Download PDF
Seminars in Neurosurgery 2000; 11(2): 207-220
DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-13223
Copyright © 2000 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

CURRENT INDICATIONS FOR POSTERIOR LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSIONS

James J. Brennan, Carl Lauryssen
  • Florence Neurosurgery and Spine, Florence, CA; and Dept. of Neurological Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2000 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) originally described in the 1940s has had varying degrees of acceptance. With the advent of newer PLIF constructs and the use of posterolateral fixation in combination with PLIF a renewed interest in PLIF has developed. The current indications for PLIF include spondylolysis, spondylolisthesis, transitional syndrome, recurrent disc disease, postlaminectomy instability, and traumatic/postinfectious instability. These indications are shared with other interbody fusion techniques, including transforaminal posterior lumbar interbody fusion, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, and posterior lateral fusion. Therefore, the selection of which radiographic and diagnostic studies as well as which constructs to utilize has become increasingly more complicated. This article identifies the most accepted indications for PLIF and a discussion of the accepted evaluations to be performed before PLIF is made. Finally, a brief description of one possible PLIF construct is presented.

KEYWORD

Posterior lumbar interbody fusions - spondylosis - spondylolisthesis - disc herniation

REFERENCES

  • 1 Briggs H, Milligan P R. Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal.  J Bone Joint Surg . 1994;  26 125-130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cloward R B. New treatment of ruptured intervertebral disc. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Hawaii Territorial Medical Association Honolulu, HI: September 12 1945
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Cloward R B. The treatment of ruptured intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion.  J Neurosurg . 1953;  10 154-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Cloward R B. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion updated. Clin Orthoped .  1985;  193 16-19
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Cautilli R A. Theoretical superiority of posterior interbody lumbar fusion. In: Lin PM, ed. Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas 1982: 82-93
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Lin P M. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion complications and pitfalls.  Clin Orthop . 1985;  193 90-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lin P M. A technical modification of Cloward's posterior lumbar interbody fusion.  Neurosurgery . 1977;  1(2) 118-124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Modic M T, Steinberg P M, Ross J S, Masaryk T J, Carter J R. Degenerative disk disease: assessment of changes in vertebral body marrow with MR imaging.  Radiology . 1988;  166 193-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Slosar Jr J P, White A H, Wetzel. Controversy. The use of selective nerve root blocks: diagnostic, therapeutic, or placebo.  Spine . 1998;  23(20) 2253-2256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 North R B, Kidd D H, Zahurak M, Piantadosi S. Specificity of diagnostic nerve blocks: a prospective, randomized study of sciatica due to lumbosacral spine disease.  Pain . 1996;  65(1) 77-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Antti-Poika I, Soini J, Tallroth K, Yrjonen T, Konttinen Y T. Clinical relevance of discography combined with CT scanning. A study of 100 patients.  J Bone Joint Surg . 1990;  72(3) 480-485
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Smith S E, Darden B V, Rhyne A L, Wood K E. Outcome of unoperated discogram-positive low back pain.  Spine . 1995;  20(18) 1997-2000
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Guyer R D, Ohnmeiss D D. Lumbar discography. Position statement from the North American Spine Society Diagnostic and Therapeutic Committee.  Spine . 1995;  20(18) 2048-2059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Roca J, Ubierna M T, Caceres E, Iborra M. One-stage decompression and posterolateral and interbody fusion for severe spondylolisthesis.  Spine . 1999;  24(7) 709-714
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Ponta M, Sandhu A, Fraser R D. Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of disc degeneration 10 years after anterior lumbar interbody fusion.  Spine . 1995;  20(6) 743-747
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rahm M D, Hall B B. Adjacent-segment degeneration after lumbar fusion with instrumentation: a retrospective study.  J Spinal Disord . 1996;  6 392-400
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Volkman T, Horton W C, Hutton W C. Transfacet screws with lumbar interbody reconstruction: biomechanical study of motion segment stiffness.  J Spinal Disord . 1996;  9(5) 425-432
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Barnes B, McLaughlin M R, Bicth B, Rodts Jr E G, Haid Jr W R. Threaded cortical bone dowels for lumbar interbody fusion: technique and short-term results.  Neurosurg Focus . 1999;  7(6) 6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Brodke D S, Dick J C, Zdeblick T A, Kunz D N, McCabe R. Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion including a new threaded titanium cage. International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine, 1993: 1081
    Google Scholar
      >