Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Objectives

To evaluate the incidence, risk factors, and complications associated with intraoperative venous injury during anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF).

Methods

This retrospective review included patients who underwent one- to four-level ALIF at an academic spine center. Patients <18 years old or those with surgical indications for trauma, infection, or malignancy were excluded. Patients were stratified by the presence of venous laceration requiring primary suture repair. Comparative analyses were performed using Student’s t test and Pearson’s Chi-squared test. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression identified independent risk factors and postoperative complications.

Results

Among 554 patients, 92 (16.61%) sustained a venous laceration. Independent predictors included age (aOR: 1.03, P < 0.01), chronic kidney disease (aOR: 5.17, P < 0.01), ALIF at L4-5 (aOR: 3.88, P < 0.01), and two-level ALIF (aOR: 1.70, P < 0.01). ALIF at L5-S1 was protective (aOR: 0.24, P < 0.001). Venous laceration was associated with longer operative times (8.02 ± 2.95 vs 6.48 ± 2.81 hours, P < 0.001), greater mean blood loss (1,271 mL vs 600.71 mL, P < 0.001), and increased risks of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (aOR: 3.33, [1.59-10.17], P = 0.011), intraoperative transfusion (aOR: 4.43, P < 0.001), and incision and drainage (aOR: 7.45, [1.75-31.62], P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Venous laceration occurred in 16.61% of ALIF cases, with independent risk factors including age, CKD, L4-5 ALIF, and two-level ALIF. These injuries were associated with prolonged operative times and a markedly elevated risk of DVT. Future research should focus on developing risk reduction strategies for high-risk patients and developing evidence-based VTE prophylaxis protocols tailored to patients with venous injuries.

Keywords

anterior lumbar interbody fusion vein injury complications risk factors

Introduction

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a widely utilized surgical procedure for treating various lumbar spine pathologies including lumbar radiculopathy, discitis, osteomyelitis, malignancy, and spinal deformity.¹ Unlike posterior fusion techniques, ALIF requires retroperitoneal or transperitoneal dissection to access the anterior spinal column.² This approach avoids dissection of the paraspinal musculature, minimizes manipulation of neural elements, and enables indirect decompression of neural structures. However, it also introduces a distinct set of complications. Among them is the risk of venous injury as retraction of the iliac vessels is needed to safely access the disc space.

Prior studies, including case series, have reported a wide-ranging incidence of venous injury, from 0.3% to 24%.^3-11 This variability is likely due to the small sample sizes in earlier studies, which may have limited their ability to provide accurate estimates. Furthermore, some studies aggregated arterial and venous injuries into a single vascular injury cohort, further obscuring the specific incidence of venous injury.^9-11 Several patient and procedural risk factors have been implicated in increasing the risk of venous injury during ALIF. Patient factors include male sex, and a history of opioid use disorder; procedural risk factors include surgical indications for malignancy, re-do anterior exposure, revision spine surgery, greater vertebral exposure, multi-level ALIF, male gender, a history of degenerative spine disease, and opioid use.^3,7,8,10 Venous injury has also been associated with greater intraoperative blood loss and longer hospital stays.^3,5,6 Furthermore, given that venous trauma can activate the coagulation cascade, it is biologically plausible that this complication may predispose patients to postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, whether such an association exists remains uncertain, and current evidence is limited and inconsistent.^3,12

Given the rising trend of spine surgeons performing their own anterior exposures, a clearer understanding of the true incidence, risk factors, and short-term postoperative complications associated with venous injury is essential.¹³ Such insights can help guide patient selection for spine surgeon-performed exposures, inform targeted risk mitigation strategies, and optimize VTE prophylaxis protocols.

This retrospective cohort study, conducted at a large, high-volume academic spine center, aims to address these gaps by comprehensively evaluating the incidence of venous injury during ALIF, identifying independent risk factors, and assessing the association between venous injury and postoperative complications, including VTE.

Methods

Patient Selection

This study was approved by the institutional review board (IRB HS-23-00758). This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent one- to four-level primary or revision ALIF, with or without posterior fusion, at an academic spine surgery center staffed by neurosurgeons and orthopaedic surgeons, between 2014 and 2023. Patients <18 years old or those with surgical indications for trauma, infection, or malignancy were excluded.

Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on the presence or absence of an intraoperative venous injury. Venous injury was defined as any laceration to a major vein (iliac veins, inferior vena cava, or iliolumbar vein) requiring primary suture repair, as documented in operative reports by the approach surgeon. Minor vein injuries managed with simple compression or hemostatic agents, without the need for suture repair, were not included in the vein injury cohort. The specific vein injured in each case was documented.

Collected data included patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical variables (number of anterior/posterior levels fused, ALIF spinal level, estimated blood loss (EBL), and duration of surgery), and postoperative complications documented up to one-year.

Risk Factors and Complications

Risk factors evaluated included age, gender, tobacco use, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index (BMI), history of abdominal surgery, hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease (CAD), osteoporosis, chronic kidney disease (CDK), spinal segment, number of anterior levels fused, and revision ALIF.

Postoperative complications recorded for both cohorts included deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), retroperitoneal hematoma, superficial hematoma, ileus, acute kidney injury (AKI), surgical site infection (SSI), intraoperative transfusion, the need for incision and drainage (I&D), superior hypogastric plexus injury, and one-year mortality.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using International Business Machine (IBM) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 30. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and differences in patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical variables, and postoperative complications between cohorts were assessed using Pearson’s chi-squared test of independence and Independent Sample’s t test. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for venous injury, adjusting for covariates such as the number of anterior and posterior levels fused, age, ASA score, BMI, tobacco use, and gender. A separate regression model, incorporating intraoperative transfusion as an additional covariate, was used to assess the impact of venous injury on postoperative complication risk. Covariates included in the multivariable logistic regression models were selected based on their previously established associations with medical and surgical complications following ALIF.^7,14,15 For models evaluating postoperative complications, intraoperative blood transfusion was also included as a covariate, given prior evidence linking transfusion to an increased risk of venous thromboembolism.¹⁶

To assess multicollinearity among covariates, particularly between age and CKD, we performed a linear regression analysis using all independent variables from our logistic regression model. Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values were reviewed, and no variable exceeded a VIF of 2.0, indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern.

Results

Patient Cohort

A total of 554 consecutive patients were included. Of these, 92 (16.61%) sustained a venous injury requiring primary suture repair. Most surgical approaches (543 patients, 98.01%) were performed by a vascular surgeon, while only 11 (1.99%) were performed by an orthopaedic spine surgeon. The majority of incisions were paramedian or midline. All cases were performed using a retroperitoneal approach, with none utilizing a transperitoneal approach.

The most frequently injured vein was the left common iliac vein (82.61%), followed by the iliolumbar vein (6.52%), inferior vena cava (4.35%), left internal iliac vein (3.26%), right common iliac vein (2.17%), and left external iliac vein (1.09%) (Table 1). Additional injuries included three cases of peritoneal injury (0.54%), one superior hypogastric plexus injury (0.18%), and two arterial injuries (0.36%)–one to the left external iliac artery and one to the left common iliac artery.

Table 1.

Frequency of Vein Injury by Vein.

Vein	Frequency of Injury
Left common iliac v.	76 (82.61%)
Iliolumbar v.	6 (6.52%)
Inferior vena cava	4 (4.35%)
Left internal iliac v.	3 (3.26%)
Right common iliac v.	2 (2.17%)
Left external iliac v.	1 (1.09%)
Total	92 (16.61%)
Other Injury
Peritoneum	3 (0.54%)
Superior Hypogastric Plexus	1 (0.18%)
Left external iliac a.	1 (0.18%)
Left common iliac a.	1 (0.18%)

a = Artery. v = Vein.

Patient Characteristics

The vein injury cohort was older on average compared to the no-injury group (62.41 ± 11.72 years vs 58.64 ± 12.29 years, P < 0.01). Gender distribution was similar between groups (females: 53.26% vs 53.03%; males 46.74% vs 47.19%, P < 0.001) (Table 2). Tobacco use rates were also comparable (16.30% vs 15.80%, P = 0.69). No statistically significant differences were observed in ASA scores (2.49 ± 0.52 vs 2.45 ± 0.56, P = 0.52) or BMI (28.18 ± 6.64 vs 29.09 ± 15.55, P = 0.59).

Table 2.

Differences Between Demographics, Comorbidities, and Surgical Variables.

