ReviewComparison of the different surgical approaches for lumbar interbody fusion
Introduction
Lumbar interbody fusion is an accepted treatment for a variety of spinal disorders, including trauma, infections and neoplastic conditions [1]. It involves placement of an implant (spacer, graft or cage) within the intervertebral space after discectomy. Currently lumbar interbody fusion is performed using four main approaches, posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) (Fig. 1). There is no evidence that one of these approaches is superior. These operations can also be performed using mini-open or minimally invasive (MIS) approaches [2]. Interbody fusion is preferable to other spinal fusion techniques because of lower rates of postoperative complications and pseudoarthrosis [3], [4].
Section snippets
Historical perspective
In 1891 Hadra first described spinal instrumentation with insertion of a silver spinous process wire [5]. In 1910 Lange developed a system of steel rods for attachment to the spine (Fig. 2) [6]. Fusion of the spine was first described in the medical literature by Albee in 1911 as an operation for Pott’s disease, using a tibial graft for stabilisation in tuberculous spondylitis [7], and also by Hibbs who described the technique for stabilising spinal deformities such as scoliosis [8]. Chandler
Surgical technique
PLIF utilises a direct posterior approach to the spine. A midline incision allows access to the disc space of interest via an open incision or sequential tubular dilators. Exposure, laminotomy, ligamentum flavum removal and discectomy and end plate preparation are then performed. PLIF utilises dual ovoid shaped spacers placed in the interspace, which is then supplemented by packed bone graft. The position of the implant is confirmed with fluoroscopy and the graft filled space is then stabilised
Surgical technique
Exposure is achieved through a midline or paramedian incision. The dissection is carried to the base of the transverse process or facet joint. A transforaminal window is then created on one side by resecting the ascending articular process of the lower vertebra to the medial wall of the pedicle (Fig. 1). This is followed by aggressive discectomy and end plate preparation. Bone graft is placed anteriorly and to the contralateral side of the disc space. The single kidney shaped implant is then
Surgical technique
The exposure of the anterior spine is classically through a left paramedian incision over the disc space to be fused. A retroperitoneal approach is taken to expose the anterior spine. At this point vascular structures and ureter are carefully identified and retracted to avoid injury. The aorta and vena cava only need to be retracted if accessing the L3–4 or L4–5 disc spaces; if operating on L5/S1, the space below the bifurcations of these vessels can be used. The anterior longitudinal ligament
Surgical technique
An LLIF operation begins with the patient in either the left or right lateral decubitus position. A lateral incision is made and access is gained to the retroperitoneal space, the peritoneum swept anteriorly and dissection carried out to the psoas muscle (Fig. 8). Electromyography monitoring is placed within psoas to identify the lumbosacral plexus. A transpsoas approach is taken and the muscle fibres are carefully separated [26]. Some authors have recommended dissection within the anterior
MIS versus open lumbar fusion
MIS is being used more frequently as surgeons become more familiar with the techniques and as newer technology becomes available. MIS interbody fusion has consistently been shown to reduce intraoperative blood loss [91]. There are no long-term data for these techniques and the benefit compared to open techniques is questionable as the decompression that can be achieved is greater with open approaches.
ALIF and LLIF are MIS techniques by their nature. Laparoscopic ALIF has been used in recent
Graft options
For achieving spinal fusion, the traditional graft material used is taken from the iliac crest of the patient [36], [101]. It provides the osteogenic factors and scaffold necessary for adequate bone fusion. Donor site problems include pain, paraesthesias, haematoma and infection [102], [103], [104]. Persistent pain is a common complaint in up to 60% of patients [105], [106]. This has led to the development of alternatives including demineralized bone matrices, tricalcium phosphate and BMP.
Conclusions
Spinal fusion has been performed for over a century, and interbody fusion procedures have been performed for over 50 years. The last two decades have seen a rapid expansion in stabilisation techniques and graft materials. Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages, and the approach taken ideally depends on the pathology present and the anatomy of the individual patient. There is an increasing trend toward MIS approaches due to less intraoperative blood loss, however long-term data is
Conflicts of Interest/Disclosures
The authors declare that they have no financial or other conflicts of interest in relation to this research and its publication.
References (117)
- et al.
Techniques of lumbar-sacral spine fusion in spondylosis: systematic literature review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
Spine J
(2011) An operation for spondylolisthesis
Lancet
(1933)- et al.
Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion
Spine J
(2006) Posterior and anterior lumbar interbody fusion
Curr Orthop
(2008)- et al.
Treatment of lumbar instability: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Semin Spine Surg
(2005) - et al.
Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar interbody fusions
Orthop Clin North Am
(2007) - et al.
Direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) at the lumbosacral junction L5–S1
J Clin Neurosci
(2012) - et al.
Nerve injury after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a review of 919 treated levels with identification of risk factors
Spine J
(2014) - et al.
Two-year clinical and radiographic success of minimally invasive lateral transpsoas approach for the treatment of degenerative lumbar conditions
SAS J
(2010) - et al.
Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis
J Neurosurg Spine
(2005)
Minimally invasive lumbar spinal fusion
J Am Acad Orthop Surg
Lumbar interbody fusion: review of history, complications, and outcome comparisons among methods
Curr Orthop Pract
Wiring the spinous processes in Pott’s disease
Trans Am Orthop Assoc
Support for the spondylitic spine by means of buried steel bars, attached to the vertebrae
Am J Orthop Surg
Transplantation of a portion of the tibia into the spine for Pott’s disease
J Am Med Assoc
An operation for progressive spinal deformities
N Y Med J
Spinal fusion operations in the treatment of low back and sciatic pain
J Am Med Assoc
Rupture of the intervertebral disc with involvement of the spinal canal
N Engl J Med
Ruptured intervertebral disc and sciatic pain
J Bone Joint Surg
Disc excision and spine fusion in the management of lumbar disc disease: a minimum ten-year followup
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Increasing rates of cervical and lumbar spine surgery in the United States, 1979–1990
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
A review of spinal fusion for degenerative disc disease: need for alternative treatment approach of disc arthroplasty?
Spine J
Accelerated degeneration of the segment adjacent to a lumbar fusion
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Transperitoneale Freilegung der Wirbelsäule bei tuberkulöser Spondylitis
Langenbecks Arch Surg
A new radical operation for Pott’s disease report of ten cases
J Bone Joint Surg
Indications, techniques, and complications of lumbar interbody fusion
Semin Neurol
The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care
J Neurosurg
Spondylolisthesis: treatment by laminectomy and posterior interbody fusion
Clin Orthop Relat Res
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion updated
Clin Orthop Relat Res
A technical modification of Cloward’s posterior lumbar interbody fusion
Neurosurgery
A one-stage procedure in operative treatment of spondylolisthesis: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb
The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion
Orthop Traumatol
A method of spinal fusion
J Bone Joint Surg Br
Posterolateral lumbar-spine fusion analysis of Mayo clinic series
J Bone Joint Surg
Treatment of scoliosis correction and internal fixation by spine instrumentation
J Bone Joint Surg
Internal fixation in fusion of the lumbo-sacral spine
Lahey Clin Bull
Internal fixation for lumbosacral fusion
J Bone Joint Surg
Osteosynthesis of dorsal, lumbar, and lumbosacral spine with metallic plates screwed into vertebral pedicles and articular apophyses
Presse Med
Pedicle screw fixation in the spine
J Bone Joint Surg Br
The history of spinal deformity
Neurosurgery
A prospective, randomized study of lumbar fusion. Preliminary results
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Segmental spine plates with pedicle screw fixation a new internal fixation device for disorders of the lumbar and thoracolumbar spine
Clin Orthop Relat Res
The Wiltse pedicle screw fixation system
Orthopedics
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique: complications and pitfalls
Clin Orthop Relat Res
Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med
Outcomes of allogenic cages in anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusion
Eur Spine J
Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Ureteral injury after anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a case report
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion
J Neurosurg Spine
Cited by (71)
Comparing the osteogenesis outcomes of different lumbar interbody fusions (A/O/X/T/PLIF) by evaluating their mechano-driven fusion processes
2024, Computers in Biology and MedicineTrends in Single-Level Lumbar Fusions Over the Past Decade Using a National Database
2022, World NeurosurgeryAcute postoperative neurological complications after spine surgery<sup>#</sup>
2022, Seminars in Spine SurgeryVariability and contributions to cost associated with anterior versus posterior approaches to lumbar interbody fusion
2021, Clinical Neurology and NeurosurgeryCitation Excerpt :The current literature supports many potential benefits of interbody cages, including increased segmental lordosis, the ability for indirect foraminal decompression, and high arthrodesis rates [5–8]. Currently, spine surgeons have numerous different techniques for interbody fusion at their disposal [9]. Operationally, our group categorizes these different options as those that are posteriorly-based including posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF); laterally-based [e.g. lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF)]; and anteriorly-based [anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)].
Lateral Interbody Fusion at L4/5: Management of the Transitional Psoas
2021, World NeurosurgeryCitation Excerpt :The transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a useful technique to achieve anterior column support and fusion of the lumbar spine for a variety of spinal conditions.1-6