Literature DB >> 34263676

Review and analysis of modern lumbar spinal fusion techniques.

Fotis G Souslian1, Puja D Patel2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: A variety of different lumbar spinal fusion techniques have been developed. In this study, we review published medical literature highlighting the differences between lumbar interbody fusion techniques with regard to their surgical technique, clinical outcomes, and complications.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar searches were performed for studies published between January 1990 to April 2018 reporting spinal fusion surgery clinical outcomes of at least one fusion technique. Clinical outcomes were extracted and pooled by surgical technique. Chi-squared analyses and Fisher Exact Tests were used to determine differences in rates between groups.
RESULTS: PLIF had the highest rate of successful fusion (97% [155/159]) and the lowest rate of complications (4% [6/131]). A chi square analysis revealed a significant difference in fusion success in PLIF compared to PLF (84% [278/330], p < .001). PLIF also had significantly fewer complications compared to PSF (14.7% [251/1709], p = .001), PLF (13.4% [47/351], p = .008), ALIF (14.2% [22/155], p = .008), and LIC (13.9% [47/339], p = .005). Additionally, there were significant differences in the rate of successful fusion when comparing lateral interbody cage (LIC) techniques (p = .041), which include OLIF (100% [63/63]), DLIF (92% [24/26]), and XLIF (87% [67/77]). LIC techniques overall had higher fusion success rates (93.0% [154/166] compared to PLF (p = .01), but a higher rate of complications (14% [47/339]) compared to PLIF (p = .005) and TLIF (6% [17/259], p = .005).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, PLF and XLIF have the lowest fusion success rates, and OLIF demonstrated a trend of higher fusion rates among LIC. Techniques that utilized interbody fusion tended to increase the rate of fusion. While interbody fusion techniques offer higher rates of fusion, complication rates also tend to rise with the increase in complexity of the surgical technique, as with OLIF which notably has the highest fusion rate and complication rate.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Spinal fusion; anterior lumbar interbody fusion; complication rate; fusion rate; oblique lumbar interbody fusion; posterior spinal fusion

Year:  2021        PMID: 34263676     DOI: 10.1080/02688697.2021.1881041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Neurosurg        ISSN: 0268-8697            Impact factor:   1.596


  5 in total

1.  Learning Curve and Initial Outcomes of Full-Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Authors:  Renchun Tan; Xin Lv; Pengfei Wu; Yawei Li; Yuliang Dai; Bin Jiang; Bolin Ren; Guohua Lv; Bing Wang
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-04-28

2.  An evaluation of patients with abdominal pain after lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Tristan B Fried; Khoa Tran; Mark J Lambrechts; Nicholas D D'Antonio; Brian A Karamian; Justin Chu; Jose A Canseco; Alan S Hilibrand; Christopher K Kepler; Alexander R Vaccaro; Gregory D Schroeder
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2022-09-14

3.  Pearls and Pitfalls of Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.

Authors:  Hyoungmin Kim; Bong-Soon Chang; Sam Yeol Chang
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2022-03-31

4.  Optimization of a lumbar interspinous fixation device for the lumbar spine with degenerative disc disease.

Authors:  Minhyeok Heo; Jihwan Yun; Hanjong Kim; Sang-Soo Lee; Seonghun Park
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Incidence and risk factors for early and late reoperation following lumbar fusion surgery.

Authors:  Shuai-Kang Wang; Peng Wang; Xiang-Yu Li; Chao Kong; Jia-Yin Niu; Shi-Bao Lu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-08-12       Impact factor: 2.677

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.