Literature DB >> 26114085

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

Jonathan N Sembrano1, Sharon C Yson1, Ryan D Horazdovsky1, Edward Rainier G Santos1, David W Polly1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lateral approach to lumbar fusion has been gaining popularity in recent years. With increasing awareness of the significance of sagittal balance restoration in spinal surgery, it is important to investigate the potential of this relatively new approach in correcting sagittal deformities in comparison to conventional approaches. The aim of this study was to evaluate sagittal contour changes seen in lateral lumbar interbody fusion and compare them with radiographic changes in traditional approaches to lumbar fusion.
METHODS: Lumbar fusion procedures from January 2008 to December 2009 were reviewed. Four approaches were compared: anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior spinal fusion (PSF). Standing pre-operative and 6-week post-operative radiographs were measured in terms of operative level, suprajacent and subjacent level, and regional lumbar lordosis (L1-S1) as well as operative level anterior (ADH) and posterior disc heights (PDH). T-test was used to analyze differences between and within different approaches (α=0.05).
RESULTS: A total of 147 patients underwent lumbar fusion at 212 levels. Mean operative level segmental lordosis change after each procedure is as follows: ALIF 3.8 ± 6.6° (p < 0.01); LLIF 3.2 ± 3.6° (p<0.01); TLIF 1.9 ± 3.9° (p<0.01); and PSF 0.7 ± 2.9° (p =0.13). Overall lumbar lordosis change after each procedure is as follows: ALIF 4.2 ± 5.8° (p < 0.01); LLIF 2.5 ± 4.1° (p<0.01); TLIF 2.1 ± 6.0 (p = 0.02); PSF -0.5 ± 6.2° (p = 0.66). There were no significant changes in the supradjcent and subjacent level lordosis in all approaches except in ALIF where a significant decrease in supradjecent level lordosis was seen. Mean ADH and PDH significantly increased for all approaches except in PSF where PDH decreased post-operatively.
CONCLUSION: LLIF has the ability to improve sagittal contour as well as other interbody approaches and is superior to posterioronly approach in disc height restoration. However, ALIF provides the greatest amount of segmental and overall lumbar lordosis correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This is a Level III study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regional lordosis correction may be effectively achieved with LLIF. This approach is a good addition to a surgeon's armamentarium in maintenance or restoration of normal lumbar sagittal alignment.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ALIF; DLIF; Direct; Extreme; LLIF; Lateral; PSF; Sagittal Balance; TLIF; Transforaminal; Transpsoas; XLIF

Year:  2015        PMID: 26114085      PMCID: PMC4480050          DOI: 10.14444/2016

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  28 in total

1.  The effect of sagittal alignment on adjacent joint mobility after lumbar instrumentation--a biomechanical study of lumbar vertebrae in a porcine model.

Authors:  Wen-Jer Chen; Po-Liang Lai; Ching-Lung Tai; Lih-Huei Chen; Chi-Chien Niu
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.063

Review 2.  Which procedure is better for lumbar interbody fusion: anterior lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?

Authors:  Sheng-Dan Jiang; Jiang-Wei Chen; Lei-Sheng Jiang
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 3.067

3.  Analysis of operative complications in a series of 471 anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedures.

Authors:  Rick C Sasso; Natalie M Best; Praveen V Mummaneni; Thomas M Reilly; Sajjad M Hussain
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-03-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance.

Authors:  Patrick C Hsieh; Tyler R Koski; Brian A O'Shaughnessy; Patrick Sugrue; Sean Salehi; Stephen Ondra; John C Liu
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2007-10

5.  Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Jin-Sung Kim; Byung-Uk Kang; Sang-Ho Lee; Byungjoo Jung; Young-Geun Choi; Sang Hyeop Jeon; Ho Yeon Lee
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2009-04

6.  Treatment of symptomatic flatback after spinal fusion.

Authors:  M O Lagrone; D S Bradford; J H Moe; J E Lonstein; R B Winter; J W Ogilvie
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Sagittal alignment after lumbar interbody fusion: comparing anterior, lateral, and transforaminal approaches.

Authors:  Robert G Watkins; Robert Hanna; David Chang; Robert G Watkins
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2014-07

8.  Factors influencing segmental lumbar lordosis after lateral transpsoas interbody fusion.

Authors:  Christopher K Kepler; Russel C Huang; Amit K Sharma; Dennis S Meredith; Ochuko Metitiri; Andrew A Sama; Federico P Girardi; Frank P Cammisa
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 2.071

9.  Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion.

Authors:  M N Kumar; A Baklanov; D Chopin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Anterior column realignment (ACR) for focal kyphotic spinal deformity using a lateral transpsoas approach and ALL release.

Authors:  Behrooz A Akbarnia; Gregory M Mundis; Payam Moazzaz; Nima Kabirian; Ramin Bagheri; Robert K Eastlack; Jeff B Pawelek
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2014-02
View more
  19 in total

1.  Three-dimensional computed tomographic evaluation of lateral lumbar interbody fusion: morphometric change of intervertebral structure.

Authors:  Koji Akeda; Kevin Cheng; Edward Abarado; Norihiko Takegami; Junichi Yamada; Nozomu Inoue; Koichi Masuda; Akihiro Sudo
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF.

Authors:  Ralph J Mobbs; Kevin Phan; Greg Malham; Kevin Seex; Prashanth J Rao
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-12

3.  Relationship between sagittal balance and adjacent segment disease in surgical treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: meta-analysis and implications for choice of fusion technique.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Alexander Nazareth; Awais K Hussain; Adam A Dmytriw; Mithun Nambiar; Damian Nguyen; Jack Kerferd; Steven Phan; Chet Sutterlin; Samuel K Cho; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-05-28       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Biomechanical properties of posterior transpedicular-transdiscal oblique lumbar screw fixation with novel trapezoidal lateral interbody spacer: an in vitro human cadaveric model.

Authors:  Ai-Min Wu; Jonathan A Harris; John C Hao; Sean M Jenkins; Yong-Long Chi; Brandon S Bucklen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-04-06       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Indirect Decompression for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis.

Authors:  Peter B Derman; Donna D Ohnmeiss; Abbey Lauderback; Richard D Guyer
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

Review 6.  Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in adult spine deformity - A review of literature.

Authors:  Dheeraj Batheja; Bhoresh Dhamija; Aashish Ghodke; Srinath S Anand; Birender S Balain
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-09-20

7.  Lateral decubitus single position anterior-posterior (AP) fusion shows equivalent results to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at one-year follow-up.

Authors:  Kimberly Ashayeri; J Alex Thomas; Brett Braly; Nicholas O'Malley; Carlos Leon; Ivan Cheng; Brian Kwon; Mark Medley; Leon Eisen; Themistocles S Protopsaltis; Aaron J Buckland
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 2.721

8.  Extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion: Do the cons outweigh the pros?

Authors:  Nancy E Epstein
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2016-09-22

9.  Minimally Invasive Scoliosis Surgery with Oblique Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Single Surgeon Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Hamid Abbasi; Lynn Miller; Ali Abbasi; Vali Orandi; Kamran Khaghany
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-06-25

10.  Comparison of Clinical and Radiologic Results of Mini-Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion Indirect Decompression for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Yutaka Kono; Hogaku Gen; Yoshio Sakuma; Yasuhide Koshika
Journal:  Asian Spine J       Date:  2018-04-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.