Demographic	Vein Injury	No Vein Injury	P-value
n	92 (16.61%)	462 (83.39%)
Age	62.41 ± 11.72	58.64 ± 12.29	P < .01
Female	49 (53.26%)	245 (53.03%)	P < .001
Male	43 (46.74%)	218 (47.19%)	P < .001
Smoking	15 (16.30%)	73 (15.80%)	.69
ASA	2.49 ± 0.52	2.45 ± 0.56	.52
BMI	28.18 ± 6.64	29.09 ± 15.55	.59
Comorbidity
Abdominal Surgery	45 (48.91%)	209 (45.24%)	.59
HTN	55 (59.78%)	231 (50.0%)	.12
Diabetes	17 (18.48%)	59 (12.77%)	.12
CAD	12 (13.04%)	31 (6.71%)	P < .05
OP	6 (6.52%)	14 (3.03%)	.11
CKD	7 (7.61%)	8 (1.73%)	P < .01
Surgical Variables
One-Level ALIF	36 (39.13%)	283 (61.26%)	P < .001
L3-4	1	4
L4-5	6	42
L5-S1	29	237
Two-level ALIF	51 (55.43%)	160 (34.63%)	P < .001
Three-level ALIF	3 (3.26%)	17 (3.68%)	P < .001
Four-Level ALIF	2 (2.17%)	2 (0.43%)	P < .001
Revision ALIF	5 (5.43%)	17 (3.68%)	.43

ASA = American Society of Anesthesiology. BMI = Body Mass Index. HTN = hypertension DM. CAD = coronary Artery Disease. OP = Osteoporosis. CKD = chronic Kidney Disease. P < 0.05 is Considered Statistically Significant.

However, the vein injury cohort had higher rates of CAD (13.04% vs 6.71%, P < 0.05) and CKD (7.61% vs 1.73%, P < 0.01).

Regarding surgical variables, the vein injury cohort had a lower proportion of one-level ALIFs compared to the no-injury cohort (39.13% vs 61.26%) but a higher proportion of two-level (55.43% vs 34.63%), four-level (2.17% vs 0.43%), and revision ALIF procedures (5.43% vs 3.68%) (all P < 0.001) (Table 2). Three-level ALIFs were comparable between groups (3.26% vs 3.68%, P < 0.001).

Predictors of Vein Injury

Multivariable logistic regression identified age (adjusted OR: 1.03, [1.002-1.05], P < 0.01), CKD (aOR: 5.17, [1.57-17.04], P < 0.01), ALIF at L4-5 (aOR: 3.88, [1.59-9.46], P < 0.01), and two-level ALIF (aOR: 1.70, [1.15-2.51], P < 0.01) as independent predictors of venous injury (Figure 1, Table 3). ALIF at L5-S1 was associated with a lower likelihood of venous injury (aOR: 0.24, [0.09-0.57], P < 0.001).

Figure 1.

Forest plot of predictors of venous injury.

Table 3.

Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis for Risk Factors for Vein Injury.

Demographic	Odds Ratio	95% CI	P-value
Age	1.03	1.002-1.05	P < .01
Gender	0.960	0.59-1.57	.87
Smoking	0.615	0.28-1.37	.23
ASA	0.85	0.53-1.38	.51
Body Mass Index	1.00	0.98-1.02	.99
Comorbidity
Abdominal surgery	1.18	0.71-1.96	.52
Hypertension	1.34	0.79-2.30	.28
Diabetes	1.45	0.72-2.90	.30
CAD	1.83	0.82-4.09	.14
Osteoporosis	1.33	0.44-4.06	.62
CKD	5.17	1.57-17.04	P < .01
Surgical Variable
L3-4	3.39	0.29-40.02	.33
L4-5	3.88	1.59-9.46	P < .01
L5-S1	0.24	0.09-0.57	P < .001
Two-level ALIF	1.70	1.15-2.51	P < .01
Three-Level ALIF	0.56	0.12-2.47	.43
Revision ALIF	1.50	0.54-4.19	.43

ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologist. CAD = Coronary Artery Disease. CKD = Chronic Kidney Disease. P < 0.05 is Considered Statistically Significant.

