Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Kunder, S. L. de; Rijkers, Kim; Caelers, Inge; Bie, Rob A. de; Koehler, Peter J.; Santbrink, Henk van

doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002534

Cited by 83 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) has been proven as an excellent treatment option for various spinal pathological conditions, such as degenerative disk disease, deformity, infection, tumor, and trauma [ 1 ]. LIF comprises discectomy, endplate preparation, and placement of different kinds of implants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the early 20th century, Russell Hibbs and Fred Albee introduced spinal fusion procedures with a bridge of spinous process and wiring techniques. Thereafter, researchers reported instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) with facet screws [ 1 ]. However, pseudarthrosis after PLF was developed with unacceptable incidences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historically, Burns and Capener reported the first interbody fusion in the 1930s [ 1 ]. They treated spondylolisthesis using anterior approaches.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Techniques, Pearls and Pitfalls

Kim

Rhyu

et al. 2020

Asian Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an effective and popular surgical procedure for the management of various spinal pathologies, especially degenerative diseases. Currently, LIF can be performed with posterior, transforaminal, anterior, and lateral approaches by open surgery or minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages. In general, posterior LIF is a well-established procedure with good fusion rates and low complication rates but is limited by the possibility of iatrogenic injury to the neural structures and paraspinal muscles. Transforaminal LIF is frequently performed using an MIS technique and has an advantage of reducing these iatrogenic injuries. Anterior LIF (ALIF) can restore the disk height and sagittal alignment but has inherent approach-related challenges such as visceral and vascular complications. Lateral LIF and oblique LIF are performed using an MIS technique and have shown postoperative outcomes similar to ALIF; however, these approaches carry a risk of injury to psoas, lumbar plexus, and vascular structures. Herein, we provide a detailed description of the surgical procedures of each LIF technique. We shall then consider the pearls and pitfalls, as well as propose surgical indications and contraindications based on the available evidence in the literatures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Techniques, Pearls and Pitfalls

Kim

Rhyu

et al. 2020

Asian Spine J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like articular cartilage tissue, the almost completely avascular and aneural IVD exhibits very limited or no regeneration capacity [3,4]. The standard treatment option of advanced IVD degeneration (IVDD) is surgical spinal fusion in the form of a spondylodesis with an increased frequency of 500% between 1990 and 2011 in the USA [5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adrenoceptor Expression during Intervertebral Disc Degeneration

Kupka

Kohler

Bagdadi

et al. 2020

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Healthy and degenerating intervertebral discs (IVDs) are innervated by sympathetic nerves, however, adrenoceptor (AR) expression and functionality have never been investigated systematically. Therefore, AR gene expression was analyzed in both tissue and isolated cells from degenerated human IVDs. Furthermore, human IVD samples and spine sections of wildtype mice (WT) and of a mouse line that develops spontaneous IVD degeneration (IVDD, in SM/J mice) were stained for ARs and extracellular matrix (ECM) components. In IVD homogenates and cells α1a-, α1b-, α2a-, α2b-, α2c-, β1-, and β2-AR genes were expressed. In human sections, β2-AR was detectable, and its localization parallels with ECM alterations. Similarly, in IVDs of WT mice, only β2-AR was expressed, and in IVDs of SM/J mice, β2AR expression was stronger accompanied by increased collagen II, collagen XII, decorin as well as decreased cartilage oligomeric matrix protein expression. In addition, norepinephrine stimulation of isolated human IVD cells induced intracellular signaling via ERK1/2 and PKA. For the first time, the existence and functionality of ARs were demonstrated in IVD tissue samples, suggesting that the sympathicus might play a role in IVDD. Further studies will address relevant cellular mechanisms and thereby help to develop novel therapeutic options for IVDD.

show abstract

“…8,23,25 In the setting of degenerative spondylolisthesis, MIS lateral and anterior approaches to the lumbar spine have also demonstrated clinical and radiographic outcomes equivalent to those of posterior approaches, 18,30 but they offer potential biomechanical advantages, such as placement of a larger interbody, thus allocating more surface area for arthrodesis while also enabling greater restoration of lumbar lordosis. 22 Furthermore, the indirect foraminal and central canal decompression generated by placement of a large interbody may negate the need for a posterior decompression, avoiding disruption of osseous and ligamentous elements.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Minimally invasive anterior and lateral transpsoas approaches for closed reduction of grade II spondylolisthesis: initial clinical and radiographic experience

Bach

Uribe

2018

Neurosurgical Focus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVEMinimally invasive anterior and lateral approaches to the lumbar spine are increasingly used to treat and reduce grade I spondylolisthesis, but concerns still exist for their usage in the management of higher-grade lesions. The authors report their experience with this strategy for grade II spondylolisthesis in a single-surgeon case series and provide early clinical and radiographic outcomes.METHODSA retrospective review of a single surgeon’s cases between 2012 and 2016 identified all patients with a Meyerding grade II lumbar spondylolisthesis who underwent minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) or anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) targeting the slipped level. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic data were collected and analyzed. Changes in radiographic measurements, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were compared using the paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test for continuous and ordinal variables, respectively.RESULTSThe average operative time was 199.1 minutes (with 60.6 ml of estimated blood loss) for LLIFs and 282.1 minutes (with 106.3 ml of estimated blood loss), for ALIFs. Three LLIF patients had transient unilateral anterior thigh numbness during the 1st week after surgery, and 1 ALIF patient had transient dorsiflexion weakness, which was resolved at postoperative week 1. The mean follow-up time was 17.6 months (SD 12.5 months) for LLIF patients and 10 months (SD 3.1 months) for ALIF patients. Complete reduction of the spondylolisthesis was achieved in 12 LLIF patients (75.0%) and 7 ALIF patients (87.5%). Across both procedures, there was an increase in both the segmental lordosis (LLIF 5.6°, p = 0.002; ALIF 15.0°, p = 0.002) and overall lumbar lordosis (LLIF 2.9°, p = 0.151; ALIF 5.1°, p = 0.006) after surgery. Statistically significant decreases in the mean VAS and the mean ODI measurements were seen in both treatment groups. The VAS and ODI scores fell by a mean value of 3.9 (p = 0.002) and 19.8 (p = 0.001), respectively, for LLIF patients and 3.8 (p = 0.02) and 21.0 (p = 0.03), respectively, for ALIF patients at last follow-up.CONCLUSIONSEarly clinical and radiographic results from using minimally invasive LLIF and ALIF approaches to treat grade II spondylolisthesis appear to be good, with low operative blood loss and no neurological deficits. Complete reduction of the spondylolisthesis is frequently possible with a statistically significant reduction in pain scores.

show abstract

Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Abstract: N/A.

Cited by 83 publications

References 44 publications

Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Techniques, Pearls and Pitfalls

Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Techniques, Pearls and Pitfalls

Adrenoceptor Expression during Intervertebral Disc Degeneration

Minimally invasive anterior and lateral transpsoas approaches for closed reduction of grade II spondylolisthesis: initial clinical and radiographic experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About