The Results of 150 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Operations Performed by Two Surgeons in Australia

Do autologous growth factors enhance transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?

“…Though technically more demanding, interbody and circumferential fusion is preferred over traditional posterolateral fusion because of higher fusion rates and the ability to remove the disc as a pain generator [16,23]. The higher fusion rates are due to a large surface area for fusion, and bone graft being subjected to compressive loads, which is advantageous in achieving fusion [26].…”

Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion

“…The fusion rate in the ALIF group cannot be conclusively proven. Anterior interbody fusion rates vary between 19% and 96%, depending on the method of evaluation, fixation technique, and graft material [4,13,15,18,20,22,26,28,30,33,38,42,47,51]. However, radiological trabecular continuity is difficult to see with the titanium implant, making it difficult to assess how many patients with a satisfactory clinical outcome do not have a bony fusion.…”

“…Chow et al [5] reported on 97 patients with degenerate lumbar intervertebral discs treated with anterior lumbar interbody fusion, who had a single-level fusion rate of 85% (75 patients) and relief of back pain in 89%. Fujimaki et al [15] described 84 patients who underwent ALIF. They achieved a 95% fusion rate and a 95% clinical success rate determined by return to work status.…”

Comparison of conventional versus minimally invasive extraperitoneal approach for anterior lumbar interbody fusion

“…This was met by initial criticism from Stauffer and Coventry who condemned this approach, as it involved "too much surgical trauma to the patient" [36]. However, subsequent reports established growing popularity of the extraperitoneal approach with satisfactory results [12,37]. Fraser et al described a wide, muscle-splitting extraperitoneal approach to the lumber spine [11].…”