Complications of Vein Injury

Operative time was significantly longer in the vein injury cohort (8.02 ± 2.95 vs 6.48 ± 2.81 hours, P < 0.001). Mean EBL was also higher (1271 ± 1607.60 mL vs 600.71 ± 1150.06 mL, P < 0.001). EBL ranged from 80 to 10,000 mL in the venous injury cohort, with 29.35% of cases exceeding 1500 mL.

Postoperative complication rates were also elevated in the vein injury cohort (Table 4). These included DVT (11.96% vs 2.81%, P < 0.001), PE (4.34% vs 1.08%, P < 0.05), intraoperative transfusion (54.35% vs 21.21%, P < 0.001), and incision and drainage (5.43% vs 0.87%, P < 0.01). Retroperitoneal hematoma (7.61% vs 3.25%, P = 0.051) and superficial hematoma (5.43% vs 1.95%, P = 0.052) approached statistical significance. No significant differences were observed in the rates of ileus (4.35% vs 3.25%, P = 0.60), AKI (4.35% vs 1.73%, P = 0.12), or SSI (1.09% vs 0.87%, P = 0.83).

Table 4.

Univariable and Multivariable Logistic Regression Analysis for Postoperative Complications Associated With Vein Injury.

	No Vein Injury	Vein Injury	OR	95% CI	P-value	OR	95% CI	P-value
	462 (83.39%)	92 (16.61%)	Univariable			Multivariable
Duration of Surgery (Hours)	6.48 ± 2.81	8.02 ± 2.95	-	-		-	-	<.001
EBL (mL)	600.71 ± 1150.06	1271 ± 1607.60	-	-		-	-	<.001
pRBC Units Transfused	3.76 ± 3.14	4.0 ± 3.35						.74
Deep Vein Thrombosis	13 (2.81%)	11 (11.96%)	4.680	2.03-10.81	P < .001	3.33	1.32-8.40	.011
Pulmonary Embolism	5 (1.08%)	4 (4.34%)	4.145	1.09-15.74	P < .05	3.31	0.72-15.122	.12
Intraoperative Transfusion	98 (21.21%)	50 (54.35%)	4.198	2.64-6.67	P < .001	4.43	2.51-7.82	<.001
Retroperitoneal Hematoma	15 (3.25%)	7 (7.61%)	2.449	0.97-6.19	.055	1.23	0.38-4.00	.73
Superficial Hematoma	9 (1.95%)	5 (5.43%)	2.886	0.95-8.82	.06	2.43	0.69-8.51	.17
Ileus	15 (3.25%)	4 (4.35%)	1.352	0.44-4.17	.60	0.31	0.04-2.65	.29
Acute Kidney Injury	8 (1.73%)	4 (4.35%)	2.574	0.76-8.73	.13	2.92	0.81-10.57	.10
Surgical Site Infection	4 (0.87%)	1 (1.09%)	1.26	0.14-11.36	.84	1.25	0.12-13.20	.85
Incision and Drainage	4 (0.87%)	5 (5.43%)	6.556	1.73-24.94	P < .01	7.45	1.75-31.62	<.01

pRCB=Packed red blood cells. P < 0.05 is Considered Statistically Significant.

There were no mortalities in the venous injury cohort. In the no-injury group, one mortality occurred one month postoperatively due to diffuse cerebral edema from septic shock and metabolic derangements, deemed unrelated to surgery. One patient required abortion of the ALIF procedure due to a severe injury at the IVC bifurcation. Among patients who received intraoperative transfusions, the number of units transfused was similar between groups (4.0 ± 3.35 vs 3.76 ± 3.14, P = 0.74).

Univariable logistic regression analysis revealed associated between venous injury and elevated risk for DVT (OR: 4.68, [2.03-10.81], P < 0.001), PE (OR: 4.15, [1.09-15.74], P < 0.05), intraoperative transfusion (OR: 4.20, [2.64-6.67], P < 0.001), and I&D (OR: 6.56, [1.73-24.94], P < 0.01) (Table 4).

Multivariable logistic regression confirmed venous injury as an independent predictor of DVT (aOR: 3.33, [1.32-8.40], P = 0.011), intraoperative transfusion (aOR: 4.43, [2.51-7.82], P < 0.001), and I&D (aOR:7.45, [1.75-31.62], P < 0.01) (Figure 2, Table 4). Intraoperative transfusion was also independently associated with an increased risk of DVT (aOR: 3.93 [1.35-11.53], P = 0.012). Primary indications for I&D included wound complications (two vs zero cases), hematoma (two vs three cases), and deep infection (one case in each cohort) (Table 5).

