Bulletin of the Russian Military Medical AcademyBulletin of the Russian Military Medical Academy1682-73922687-1424Eco-Vector6357710.17816/brmma63577Research ArticleSelection of retroperitoneal access during intervertebral disc endoprosthesis in lumbar spinePriymakMaxim A.<p>Chief resident</p>Priymak@yandex.ruKruglovIvan A.<p>Head of the neurosurgical department</p>Priymak@yandex.ruGaivoronskiAlexei I.<p>Doctor of medical sciences professor</p>Priymak@yandex.ruKravtsovMaksim N.<p>Doctor of medical sciences</p>Priymak@yandex.ruBulyshchenkoGennady G.<p>Candidate of medical sciences</p>Priymak@yandex.ru1586th Military Clinical HospitalMilitary Medical Academy named after S.M. KirovSaint Petersburg State University1205202123173801703202117032021Copyright © 2021, Priymak M.A., Kruglov I.A., Gaivoronski A.I., Kravtsov M.N., Bulyshchenko G.G.2021<p>The morphometric parameters and surgical areas of risk of retroperitoneal approach were studied for endoprosthetics of intervertebral discs in the lumbar spine to reduce trauma and reduce the risk of complications. The study included 110 patients operated on in the period from 2017 to 2020 (72 men, 38 women) in the neurosurgical department of the 1586 Military Clinical Hospital. The average age of the patients was 44.9 15.4 years. According to the localization of access to the lumbar spine, the patients were distributed as follows: L<sub>III</sub>L<sub>IV</sub> 8 (7.3%), L<sub>IV</sub>LV 46 (41.7%), L<sub>V</sub>S<sub>I</sub> 56 (51%). It was found that, for the intervertebral disc L<sub>V</sub> S<sub>I</sub>, the length of the skin incision was 92.5 (80; 100) mm, the length of the surgical wound was 80 (80; 110) mm, the thickness of the subcutaneous fat layer was 30 (15; 40) mm, the depth of the wound was to the spine 85 (70; 120) mm, the depth of the wound to the spinal canal 125 (107.5; 152.5) mm, the angle of operation in the horizontal plane at the level of the spine 52 (47; 59.5) degrees. On the basis of the anthropometric data of patients, the optimal length of the skin incision was determined for performing the retroperitoneal approach (120 mm for level L<sub>III</sub>L<sub>IV</sub>, 100 mm for level L<sub>IV</sub>L<sub>V</sub>). Three variants of the inferior vena cava bifurcation have been identified for different levels of intervertebral discs in the lumbar spine: high bifurcation, left common iliac vein mainly overlaps the left half of the L<sub>IV</sub>L<sub>V</sub> intervertebral disc and does not overlap the L<sub>V</sub>S<sub>I</sub> intervertebral disc; middle bifurcation, left common iliac vein overlaps the central part of the intervertebral discs L<sub>IV</sub>L<sub>V</sub> and L<sub>V</sub>S<sub>I</sub>; low bifurcation, inferior vena cava overlaps the right side of the intervertebral disc L<sub>IV</sub>L<sub>V</sub>, inferior vena cava and left common iliac vein completely overlap the intervertebral disc L<sub>V</sub>S<sub>I</sub>. The data obtained can be used when planning retroperitoneal access to the lumbar spine in order to reduce the trauma of the operation.</p>morphometric parameters of approachendoprosthetics of the intervertebral disclumbar spineretroperitoneal approachinferior vena cavacommon iliac veinморфометрические параметры доступаэндопротезирование межпозвоночного дискапоясничный отдел позвоночниказабрюшинный доступнижняя полая венаобщая подвздошная вена[Mitbreit IМ, Glazyrin DI. Anterior spinal fusion V.D. Chaklina. Spinal Surgery. 2017;14(1):91–99. (In Russ).][Nalbandian MM, Hoashi JS, Errico TJ. Variations in the iliolumbar vein during the anterior approach for spinal procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38(8):E445–E450. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31828972ac.][Busardò FP, Frati P, Carbone I, et al. Iatrogenic left common iliac artery and vein perforation during lumbar discectomy: a fatal case. Forensic Sci Int. 2015;246:e7–e11. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.11.006.][Lazennec JY, Pouzet B, Ramare S, et al. Anatomic basis of minimal anterior extraperitoneal approach to the lumbar spine. Surg Radiol Anat. 1999;21(1):7–15. doi: 10.1007/BF01635046.][Lucas F, Emery E, Dudoit T, Berger L. Influence of Obesity on Access-Related Complications During Anterior Lumbar Spine Interbody Fusion. World Neurosurg. 2016;92:229–233. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2015.12.104.][Кim HD, Vaccaro АR, Dickman КА, editors. The Spine. Surgical Anatomy and Technique. Мoscow: Panfilov Publishing House; 2016. (In Russ.)][Smoljanovic T, Bicanic G, Bojanic I. Re: Kleeman TJ, Ahn UM, Talbot-Kleeman A. Laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion with rhBMP-2: a prospective study of clinical and radiographic outcomes. Spine 2001;26:2751–6. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(20):E1013. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181edf48a][Efimov AN. Topographo-anatomicheskie aspekti sravnitelnoy otsenki operativnih dostupov k pozvonochniku [dissertation]. Saint Petersburg; 2011. (In Russ.)][Molloy S, Butler JS, Benton A, et al. A new extensile anterolateral retroperitoneal approach for lumbar interbody fusion from L1 to S1: a prospective series with clinical outcomes. Spine J. 2016;16(6):786–791. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.03.044.][Korzh AA, Talyshinsky RR, Khvisyuk NI. Surgical approaches to the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae (anatomical and surgical justification). Moscow: Medicine; 1968. (In Russ.)]