The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Minimally Invasive Anterior Retroperitoneal Approach to the Lumbar Spine: Emphasis on the Lateral BAK
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Eighteen patients with lumbar instability from fractures, postlaminectomy syndrome, or infection were treated prospectively with minimally invasive retroperitoneal lumbar fusions. OBJECTIVES: To determine if interbody Bagby and Kuslich fusion cages and femoral allograft bone dowels can be inserted in a transverse direction via a lateral endoscopic retroperitoneal approach to achieve spinal stability. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Endoscopic spinal approaches have been used to achieve lower lumbar fusion when instrumentation is placed through a laparoscopic, transperitoneal route. However, complications of using this approach include postoperative intra-abdominal adhesions, retrograde ejaculation, great vessel injury, and implant migration. This study is the first clinical series investigating the use of the lateral retroperitoneal minimally invasive approach for lumbar fusions from L1 to L5. METHODS: Eighteen patients underwent anterior interbody decompression and/or stabilization via endoscopic retroperitoneal approaches. In most cases, three 12-mm portals were used. Two parallel transverse interbody cages restored the neuroforaminal height and the desired amount of lumbar lordosis was achieved by inserting a larger anterior cage, distraction plug, or bone dowel. RESULTS: The overall morbidity of the procedure was lower than that associated with traditional "open" retroperitoneal or laparotomy techniques, with a mean length of hospital stay of 2.9 days (range, outpatient procedure to 5 days). The mean estimated intraoperative blood loss was 205 cc (range, 25-1000 cc). There were no cases of implant migration, significant subsidence, or pseudoarthrosis at mean follow-up examination of 24.3 months (range, 12-40 months) after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study of 18 patients illustrates that endoscopic techniques can be applied effectively through a retroperitoneal approach with the patient in the lateral position. Unlike the patients who had undergone transperitoneal procedures described in previous reports, in these preliminary 18 patients, there were no cases of retrograde ejaculation, injury to the great vessels, or implant migration.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Minimally Invasive Surgery: Lateral Approach Interbody Fusion: Results and Review
Youssef, J. A., McAfee, P. C., Patty, C. A., Raley, E., DeBauche, S., Shucosky, E., & Chotikul, L. (2010) · Spine · doi:10.1097/brs.0b013e3182023438 · Cited by 279
Self-citationIn vitro and in vivo degradation of bioabsorbable PLLA spinal fusion cages
van Dijk, M., Tunc, D. C., Smit, T. H., Higham, P., Burger, E. H., & Wuisman, P. I. J. M. (2002) · Journal of Biomedical Materials Research · doi:10.1002/jbm.10466 · Cited by 78
Metadata
- Authors
- McAfee, P. C., Regan, J. J., Geis, W. P., & Fedder, I. L.
- Venue
- Spine
- Published
- 1998-07
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1476-1484
- ISSN
- 0362-2436 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2078238629
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimally Invasive Anterior Retroperitoneal Approach to the Lumbar Spine: Emphasis on the Lateral BAK. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00007632-199807010-00009
- The paper
- McAfee, P. C., Regan, J. J., Geis, W. P., & Fedder, I. L. (1998). Minimally Invasive Anterior Retroperitoneal Approach to the Lumbar Spine: Emphasis on the Lateral BAK. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199807010-00009
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.