Figure 2.

Forest plot of complications associated with venous injury.

Table 5.

Indications for Incision and Drainage.

Indication	No Vein Injury	Vein Injury
n	4 (0.87%)	5 (5.43%)
Wound Complications	0	2
Hematoma	3	2
Deep Infection	1	1

Discussion

This study highlights the incidence, risk factors, and complications associated with intraoperative venous injury during ALIF. In an analysis of 554 consecutive ALIF cases at our high-volume academic center, the most comprehensive study to date, venous injury occurred in 16.61% of cases, most commonly involving the left common iliac vein. Independent predictors of venous injury included age, CKD, ALIF at L4-5, and two-level ALIF. Importantly, venous injury was associated with longer operative times, increased blood loss, and nearly a fourfold higher risk of intraoperative transfusions and DVT. Furthermore, our finding that intraoperative transfusion independently increased the risk of DVT suggests that more severe vein injuries may confer an even greater thrombotic risk. These findings underscore that venous injury during ALIF is not uncommon and emphasize the need for standardized perioperative management strategies to mitigate the risk of thromboembolic complications in this vulnerable patient population.

The reported incidence of vascular injury during ALIF varies widely, ranging from 0.3% to 24%.³ Our observed rate of 16.61% falls within this range but is notably higher than most studies, such as those by Brau et al (1.4%), Ho et al (6.5%), and Fantini et al (2.9%).^6,8,11 This disparity may stem from several factors. First, our study is among the largest to date, which may have enabled a more accurate characterization of venous injuries, whereas smaller sample sizes in previous studies may have underestimated the true incidence. Second, this study was conducted at a major academic spine center, which managed a more complex patient population. For instance, nearly half of our cohort (45.77%) had a history of abdominal surgery, and 3.97% had undergone prior ALIF. Both factors are known to increase adhesion formation and complicate dissection in the retroperitoneal plane.³ Revision cases, especially those requiring the removal of interbody devices carry an inherently higher risk of vascular injury.¹⁷ Additionally, our results may have been influenced by the referral pattern at our center, which tends to treat patients with more advanced degenerative spine pathology. For instance, Fantini et al. identified spondylolisthesis, large anterior osteophyte complexes, and anterior migration of interbody devices as significant risk factors for venous injury.

Independent risk factors for venous injury included age, CKD, ALIF at L4-5, and two-level ALIF, while ALIF at L5-S1 was associated with a significantly lower risk. The association with age is consistent with prior studies demonstrating age-related venous changes, such as reduced elastin and collagen content, weakened endothelial cells, and increased fragility, making veins more prone to tearing during retraction.¹⁸ While Tigre et al identified age as a predictor in univariate analysis, our study is the first to confirm this association in a large multivariable analysis.⁷ CKD emerged as another significant predictor, likely due to venous morphological changes such as intimal hyperplasia and calcifications, which compromise vascular integrity rendering them more prone to injury during surgical manipulation.¹⁹ Additionally CKD patients–particularly those on peritoneal dialysis–are prone to peritoneal fibrosis, retroperitoneal lipomatosis, and intrabdominal adhesions, which may complicate retroperitoneal dissection.²⁰ These retroperitoneal changes may also tether vessels to surrounding soft tissues, complicating dissection planes. This is the first study to establish an association between CKD and venous injury during ALIF. Our findings corroborate prior research indicating that ALIF at L4-5 significantly increases the risk of venous injury.^3,10 This is attributed to the anatomical course of the left common iliac vein, the most frequently injured vessel in our study (82.61%). This vein lies anterior to the L5 vertebra and often traverses the L4-5 disc space, necessitating significant retraction during endplate preparation. Conversely ALIF at L5-S1 was associated with a decreased risk of venous injury, likely due to its anatomical location below the aortic bifurcation and iliocaval confluence, often requiring less aggressive retraction to adequately access the disc space.¹³ Lastly, two-level ALIF was associated with increased risk, likely due to the greater degree of vein retraction required for multi-level procedures and possible need for mobilization and control of the iliolumbar vein. Similar findings have been reported by Tigre et al and Ho et al, both of whom demonstrated an elevated risk of venous injury in multi-level ALIF procedures.^7,8 With the increasing number of spine surgeons independently performing anterior exposures, these findings offer practical guidance for surgical planning.¹³ Specifically, collaboration with a vascular surgeons should be strongly considered in high-risk cases––such as multi-level ALIF, procedures involving the L4-5 disc space, and patients with advanced age or CKD. Conversely, younger patients undergoing one-level L5-S1 ALIF, which is anatomically less complex and associated with a lower risk of venous injury, may be appropriate candidates for spine surgeon performed exposure. Additionally, prior research has shown that the transperitoneal approach may be associated with a higher risk of venous injury compared to the retroperitoneal approach, likely due to the need for more extensive mobilization of abdominal contents.²¹ As such, a retroperitoneal approach should be favored in high-risk patients to minimize vascular complications.

