The transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has seen significant evolution since its early inception, reflecting advancements in surgical techniques, patient safety, and outcomes. Originally described as an improvement over the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), the TLIF began as an open surgical procedure, that notably reduced the need for the extensive neural retractation that hindered the PLIF. In line with the broader practice of surgery, trending toward minimally invasive access, the TLIF was followed by the development of the minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF), a technique that further decreased tissue trauma and postoperative complications. Subsequent advancements, including Trans-Kambin’s Triangle TLIF (percLIF) and transfacet LIF, have continued to refine surgical access, minimize surgical footprint, and reduce the risk of injury to the patient. The latest evolution, as we will describe it, the patient-specific TLIF, is a culmination of the aforementioned adaptations and incorporates advanced imaging and segmentation technologies into perioperative planning, allowing surgeons to tailor approaches based on individual patient anatomy and pathology. These developments signify a shift towards more precise methods in spine surgery. The ongoing evolution of the TLIF technique illustrates the dynamic nature of surgery and emphasizes the need for continued adaptation and refinement.

The Prone Transpsoas (PTP) approach to lumbar spine surgery, emerging as an evolution of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), offers significant advantages over traditional methods. PTP has demonstrated increased lumbar lordosis gains compared to LLIF, owing to the natural increase in lordosis afforded by prone positioning. Additionally, the prone position offers anatomical advantages, with shifts in the psoas muscle and lumbar plexus, reducing the likelihood of postoperative femoral plexopathy and moving critical peritoneal contents away from the approach. Furthermore, operative efficiency is a notable benefit of PTP. By eliminating the need for intraoperative position changes, PTP reduces surgical time, which in turn decreases the risk of complications and operative costs. Finally, its versatility extends to various lumbar pathologies, including degeneration, adjacent segment disease, and deformities. The growing body of evidence indicates that PTP is at least as safe as traditional approaches, with a potentially better complication profile. In this narrative review, we review the historical evolution of lateral interbody fusion, culminating in the prone transpsoas approach. We also describe several adjuncts of PTP, including robotics and radiation-reduction methods. Finally, we illustrate the versatility of PTP and its uses, ranging from ‘simple’ degenerative cases to complex deformity surgeries.

The transfacet minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) is a novel approach available for the management of lumbar spondylolisthesis. It avoids the need to manipulate either of the exiting or traversing nerve roots, both protected by the bony boundaries of the approach. With the advancement in operative technologies such as navigation, mapping, segmentation, and augmented reality (AR), surgeons are prompted to utilize these technologies to enhance their surgical outcomes. A 36-year-old male patient was complaining of chronic progressive lower back pain. He was found to have grade 2 L4/5 spondylolisthesis. We studied the feasibility of a trans-Kambin or a transfacet MIS-TLIF, and decided to proceed with the latter given the wider corridor it provides. Preoperative trajectory planning and level segmentation in addition to intraoperative navigation and image merging were all utilized to provide an AR model to guide us through the surgery. The use of AR can build on the safety and learning of novel surgical approaches to spine pathologies. However, larger high-quality studies are needed to further objectively analyze its impact on surgical outcomes and to expand on its application.

OBJECTIVES: Central nervous system (CNS) tumors are a major and growing global healthcare challenge. Western Saudi Arabia has an inconsistent data registry; therefore, the epidemiology of CNS tumors is unclear across the country. This study is aimed to assemble the epidemiological matrix of CNS tumors in the Western Province of Saudi Arabia.METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using clinical data obtained from 3 neuroscience centers in Western Saudi Arabia in the period 2014-2019. The sample size included 663 adult and pediatric cases from the local and expatriate populations diagnosed with CNS tumors. The distributions of age, sex, clinical presentation, tumor location, type of surgery, histological subtype, genetic characteristics, and recurrence rate were explored.RESULTS: The analysis included 500 adult cases and 163 pediatric cases up to 18 years of age with a male-to-female ratio of 1.16. The mean age at diagnosis was 38.0±22.6 years. The supratentorium was the most common location (n=515, 77.7%). Most patients presented with headache (n=298, 44.9%), followed by a focal neurological deficit (19.9%). The most common primary CNS tumor was glioblastoma (n=234, 35.3%), followed by meningioma (n=100, 15.1%). The recurrence rate after surgery was estimated to be 40.9% among all CNS tumors.CONCLUSIONS: This is the first tumor registry of Western Province of Saudi Arabia that describes the distribution of primary CNS tumors and highlights their epidemiological matrix. Several incidence trends in terms of histological type, age group, sex, location, and recurrence were determined, and some genetic characteristics were recognized.

Purpose: Wilms tumor 1 (WT1) gene has recently shown a role in gliomagenesis, making it a potential immunotherapy target in glioblastomas. We aimed to investigate the most sensitive method to detect WT1 expression in glioblastoma and explore the relationship between WT1 expression, IDH1 mutation and recurrence interval. Patients and Methods: Clinical data were collected from 44 patients with glioblastomas, treated with adjuvant therapies. WT1 expression was assessed in all cases using immunohistochemistry (IHC), while its gene expression was assessed in 13 clustered samples using polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). IDH1 mutation was assessed using IHC. The sensitivity between IHC and RT-qPCR was examined. Kaplan–Meier curves were used to compare the recurrence-free interval (RFI) between IDH1 and WT1 expression groups. Results: IDH1^wildtype was found in 26 cases (59.1%) and the remaining 18 cases (40.9%) were IDH1^mutant. Through IHC, WT1 was overexpressed in 32 cases (72.7%), partially expressed in 9 cases (20.5%) and not expressed in only 3 cases. For the 13 cases tested by qPCR, 6 cases showed WT1 upregulation and 7 cases showed WT1 downregulation. There was no significant difference in WT1 expression among cases with different RNA concentrations regardless the testing method (p-value > 0.05). However, the difference between IHC and qPCR was significant. IDH1^mutant cases with WT1 overexpression showed significant difference in RFI (p-value =0.048). Conclusion: Parallel testing for WT1 expression using IHC and qPCR is not reliable. However, IHC provides more accurate results. Moreover, IDH1^mutant glioblastomas with WT1 overexpression are associated with late RFI particularly if temozolomide with additional chemotherapies are used.