4.5 Article

Iliolumbar vein: a challenge for the exposure of the L4-5 disc in the anterior approach to the lumbar spine

期刊

EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL
卷 32, 期 1, 页码 329-335

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-022-07400-x

关键词

ALIF; Iliolumbar vein; Anterior approach; Lumbar spine fusion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine a safe method for accessing the anterior route to the L4-L5 level without the need for ligation of the iliolumbar vein, which can reduce the surgery time and avoid potential serious vascular injuries.
Purpose Anterior lumbar spine arthrodesis has been increasingly prescribed. In order to obtain better exposure of the intervertebral discs, it is necessary to identify vascular structures depending on the level to be approached. Systematic ligation of the iliolumbar vein has been suggested for access to the L4-L5 level, which may be technically challenging. The goal of the present study was to determine a safe limit for separating the iliolumbar vein safely without the need for its ligation. Methods In total, 2284 patients involving the topography of the iliolumbar vein were included. If this vein was up to 5 mm distant from the inferior border of the L4-L5 intervertebral disc, its ligature was performed. In cases that the distance was greater than 5 mm, only the retraction was performed without ligature. Results A total of 115 ligatures were necessary (5% of cases). Among the 2169 cases with no ligature, bleeding due to ruptures occurred during traction in only 55 patients (3% of cases). The time taken for ligation ranged from five minutes to thirty-two minutes, with an average of 18.3 min per ligature. In cases in which ligatures were needed (distance less than 5 mm), there was loosening of the ligatures leading to bleeding in 23 cases (20% of ligatures). Conclusions Systematic ligature is not necessary for accessing the anterior route to the L4-L5 level, leading to a reduction in the time of surgery and avoiding serious vascular injuries that can occur.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据