Comparison of the different surgical approaches for lumbar interbody fusion

被引:64
作者
Talia, Adrian J. [1 ]
Wong, Michael L. [1 ]
Lau, Hui C. [1 ]
Kaye, Andrew H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Melbourne, Royal Melbourne Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, Melbourne, Vic 3050, Australia
关键词
Bone graft; Degenerative spinal disease; Minimally invasive surgery; Spinal fusion; PEDICLE SCREW FIXATION; CREST BONE-GRAFT; INSTRUMENTED POSTEROLATERAL FUSION; LOW-BACK-PAIN; DONOR SITE MORBIDITY; SPINAL-FUSION; FOLLOW-UP; MORPHOGENETIC PROTEIN-2; RETROGRADE EJACULATION; LUMBOSACRAL JUNCTION;
D O I
10.1016/j.jocn.2014.08.008
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
This review will outline the history of spinal fusion. It will compare the different approaches currently in use for interbody fusion. A comparison of the techniques, including minimally invasive surgery and graft options will be included. Lumbar interbody fusion is a commonly performed surgical procedure for a variety of spinal disorders, especially degenerative disease. Currently this procedure is performed using anterior, lateral, transforaminal and posterior approaches. Minimally invasive techniques have been increasing in popularity in recent years. A posterior approach is frequently used and has good fusion rates and low complication rates but is limited by the thecal and nerve root retraction. The transforaminal interbody fusion avoids some of these complications and is therefore preferable in some situations, especially revision surgery. An anterior approach avoids the spinal cord and cauda equina all together, but has issues with visceral exposure complications. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion has a risk of lumbar plexus injury with dissection through the psoas muscle. Studies show less intraoperative blood loss for minimally invasive techniques, but there is no long-term data. Iliac crest is the gold standard for bone graft, although adjuncts such as bone morphogenetic proteins are being used more frequently, despite their controversial history. More high-level studies are needed to make generalisations regarding the outcomes of one technique compared with another. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:243 / 251
页数:9
相关论文
共 116 条
  • [1] Albee FH., 1911, J AM MED ASS, V57, P885, DOI 10.1001/jama.1911.04260090107012
  • [2] Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion performed at 1 and 2 levels
    Ames, CP
    Acosta, FL
    Chi, J
    Iyengar, J
    Muiru, W
    Acaroglu, E
    Puttlitz, CM
    [J]. SPINE, 2005, 30 (19) : E562 - E566
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2003, Neurosurgery
  • [4] [Anonymous], 1993, Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
  • [5] Results of instrumented posterolateral fusion in failed back surgery
    Badawy, Walid Salah
    El Masry, M. A.
    Radwan, Y. A.
    El Haddidi, T. T.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2006, 30 (04) : 305 - 308
  • [6] VASCULAR INJURY IN ANTERIOR LUMBAR SURGERY
    BAKER, JK
    REARDON, PR
    REARDON, MJ
    HEGGENESS, MH
    [J]. SPINE, 1993, 18 (15) : 2227 - 2230
  • [7] ILIAC CREST BONE-GRAFT HARVEST DONOR SITE MORBIDITY - A STATISTICAL EVALUATION
    BANWART, JC
    ASHER, MA
    HASSANEIN, RS
    [J]. SPINE, 1995, 20 (09) : 1055 - 1060
  • [8] Threaded cortical bone dowels for lumbar interbody fusion: over 1-year mean follow up in 28 patients
    Barnes, B
    Rodts, GE
    McLaughlin, MR
    Haid, RW
    [J]. JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2001, 95 (01) : 1 - 4
  • [9] BARR JS, 1947, J BONE JOINT SURG, V29, P429
  • [10] Beringer Will F, 2006, Neurosurg Focus, V20, pE4