Patients with venous injury experienced significantly higher rates of retroperitoneal hematoma. Although not significant in the multivariable analysis, the markedly higher incidence (7.61% vs 3.25%) compared to the control group warrants attention. Retroperitoneal hematomas pose substantial risk, and, in some cases, can lead to subsequent complications. Herein, several patients in the vein injury cohort with retroperitoneal hematomas developed hydronephrosis due to ureter compression or required incision and drainage; one patient developed a life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia. These events likely contribute to increased hospital length of stay and overall healthcare costs. As such, surgeons should have a low threshold to obtain cross sectional imaging in venous injury patients with symptoms concerning for retroperitoneal hematoma.

The nearly four-fold increase in DVT risk observed in this cohort is not unexpected. This finding remained significant even after adjusting for known thrombosis risk factors, including obesity, age, smoking, transfusion, and multi-level procedures. The pathophysiology underlying this increased risk aligns with Virchow’s triad. Prolonged operative times in the vein injury cohort result in extended periods of venous retraction, leading to venous stasis. Additionally, direct trauma to the vein causes endothelial cell damage, triggering the coagulation cascade and creating a nidus for thrombus formation. Zahradnik et al. also examined thrombosis risk following venous injury during ALIF but did not find a significant association, likely due to their smaller sample size.³ Interestingly, in alignment with prior research, this study identified intraoperative transfusion as an independent risk factor for DVT.¹⁶ The mechanism underlying this association is likely multifactorial and may occur through transfusion-induced inflammatory responses that promote a hypercoagulable state.^22-24 Furthermore, transfusion necessity may serve as a marker for more severe vascular injury, with greater endothelial disruption and subsequent activation of the coagulation cascade. Given the association between venous injury and DVT, it suggests that patients with venous injury requiring transfusion are at particularly high risk. These findings underscore that in high-risk patients, preoperative hemoglobin optimization and intraoperative strategies to reduce blood loss (ie, TXA and use of topical hemostatic agents) are imperative.²² Importantly, all patients in the venous injury cohort who developed thrombosis had received standard perioperative VTE prophylaxis, with no modifications made to the postoperative protocol. This included initiation of subcutaneous heparin on postoperative day zero. These findings underscore the need for more aggressive VTE prophylaxis strategies in this high-risk population, despite the potential trade-off of an increased hematoma formation. Furthermore, they highlight a critical gap in evidence-based guidelines for optimal VTE prophylaxis in this patient population. For example, as recommended by The American Society of Hematology and supported by prior studies, combining intermittent pneumatic compression devices and graduated compression stockings with early postoperative mobilization may reduce DVT risk without significantly increasing bleeding complications.^25-27 Additionally, minimizing intraoperative transfusion––an independent risk factor for DVT––can further mitigate thrombotic risk. This can be achieved through preoperative hemoglobin optimization and the use of intraoperative blood conservation strategies, such as tranexamic acid and topical hemostatic agents. Risk stratification tools should also be employed to better characterize individual thrombotic risk in this high-risk population. The Caprini score, for instance, has been shown to accurately predict VTE risk in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery.²⁸ Until specific chemoprophylaxis protocols are developed for this high-risk population, these conservative measures offer a practical approach to balancing the risk of thrombosis against the potential for postoperative bleeding. Future studies are needed to develop tailored protocols to balance the risks of thrombosis and bleeding, thereby optimizing care for these patients.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, both the vascular and spine teams comprised several surgeons, resulting in variability in surgical skill and experience, which we were unable to control for. This variability may have influenced the incidence of venous injury. Second, the retrospective nature of this study limits our ability to recommend specific thromboprophylaxis regimens or standardize perioperative management strategies. The retrospective nature also introduces the potential for selection bias and unmeasured confounders, which may have influenced both the identification of risk factors and the observed associated postoperative complications. These limitations are inherent to retrospective designs and may affect the generalizability and causal interpretation of our findings. Future prospective studies should aim to mitigate these biases through standardized data collection and uniform perioperative protocols, allowing for more accurate adjustment for confounders and a clearer understanding of the relationship between risk factors and complications associated with venous injury. Additionally, as a single-center study conducted at a major academic institution, the findings may not be generalizable to other settings, such as community hospitals or smaller practices. The follow-up period of one year represents another limitation, as it may be insufficient to capture long-term complications such as recurrent thromboembolic events, chronic venous insufficiency, or late sequelae of retroperitoneal hematoma. Future studies should incorporate extended follow-up periods of at least 2-5 years to better characterize the long-term impact of intraoperative venous injury. Furthermore, only 11 approaches were performed by a spine surgeon, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the safety and efficacy of spine surgeon-performed approaches.

