Lumbar interbody fusion: Review of history, complications, and outcome comparisons among methods

Roger E. Wiltfong, Christopher M. Bono, Wilsa M S Charles Malveaux, Alok D. Sharan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Traditional lumbar spinal fusion has been achieved through a posterior or posterolateral approach. Newer techniques have evolved to include anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), and axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). Given the distinct advantages and disadvantages of each procedure, it is critical for the spine surgeon to understand their utility and associated potential complications. This review aims to compare the outcomes, techniques and complications of various methods of lumbar fusion. Ovid Medline was used to search the English literature from 1950 to 2010. Additional articles provided by industry representatives were referenced. Comparison of TLIF with PLIF demonstrates improved segmental stability with both less blood loss and fewer complications with TLIF. ALIF provides better radiographic results than TLIF, although there are neither significant clinical differences, nor differences in segmental stability. Laparoscopic ALIF results in more complications and longer operative times than mini-open ALIF with no difference in clinical or radiographic outcomes. Compared to open techniques, the minimally invasive techniques yield less blood loss, decreased hospital stay, decreased postoperative back pain, and longer operative times. Each method of lumbar interbody fusion results in high rates of fusion and good clinical outcomes, despite complications and learning curves. More level 1 studies are needed to make generalizations regarding the outcomes of one method compared with another.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)193-202
Number of pages10
JournalCurrent Orthopaedic Practice
Volume23
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2012

Fingerprint

History
Operative Time
Literature
Spinal Fusion
Learning Curve
Back Pain
Postoperative Pain
Length of Stay
Industry
Spine

Keywords

  • Anterior
  • Lateral
  • Lumbar interbody fusion
  • Minimally invasive
  • Posterior

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Lumbar interbody fusion : Review of history, complications, and outcome comparisons among methods. / Wiltfong, Roger E.; Bono, Christopher M.; Charles Malveaux, Wilsa M S; Sharan, Alok D.

In: Current Orthopaedic Practice, Vol. 23, No. 3, 05.2012, p. 193-202.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wiltfong, Roger E. ; Bono, Christopher M. ; Charles Malveaux, Wilsa M S ; Sharan, Alok D. / Lumbar interbody fusion : Review of history, complications, and outcome comparisons among methods. In: Current Orthopaedic Practice. 2012 ; Vol. 23, No. 3. pp. 193-202.
@article{e96b0144381d4f3cb75d821b7e7234ed,
title = "Lumbar interbody fusion: Review of history, complications, and outcome comparisons among methods",
abstract = "Traditional lumbar spinal fusion has been achieved through a posterior or posterolateral approach. Newer techniques have evolved to include anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), and axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). Given the distinct advantages and disadvantages of each procedure, it is critical for the spine surgeon to understand their utility and associated potential complications. This review aims to compare the outcomes, techniques and complications of various methods of lumbar fusion. Ovid Medline was used to search the English literature from 1950 to 2010. Additional articles provided by industry representatives were referenced. Comparison of TLIF with PLIF demonstrates improved segmental stability with both less blood loss and fewer complications with TLIF. ALIF provides better radiographic results than TLIF, although there are neither significant clinical differences, nor differences in segmental stability. Laparoscopic ALIF results in more complications and longer operative times than mini-open ALIF with no difference in clinical or radiographic outcomes. Compared to open techniques, the minimally invasive techniques yield less blood loss, decreased hospital stay, decreased postoperative back pain, and longer operative times. Each method of lumbar interbody fusion results in high rates of fusion and good clinical outcomes, despite complications and learning curves. More level 1 studies are needed to make generalizations regarding the outcomes of one method compared with another.",
keywords = "Anterior, Lateral, Lumbar interbody fusion, Minimally invasive, Posterior",
author = "Wiltfong, {Roger E.} and Bono, {Christopher M.} and {Charles Malveaux}, {Wilsa M S} and Sharan, {Alok D.}",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1097/BCO.0b013e318231c2ad",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "193--202",
journal = "Current Orthopaedic Practice",
issn = "1940-7041",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lumbar interbody fusion

T2 - Review of history, complications, and outcome comparisons among methods

AU - Wiltfong, Roger E.

AU - Bono, Christopher M.

AU - Charles Malveaux, Wilsa M S

AU - Sharan, Alok D.

PY - 2012/5

Y1 - 2012/5

N2 - Traditional lumbar spinal fusion has been achieved through a posterior or posterolateral approach. Newer techniques have evolved to include anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), and axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). Given the distinct advantages and disadvantages of each procedure, it is critical for the spine surgeon to understand their utility and associated potential complications. This review aims to compare the outcomes, techniques and complications of various methods of lumbar fusion. Ovid Medline was used to search the English literature from 1950 to 2010. Additional articles provided by industry representatives were referenced. Comparison of TLIF with PLIF demonstrates improved segmental stability with both less blood loss and fewer complications with TLIF. ALIF provides better radiographic results than TLIF, although there are neither significant clinical differences, nor differences in segmental stability. Laparoscopic ALIF results in more complications and longer operative times than mini-open ALIF with no difference in clinical or radiographic outcomes. Compared to open techniques, the minimally invasive techniques yield less blood loss, decreased hospital stay, decreased postoperative back pain, and longer operative times. Each method of lumbar interbody fusion results in high rates of fusion and good clinical outcomes, despite complications and learning curves. More level 1 studies are needed to make generalizations regarding the outcomes of one method compared with another.

AB - Traditional lumbar spinal fusion has been achieved through a posterior or posterolateral approach. Newer techniques have evolved to include anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), and axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF). Given the distinct advantages and disadvantages of each procedure, it is critical for the spine surgeon to understand their utility and associated potential complications. This review aims to compare the outcomes, techniques and complications of various methods of lumbar fusion. Ovid Medline was used to search the English literature from 1950 to 2010. Additional articles provided by industry representatives were referenced. Comparison of TLIF with PLIF demonstrates improved segmental stability with both less blood loss and fewer complications with TLIF. ALIF provides better radiographic results than TLIF, although there are neither significant clinical differences, nor differences in segmental stability. Laparoscopic ALIF results in more complications and longer operative times than mini-open ALIF with no difference in clinical or radiographic outcomes. Compared to open techniques, the minimally invasive techniques yield less blood loss, decreased hospital stay, decreased postoperative back pain, and longer operative times. Each method of lumbar interbody fusion results in high rates of fusion and good clinical outcomes, despite complications and learning curves. More level 1 studies are needed to make generalizations regarding the outcomes of one method compared with another.

KW - Anterior

KW - Lateral

KW - Lumbar interbody fusion

KW - Minimally invasive

KW - Posterior

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863667320&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863667320&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/BCO.0b013e318231c2ad

DO - 10.1097/BCO.0b013e318231c2ad

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84863667320

VL - 23

SP - 193

EP - 202

JO - Current Orthopaedic Practice

JF - Current Orthopaedic Practice

SN - 1940-7041

IS - 3

ER -