Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleArticles

Radiographic Comparison of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Traditional Fusion Approaches: Analysis of Sagittal Contour Change

Jonathan N. Sembrano, Sharon C. Yson, Ryan D. Horazdovsky, Edward Rainier G. Santos and David W. Polly
International Journal of Spine Surgery January 2015, 9 16; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/2016
Jonathan N. Sembrano
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sharon C. Yson
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ryan D. Horazdovsky
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Edward Rainier G. Santos
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David W. Polly Jr.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Fig. 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1

    Lateral standing radiograph of the lumbosacral spine showing measurements of lordosis evaluated in the study. Regional lordosis was measured using the superior endplate of L1 and S1. Segmental lordosis measurements were measured using the superior endplate of upper vertebra and the inferior endplate of lower vertebra, except at L5-S1 where the superior endplate of S1 was used.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Summary of Diagnoses of the Different Fusion Techniques.

    LLIFALIFTLIFPSF
    DDD17DDD17DDD16DDD5
    ASD9ASD4ASD3ASD2
    Degen Spondylolisthesis5Degen Spondylolisthesis2Degen Spondylolisthesis15Degen Spondylolisthesis12
    Isthmic Spondylolisthesis1Isthmic Spondylolisthesis10Isthmic Spondylolisthesis2
    Spondylosis2Spondylosis2Spondylosis4
    Degen Scoliosis1Degen Scoliosis2Degen Scoliosis3Degen Scoliosis1
    Spondylolysis1HNP (recurrent/far lateral)9Pars fracture2
    Total35Total36Total50Total26
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Comparison of preoperative and postoperative lordosis within groups.

    Operative LevelRegional (L1-S1)
    Pre-oplordosis (mean ± SD)Post-oplordosis (mean ± SD)p valuePre-oplordosis (mean ± SD)Post-oplordosis (mean ± SD)p value
    LLIF12.1 ± 7.9°15.3 ± 8.5°p<0.0151.5 ± 11.3°54.0 ± 10.0°p<0.01
    ALIF15.8 ± 11.9°19.6 ± 11.7°p<0.0151.6 ± 13.0°55.8 ± 12.6°p<0.01
    TLIF13.0 ± 10.3°14.9 ± 9.7°p<0.0147.2 ± 14.2°49.3 ± 14.4°p=0.02
    PSF14.8 ± 9.6°15.5 ± 9.7°p=0.1349.5 ± 15.0°48.9 ± 16.8°p=0.66
    • View popup
    Table 3

    Comparison of Preoperative and Postoperative Anterior Disk Height (ADH) and (Posterior Disk Height (PDH) within groups.

    Pre-op ADH [mean (mm) ± SD]Post-op ADH [mean (mm) ± SD]p valuePre-op PDH [mean (mm) ± SD]Post-op PDH [mean (mm) ± SD]p value
    LLIF7.9 ± 4.313.8 ± 3.8p<0.013.7 ± 2.56.5 ± 3.1p<0.01
    ALIF9.7 ± 5.618.4 ± 5.1p<0.013.8 ± 2.07.1 ± 2.6p<0.01
    TLIF9.8 ± 5.112.6 ± 3.8p<0.014.5 ± 3.05.9 ± 2.9p<0.01
    PSF9.9 ± 4.210.2 ± 3.8p=0.254.3 ± 2.13.9 ± 2.0p=0.04
    • View popup
    Table 4

    Comparison of Superior (sup) and Inferior (inf) Level lordosis within groups.

    Pre-op sup lordosis (mean ± SD)Post-op sup lordosis (mean ± SD)p valuePre-op inf lordosis (mean ± SD)Post-op inf lordosis (mean ± SD)p value
    LLIF9.1 ± 8.1°8.7 ± 7.9°p=0.2722.2 ± 7.3°22.2 ± 7.7°p=0.99
    ALIF17.3 ± 10.1°14.8 ± 9.5°p<0.0121.8 ± 8.5°18.3 ± 8.2°p=0.25
    TLIF12.6 ± 10.2°12.1 ± 10.4°p=0.0715.1 ± 6.3°15.1 ± 6.0°p=0.99
    PSF11.7 ± 8.8°12 ± 9.1°p=0.5418.7 ± 8.1°18.0 ± 8.1°p=0.20
    • View popup
    Table 5