Despite these limitations, this study has notable strengths. Its large sample size allowed for a more precise estimate of the incidence of venous injury and enabled the identification of risk factors and postoperative complications. These findings provide valuable insights into the inherent risk factors and complication rates associated with venous injury during ALIF, highlighting areas for future research and potential improvements in surgical practice.

Conclusion

Venous injury during ALIF occurred in 16.61% of cases at a high-volume academic center, with independent risk factors including advanced age, CKD, L4-5 ALIF, and multi-level ALIF. These injuries were associated with significantly prolonged operative times, markedly increased blood loss, and a higher risk of intraoperative transfusions and DVT. Notably, intraoperative transfusion itself emerged as an independent predictor of DVT, underscoring the heightened thrombotic risk in patients with more severe venous injuries. Future research should focus on developing strategies to minimize the risk of venous injury, particularly in high-risk patient populations, and on establishing evidence-based VTE prophylaxis protocol tailored to patients with venous injuries.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Henry Avetisian, Camille Flynn, Rakhi Banerjee, Vivek Satish, Joshua Davood, William Karakash, Matthew C. Gallo, Mirbahador Athari, anf Gregory Magee have nothing to disclose. Jeffrey C. Wang has received intellectual property royalties from Zimmer Biomet, NovApproach, SeaSpine, and DePuy Synthes. Raymond J. Hah has received grant funding from SI bone, consulting fees from NuVasive, and support from the North American Spine Society to attend meetings. Ram K. Alluri has received grant funding from NIH, consulting fees from HIA Technologies, and payment from Eccential Robotics for lectures and presentations

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Henry Avetisian

William Karakash

Mirbahador Athari

Raymond J. Hah

Ram Alluri

Data Availability Statement

Data is not publicly available but can be available upon request.*

References

Rathbone

Rackham

Nielsen

, et al. A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF). Eur Spine J. 2023;32(6):1911-1926.

Laratta

Davis

Glassman

Dimar

. The transperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion at L5-S1: a technical note. J Spine Surg. 2018;4(2):459-460.

Zahradnik

Lubelski

Abdullah

Kelso

Mroz

Kashyap

. Vascular injuries during anterior exposure of the thoracolumbar spine. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27(3):306-313.

Gumbs

Shah

Yue

Sumpio

. The open anterior paramedian retroperitoneal approach for spine procedures. Arch Surg. 2005;140(4):339-343.

Manunga

Alcala

Smith

, et al. Technical approach, outcomes, and exposure-related complications in patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Vasc Surg. 2021;73(3):992-998.

Fantini

Pappou

Girardi

Sandhu

Cammisa

Jr . Major vascular injury during anterior lumbar spinal surgery: incidence, risk factors, and management. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(24):2751-2758.

Yunga Tigre

Berry

Kloehn

, et al. Risk factors for vascular injuries in anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a single-institution retrospective study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2024;41(1):17-23.

