PDF icon Download PDF
Semin Neurol 2002; 22(02): 221-230
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-36545
To check

Indications, Techniques, and Complications of Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Bobby B.K. Tay
,
Sigurd Berven
,
Robert M. Pascuzzi
,
Karen L. Roos
,
John W. Engstrom
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Lumbar interbody arthrodesis is a surgical technique that results in fusion of the anterior column of the spine. The indications for this procedure have evolved over time, and current indications include spinal deformity, segmental instability, and discogenic low back pain. Arthrodesis in the interbody space can be accomplished through anterior or posterior approaches to the spine, and these techniques are discussed. Surgical approaches in performing an interbody arthrodesis can be complicated by nerve and vascular injury. Clinical outcome studies are important in better defining the role of lumbar interbody arthrodesis as a substitute for posterior fusion in the lumbar spine.

Keywords

Lumbar body arthrodesis - surgical technique - outcomes - spinal deformity - low back pain


Publication History

Publication Date:
13 January 2003 (online)

© 2002. Copyright © 2002 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 O'Brien JP. The role of fusion for chronic low back pain. Orthop Clin North Am 1983; 14: 639-647
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Scientific approach to the assessment and management of activity-related spinal disorders: a monograph for clinicians. Report of the Quebec Task Force on Spinal Disorders, Spine 1987, 12 (7) S1-S59
  • 3 Rutkow IM. Orthopaedic operations in the United States, 1979 through 1983. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986; 68: 716-719
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Coppes MH, Marani E, Thomeer RT, Groen GJ. Innervation of ``painful'' lumbar discs. Spine 1997; 22: 2342-2350
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Schwarzer AC, Aprill CN, Derby R, Fortin J, Kine G, Bogduk N. The prevalence and clinical features of internal disc disruption in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 1995; 20: 878-883
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Suseki K, Takahashi Y, Takahashi K. et al Sensory nerve fibres from lumbar intervertebral discs pass through rami communicantes: a possible pathway for discogenic low back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80: 737-742
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Verbiest H. Neurogenic intermittent claudication in cases with absolute and relative stenosis of the lumbar vertebral canal (ASLC and RSLC), in cases with narrow lumbar intervertebral foramina, and in cases with both entities. Clin Neurosurg 1973; 20: 204-214
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Greenough CG, Peterson MD, Hadlow S, Fraser RD. Instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion: results and comparison with anterior interbody fusion. Spine 1998; 23: 479-486
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Derby R, Howard MW, Grant JM, Lettice JJ, Van Peteghem KP, Ryan DP. The ability of pressure-controlled discography to predict surgical and nonsurgical outcomes. Spine 1999; 24: 364-372
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Weinstein J. Report of the 1985 ISSLS Traveling Fellowship. Mechanisms of spinal pain: the dorsal root ganglion and its role as a mediator of low-back pain. Spine 1986; 11: 999-1001
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Saal JS, Saal JA. Management of chronic discogenic low back pain with a thermal intradiscal catheter: a preliminary report. Spine 2000; 25: 382-388
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Suk SI, Lee CK, Kim WJ, Lee JH, Cho KJ, Kim HG. Adding posterior lumbar interbody fusion to pedicle screw fixation and posterolateral fusion after decompression in spondylolytic spondylolisthesis. Spine 1997; 22: 210-220
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Roca J, Ubierna MT, Caceres E, Iborra M. One-stage decompression and posterolateral and interbody fusion for severe spondylolisthesis: an analysis of 14 patients. Spine 1999; 24: 709-714
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Stewart G, Sachs BL. Patient outcomes after reoperation on the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78: 706-711
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Penta M, Fraser RD. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a minimum 10-year follow-up. Spine 1997; 22: 2429-2434
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Tiusanen H, Seitsalo S, Osterman K, Soini J. Anterior interbody lumbar fusion in severe low back pain. Clin Orthop 1996; 324: 153-163
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Tiusanen H, Hurri H, Seitsalo S, Osterman K, Harju R. Functional and clinical results after anterior interbody lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 1996; 5: 288-292
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Cloward RB. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion updated. Clin Orthop 1985; 193: 16-19
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Schofferman J, Slosar P, Reynolds J, Goldthwaithe N, Koestler M. A prospective randomized comparison of 270 degrees fusions to 360 degrees fusions (circumferential fusions). Spine 2001; 26: E207-E212
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Cloward RB. Spondylolisthesis: treatment by laminectomy and posterior interbody fusion. Clin Orthop 1981; 154: 74-82
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, Quinn LM, Persenaire JM. Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine 2000; 25: 1437-1446
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2001; 26: 567-571
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Lin PM, Cautilli RA, Joyce MF. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Orthop 1983; 180: 154-168
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Kozak JA, Heilman AE, O'Brien JP. Anterior lumbar fusion options: technique and graft materials. Clin Orthop 1994; 300: 45-51
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Buttermann GR, Glazer PA, Hu SS, Bradford DS. Anterior and posterior allografts in symptomatic thoracolumbar deformity. J Spinal Disord 2001; 14: 54-66
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Buttermann GR, Glazer PA, Bradford DS. Revision of failed lumbar fusions: a comparison of anterior autograft and allograft. Spine 1997; 22: 2748-2755
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Buttermann GR, Glazer PA, Bradford DS. The use of bone allografts in the spine. Clin Orthop 1996; 324: 75-85
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Bagby G. The Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) method of lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 1999; 24: 1857-1857
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 29 Tencer AF, Hampton D, Eddy S. Biomechanical properties of threaded inserts for lumbar interbody spinal fusion. Spine 1995; 20: 2408-2414
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Chen D, Fay LA, Lok J, Yuan P, Edwards WT, Yuan HA. Increasing neuroforaminal volume by anterior interbody distraction in degenerative lumbar spine. Spine 1995; 20: 74-79
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Sandhu HS, Turner S, Kabo JM. et al Distractive properties of a threaded interbody fusion device: an in vivo model. Spine 1996; 21: 1201-1210
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Miyakoshi N, Abe E, Shimada Y, Okuyama K, Suzuki T, Sato K. Outcome of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis and postoperative intervertebral disc degeneration adjacent to the fusion. Spine 2000; 25: 1837-1842
    Search in Google Scholar