Non-specific lower back pain caused by degenerative lumbar disease, such as disc and facet joint degeneration or spondylolisthesis, significantly impairs quality of life of patients and is associated with higher pain scores and reduced function. Patients that fail to respond to conservative treatment may require surgical intervention, such as lumbar interbody fusion (LIF). Compared to other approaches, an anterior approach to lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has advantages regarding efficacy of fusion, visualization of relevant anatomy, and a larger allowable size of the interbody fusion device. An anterior approach's main biomechanical advantage includes the ability to restore sagittal alignment, achieve indirect decompression, and provide increased anterior column support. Complications of anterior interbody fusion are mostly approach related and include vascular injury or visceral injury. However, the anterior anatomy can make the placement of an interbody device challenging. In the case reported here, an ALIF procedure was complicated by immobile iliac vessels leaving a small window to place the interbody cage. Continuing with the anterior approach was opted, but with the oblique placement of a cage traditionally used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8976413PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.22792DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

interbody fusion
28
lumbar interbody
20
interbody
9
transforaminal lumbar
8
fusion
8
fusion tlif
8
anterior approach
8
anterior
7
lumbar
5
tlif cage
4

Similar Publications

Study Design: Matched case-control study.

Purpose: To evaluate the midterm outcomes of unilateral pedicle screw fixation (UPSF) versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure, ascertain efficacy of UPSF in adequately decompressing contralateral foramen+spinal canal and reducing rate of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) at 4-8-year follow-up (FU).

Overview Of Literature: Previous meta-analyses found no significant differences between UPSF and BPSF regarding fusion rates, clinical and radiological outcomes; however, few studies have reported higher rates of cage migration/subsidence and pseudoarthrosis in the UPSF.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Posterior lumbar fusion (PLF) is a common spine surgery that may be considered in patients with underlying comorbidities, such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Prior literature examining the association of this disease and PLF outcomes was done in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS), which only assessed in-hospital data and did not reveal an elevated risk of medical or surgical complications. However, characterization of PLF outcomes beyond hospital discharge is important and remains unknown for patients with IBD.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF
Article Synopsis
  • Cage subsidence can negatively affect lumbar fusion procedures, with material selection (PEEK vs. 3D-Ti) influencing this issue; the study aims to compare their subsidence rates.
  • The systematic search reviewed 265 patients from three high-quality studies, focusing on cage subsidence and classified subsidence rates using a specific method.
  • Results indicated that 3D-Ti cages have a significantly lower rate of subsidence compared to PEEK cages, with less severe subsidence and better overall performance.
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!