Martinez-Singh

Colvard

Lee

Chandra

. Increased vertebral exposure in anterior lumbar interbody fusion associated with venous injury and deep venous thrombosis. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord. 2021;9(2):423-427.

Hamdan

Malek

Schermerhorn

Aulivola

Blattman

Pomposelli

Jr . Vascular injury during anterior exposure of the spine. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48(3):650-654.

10.

Garg

Woo

Hirsch

Bruffey

Dilley

. Vascular complications of exposure for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51(4):946-950.

11.

Brau

Delamarter

Schiffman

Williams

Watkins

. Vascular injury during anterior lumbar surgery. Spine J. 2004;4(4):409-412.

12.

Nourian

Cunningham

Bagheri

Bruffey

Eastlack

. Effect of anatomic variability and level of approach on perioperative vascular complications with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(2):E73-E77.

13.

Barber

Sulhan

Schwartz

Konakondla

. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion: patient selection and workup. J Spine Surg. 2024;10(4):706-714.

14.

Choy

Barrington

Garcia

, et al. Risk factors for medical and surgical complications following single-level ALIF. Glob Spine J. 2017;7(2):141-147.

15.

Wert

Jr. Sellers

Mariner

, et al. Identifying risk factors for complications during exposure for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Cureus. 2021;13(7):e16792.

16.

Acuna

Grits

Samuel

Emara

Kamath

. Perioperative blood transfusions are associated with a higher incidence of thromboembolic events after TKA: an analysis of 333,463 TKAs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021;479(3):589-600.

17.

Nguyen

Akbarnia

van Dam

, et al. Anterior exposure of the spine for removal of lumbar interbody devices and implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(21):2449-2453.

18.

Molnar

Nadasy

Dornyei

, et al. The aging venous system: from varicosities to vascular cognitive impairment. Geroscience. 2021;43(6):2761-2784.

19.

Labissiere

Zigmond

Challa

, et al. Vein morphometry in end-stage kidney disease: teasing out the contribution of age, comorbidities, and vintage to chronic wall remodeling. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:1005030.

20.

Maeda

Hara

, et al. Laparoscopic observations of adhesions between peritoneal dialysis catheters and intraperitoneal organs: a retrospective, observational study. Nephrology (Carlton). 2023;28(12):684-687.

21.

Feeley

Clesham

Butler

. Is there a variance in complication types associated with ALIF approaches? A systematic review. Acta Neurochir. 2021;163(11):2991-3004.

22.

Silvain

Abtan

Kerneis

, et al. Impact of red blood cell transfusion on platelet aggregation and inflammatory response in anemic coronary and noncoronary patients: the TRANSFUSION-2 study (impact of transfusion of red blood cell on platelet activation and aggregation studied with flow cytometry use and light transmission aggregometry). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(13):1289-1296.

23.

Zallen

Moore

Ciesla

Brown

Biffl

Silliman

. Stored red blood cells selectively activate human neutrophils to release IL-8 and secretory PLA2. Shock (Augusta, Ga). 2000;13(1):29-33.

24.

Armstrong

Tripette

Meiselman

Cloutier

. A local increase in red blood cell aggregation can trigger deep vein thrombosis: evidence based on quantitative cellular ultrasound imaging. J Thromb Haemostasis. 2011;9(3):481-488.

25.

Anderson

Morgano

Bennett

, et al. American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients. Blood Adv. 2019;3(23):3898-3944.

26.

Talec

Gaujoux

Samama

. Early ambulation and prevention of post-operative thrombo-embolic risk. J Vis Surg. 2016;153(6S):S11-S14.

27.

Kumar

Azadi

Emerson

Santoso

. Randomized trial of sequential compression versus ankle-calf movement to increase femoral venous velocity. Cureus. 2023;15(10):e48070.

28.

Krauss

Segal

Cronin

, et al. Implementation and validation of the 2013 caprini score for risk stratification of arthroplasty patients in the prevention of venous thrombosis. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost. 2019;25:1076029619838066.

Intraoperative Venous Injury During Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Incidence,Risk Factors,and Complications

Abstract

Study Design

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Patient Selection

Risk Factors and Complications

Statistical Analysis

Results

Patient Cohort

Patient Characteristics

Predictors of Vein Injury

Complications of Vein Injury

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical Statement

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References