The concave versus convex approach for minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion for thoracolumbar XXXX .

@entity1 @entity16 @entity179
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively reviewed @entity1 charts to compare the approach-related (convex versus concave) @entity16 and magnitude of correction in @entity1 undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). It is yet to be quantitatively determined if correction of adult @entity179 from either side of the curve apex using a LLIF results in a reduction in complications and/or improved corrective ability. The inclusion criteria for this study were @entity1 who underwent a LLIF for adult @entity179 and had the LLIF prior to any other supplemental procedures. @entity1 were grouped based on the approach toward the curve apex concavity (CAVE) or the convexity (VEX). Standard coronal and sagittal radiographic measurements were made. @entity16 and reoperation indications were also recorded. We included 32 @entity1 for review (CAVE: 17; VEX: 15) with a mean age of 65.5 years  a standard deviation of 10.2, and mean follow-up of 17.0months  15.7. There were eight postoperative @entity16 in eight @entity1 (25.0%), and seven reoperations for six @entity1 (18.8%; CAVE: 4/17 [23.5%]; VEX: 2/15 [13.3%]). The CAVE group had 6/17 @entity16 (35.3%; four ipsilateral and two contralateral to approach side) and VEX had 2/15 (13.3%; one ipsilateral and one bilateral to approach side; p>0.05). All @entity1 significantly improved in the mean regional and segmental Cobb angles (p<0.05), except for T11-T12 (p>0.05). There were no significant differences between the groups for any of the radiographic parameters measured (p>0.05). Approaching the curve apex from either the concave or convex side resulted in significant improvements. The concave approach was associated with more postoperative @entity16 .
