Orthopaedic Surgery 13, no. 2 (2021): 641-650.

[20] R. Navarro-Ramirez, C. Berlin, G. Lang, et al., “A New Volumetric Radiologic Method to Assess Indirect Decompression After Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion Using High-Resolution Intraoperative Computed Tomography,” World Neurosurgery 109 (2018): 59-67.

[21] R. G. Strom, J. Bae, J. Mizutani, F. Valone, C. P. Ames, and V. Deviren, “Lateral Interbody Fusion Combined With Open Posterior Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 25, no. 6 (2016): 697-705.

[22] J. Steurer, S. Roner, R. Gnannt, and J. Hodler, “Quantitative Radiologic Criteria for the Diagnosis of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Systematic Literature Review,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 12 (2011): 175.

[23] T. A. Gates, R. R. Vasudevan, K. J. Miller, V. Stamatopoulou, and S. A. Mindea, “A Novel Computer Algorithm Allows for Volumetric and Cross-Sectional Area Analysis of Indirect Decompression Following Transpsoas Lumbar Arthrodesis Despite Variations in MRI Technique,” Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 21, no. 3 (2014): 499-502.

[24] J. L. Xue, H. H. Xue, W. L. Cui, J. Xiao, and Z. Liao, “Modified ACDF Technique for the Treatment of Centrum Focal Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament: A Case Report,” Orthopaedic Surgery 15, no. 5 (2023): 1414-1422.

[25] D. H. Lee, D. G. Lee, J. S. Hwang, J. W. Jang, D. H. Maeng, and C. K. Park, “Clinical and Radiological Results of Indirect Decompression After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Central Spinal Canal Stenosis,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 34, no. 4 (2021): 564-572.

[26] R. W. Ostelo, R. A. Deyo, P. Stratford, et al., “Interpreting Change Scores for Pain and Functional Status in Low Back Pain: Towards International Consensus Regarding Minimal Important Change,” Spine 33, no. 1 (2008): 90-94.

[27] G. Han, S. Zhou, W. Wang, et al., “Correlations Between Paraspinal Extensor Muscle Endurance and Clinical Outcomes in Preoperative LSS Patients and Clinical Value of an Endurance Classification,” Journal of Orthopaedic Translation 35 (2022): 81-86.

[28] J. Ji, F. Li, and Q. Chen, “A Crucial but Neglected Anatomical Factor Underneath Psoas Muscle and Its Clinical Value in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion-The Cleft of Psoas Major (CPM),” Orthopaedic Surgery 14, no. 2 (2022): 323-330.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.