We aimed to systematically review the literature to analyze the differences in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), focusing on the complications, risk factors, and fusion rate of each approach. Spinal fusion surgery is a well-established surgical procedure for a variety of indications, and different approaches developed. The various approaches and their advantages, as well as approach-related pathology and complications, are well investigated in spinal surgery. Focusing only on lumbosacral fusion, the comparative studies of different approaches remain fewer in numbers. We systematically reviewed the literature on the complications associated with lumbosacral interbody fusion. Only the PLIF, ALIF, or TLIF approaches and studies published within the last decade (2007-2017) were included. The exclusion criteria in this study were oblique lumbar interbody fusion, extreme lateral interbody fusion, more than one procedure per patient, and reported patient numbers less than 10. The outcome variables were indications, fusion rates, operation time, perioperative complications, and clinical outcome by means of Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. Five prospective, 17 retrospective, and two comparative studies that investigated the lumbosacral region were included. Mean fusion rates were 91,4%. ALIF showed a higher operation time, while PLIF resulted in greater blood loss. In all approaches, significant improvements in the clinical outcome were achieved, with ALIF showing slightly better results. Regarding complications, the ALIF technique showed the highest complication rates. Lumbosacral fusion surgery is a treatment to provide good results either through an approach for various indications as causes of lower back pain. For each surgical approach, advantages can be depicted. However, perioperative complications and risk factors are numerous and vary with ALIF, PLIF, and TLIF procedures, as well as with fusion rates.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8873994PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.31616/asj.2020.0405DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

interbody fusion
24
lumbar interbody
16
fusion
14
fusion surgery
12
fusion rates
12
spinal fusion
8
fusion plif
8
complications risk
8
risk factors
8
lumbosacral fusion
8

Similar Publications

Background: Cage subsidence frequently complicates lumbar fusion procedures, including lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), potentially leading to recurrent pain, impaired fusion, and accelerated degeneration of adjacent segments. A critical factor influencing cage subsidence is the selection of material. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and three-dimensional printed titanium (3D-Ti) cages are commonly used in LLIF procedures, each offering distinct advantages.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: In the current study, to demonstrate the advantages of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), we focused on the therapeutics for lumbar spinal tuberculosis with the comparison of three treatments, including anterior approach, posterior approach, and OLIF combined with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation.

Methods: This study included patients with lumbar spinal tuberculosis from July 2015 to June 2018. We divided these patients into three groups: 35 patients underwent an anterior-only approach (Group A), 36 patients underwent a posterior-only approach (Group B), and 31 patients underwent OLIF combined with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (Group C).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: Synthetic cages are commonly used in posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Using morselized corticocancellous bone from spinous processes and laminae has been suggested as an alternative, especially in low-resource settings where access to synthetic cages is limited. The aim of this study was to compare radiographic and functional outcomes of synthetic cages with those of morselized local autograft.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Objective: This study aims to perform a meta-analysis that integrates multiple literature sources to evaluate the clinical efficacy of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) for treating lumbar degenerative diseases (LDD).

Methods: A systematic search was conducted across various databases, including CNKI, VIP, WANFANG DATA, SinoMed, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science, for clinical comparative studies on OLIF and MIS-TLIF for treating LDD, covering the time frame from the inception of the databases to September 2024. Following PRISMA guidelines, studies were screened, assessed, and data were extracted rigorously.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Purpose: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) are the most commonly conducted operations for interbody fusions. In addition to fusion, the restoration of proper spinal alignment has become crucial for achieving favorable functional outcomes. There is a lack of agreement on which lumbar interbody fusion technique provides the most effective correction for sagittal spinopelvic parameters (SSPs).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!