Posterior lumbar fusion: choice of approach and adjunct techniques

J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014 Aug;22(8):503-11. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-22-08-503.

Abstract

The choice among the many options of approach and adjunct techniques in planning a posterior lumbar fusion can be problematic. Debates remain as to whether solid fusion has an advantage over pseudarthrosis regarding long-term symptom deterioration and whether an instrumented or a noninstrumented approach will best serve clinically and/or cost effectively, particularly in elderly patients. Increased motion resulting in higher rates of nonunion and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have been studied in animal models and are presumed risk factors, despite the lack of clinical investigation. Smoking is a proven risk factor for pseudarthrosis in both animal models and level III clinical studies. Recent long-term studies and image/clinical assessment of lumbar fusions and pseudarthrosis show that, although imaging remains a key area of difficulty in assessment, including an instrumented approach and a well-selected biologic adjunct, as well as achieving a solid fusion, all carry important long-term clinical advantages in avoiding revision surgery for nonunion.

Publication types

  • Review

MeSH terms

  • Bone Substitutes / therapeutic use
  • Bone Transplantation / methods
  • Electric Stimulation Therapy
  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Humans
  • Lumbar Vertebrae / surgery*
  • Patient Selection
  • Pseudarthrosis / surgery
  • Risk Factors
  • Spinal Diseases / surgery*
  • Spinal Fusion / instrumentation
  • Spinal Fusion / methods*

Substances

  • Bone Substitutes