Peter B Derman1, Todd J Albert2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St., Suite 300, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. 2. Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 East 71st St., New York, NY, 10021, USA. albertt@hss.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The various lumbar interbody fusion (IBF) techniques and the evidence for their use in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) are described in this review. RECENT FINDINGS: The existing evidence is mixed regarding the indications for and utility of IBF in DLS, but its use in the setting of pre-operative instability is most strongly supported. Anterior (ALIF), lateral (LLIF), posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), and axial (AxiaLIF) lumbar IBF approaches have been described. While the current data are limited, TLIF may be a better option than PLIF in DLS due the increased operative morbidity and peri-operative complications observed with the latter. LLIF also appears superior to PLIF in light of improved radiologic outcomes, fewer intra-operative complications, and potentially greater improvements in disability. The data comparing LLIF to TLIF are less conclusive. No studies specifically comparing ALIF or AxiaLIF to other IBF techniques could be identified. Instability may be the strongest indication for IBF in DLS. When IBF is employed, the authors' preferred technique is TLIF with posterior segmental spinal instrumentation. Further research is needed.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The various lumbar interbody fusion (IBF) techniques and the evidence for their use in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) are described in this review. RECENT FINDINGS: The existing evidence is mixed regarding the indications for and utility of IBF in DLS, but its use in the setting of pre-operative instability is most strongly supported. Anterior (ALIF), lateral (LLIF), posterior (PLIF), transforaminal (TLIF), and axial (AxiaLIF) lumbar IBF approaches have been described. While the current data are limited, TLIF may be a better option than PLIF in DLS due the increased operative morbidity and peri-operative complications observed with the latter. LLIF also appears superior to PLIF in light of improved radiologic outcomes, fewer intra-operative complications, and potentially greater improvements in disability. The data comparing LLIF to TLIF are less conclusive. No studies specifically comparing ALIF or AxiaLIF to other IBF techniques could be identified. Instability may be the strongest indication for IBF in DLS. When IBF is employed, the authors' preferred technique is TLIF with posterior segmental spinal instrumentation. Further research is needed.
Authors: Gregory D Schroeder; Christopher K Kepler; Mark F Kurd; Alexander R Vaccaro; Wellington K Hsu; Alpesh A Patel; Jason W Savage Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Gary A Fantini; Ioannis P Pappou; Federico P Girardi; Harvinder S Sandhu; Frank P Cammisa Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-11-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Zhijie Yang; Bo Liu; Haiyang Lan; He Ye; Jie Chen; Huiqiang Xia; Ye Zhang; Fei Han Journal: Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi Date: 2020-05-15
Authors: Chang Hwa Hong; Ki Jin Jung; Jae Wan Soh; Sung Hun Won; Si John Hong; Chang Hyun Kim; Hong Seop Lee; Soon Do Wang; Won Seok Lee; Woo Jong Kim Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 1.889