# Clinical Outcomes of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Percutaneous Pedicle Screw for Dialysis-Related Spondyloarthropathy

## TL;DR

This study compares the effectiveness of LLIF with PPS for dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy and lumbar degenerative disease, finding similar outcomes but noting specific complications in dialysis patients.

## Contribution

The study provides new insights into the clinical outcomes and complications of LLIF with PPS specifically for dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy.

## Key findings

- LLIF with PPS showed comparable surgical invasiveness and clinical outcomes in dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy and lumbar degenerative disease.
- Dialysis patients experienced complications like superficial infection, endplate failure, and cage subsidence.
- Endplate failure and reduced bone fusion rates were observed in dialysis spondylolisthesis cases.

## Abstract

Background: The usefulness and problems with lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with a percutaneous pedicle screw (PPS) for dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy are not clear. Therefore, we investigated the usefulness and problems with LLIF with PPS in dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy. Methods: In total, 77 patients who underwent LLIF with PPS were divided into two groups: the dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy group (“Group D”) consisted of 15 patients (10 males and 5 females) with a mean age of 70.4 years and a mean duration of hemodialysis of 10.8 years; and the lumbar degenerative disease group (“Group L”) included 62 patients (31 males and 31 females) with a mean age of 71.0 years. The mean follow-up period was 4 years in Group D and 3 years 9 months in Group L. We compared surgical invasiveness (operative time, blood loss), perioperative complications, clinical outcomes (Improvement ratio of the JOA score), bone fusion rate, reoperation, sagittal alignment, and coronal imbalance between the two groups. Results: There were no significant differences in operative time, blood loss, or the improvement ratio of the JOA score, but dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy was observed in one patient with superficial infection, three patients with endplate failure, and one patient with restenosis due to cage subsidence. Conclusions: We consider LLIF with PPS for dialysis-related spondyloarthropathy to be an effective treatment option because its surgical invasiveness and clinical outcomes were comparable to those for cases of lumbar degenerative disease. However, as endplate failure due to bone fragility and a reduced bone fusion rate were observed in dialysis spondylolisthesis cases, we advise a careful selection of indications for indirect decompression as well as the application of suitable pre- and postoperative adjuvant therapies.