    Comparison of Regional (L1-S1) Lordosis Change in Single Level Fusions

    Pre-op lordosis (mean ± SD)Post-op lordosis (mean ± SD)Mean Changep value
    LLIF (n=18)54.6 ± 9.2°56.4 ± 8.0°1.8 ± 3.7°p=0.05
    ALIF (n=23)54.8 ± 11.3°57.2 ± 12.7°2.4 ± 5.1°p=0.03
    TLIF (n=38)49.3 ± 13.2°50.1 ± 13.6°1.4 ± 4.5°p=0.06
    PSF (n=18)50.8 ± 16.1°51.1 ± 17.6°0.3 ± 6.9°p=0.86
    • View popup
    Table 6

    Comparison of Regional (L1-S1) Lordosis Change in Multilevel (≥2 levels) Fusions.

    Pre-op lordosis (mean ± SD)Post-op lordosis (mean ± SD)Mean Changep value
    LLIF (n=17)48.0 ± 12.7°51.2 ± 11.5°3.3 ± 4.5°p=0.01
    ALIF (n=13)46.0 ± 14.3°53.3 ± 12.6°7.7 ± 5.9°p<0.01
    TLIF (n=12)40.6 ± 15.9°44.9 ± 16.7°4.3 ± 9.3°p=0.13
    PSF (n=8)46.5 ± 12.5°44.1 ± 14.7°-2.4 ± 3.9°p=0.12
    • View popup
    Table 7

    Literature on Segmental Lordosis Change after LLIF.

    StudiesSegmental LordosisRegional Lordosis
    N (levels)Pre-opPost-opChangeP valueN (patients)Pre-opPost-opChangeP value
    Sharma, et al. 201115 875.4°8.5°3.1°p=0.0014347.8±15.148.3±12.00.5p=0.86
    Acosta, et al. 201114 665.3°8.2°2.9°p<0.00013642.146.2°4.1p >0.05
    Watkins et al. 201418 868.2 °10.4°2.2°p<0.001-----
    Tohmeh et al. 201420 22310.7°13.7°3°p<0.001-----
    Present Study5412.1°15.3°3.2°p<0.0.11851.554.02.5P<0.01
    • View popup
    Table 8
    Facetectomies used in TLIFPre-op lordosis (mean ± SD)Post-op lordosis (mean ± SD)Mean Changep value
    Unilateral16.1 ± 10.4°17.1 ± 9.5°1.0 ± 2.9°p=0.07
    Bilateral10.0 ± 9.5°12.9 ± 9.6°2.9 ± 4.5°p<0.01
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 9
1 Jan 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Radiographic Comparison of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Traditional Fusion Approaches: Analysis of Sagittal Contour Change
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Radiographic Comparison of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Traditional Fusion Approaches: Analysis of Sagittal Contour Change
Jonathan N. Sembrano, Sharon C. Yson, Ryan D. Horazdovsky, Edward Rainier G. Santos, David W. Polly
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2015, 9 16; DOI: 10.14444/2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Radiographic Comparison of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Traditional Fusion Approaches: Analysis of Sagittal Contour Change
Jonathan N. Sembrano, Sharon C. Yson, Ryan D. Horazdovsky, Edward Rainier G. Santos, David W. Polly
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jan 2015, 9 16; DOI: 10.14444/2016
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Disclosures
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Indirect Decompression for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Computer Assisted Cobb Angle Measurements: A novel algorithm
  • Long-term Evaluation of Cervical Disc Arthroplasty with the Mobi-C© Cervical Disc: A Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Clinical Trial with Seven-Year Follow-up
  • A Comparison of Three Different Methods of Fixation in the Management of Thoracolumbar Fractures
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • LLIF
  • XLIF
  • DLIF
  • ALIF
  • tlif
  • PSF
  • transforaminal
  • lateral
  • transpsoas
  • Direct
  • Extreme
  • sagittal balance

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire