Search

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an excellent treatment option for a number of lumbar diseases. LIF can be performed through posterior, transforaminal, anterior, and lateral or oblique approaches. Each technique has its own pearls and pitfalls. Through LIF, segmental stabilization, neural decompression, and deformity correction can be achieved. Minimally invasive surgery has recently gained popularity and each LIF procedure can be performed using minimally invasive techniques to reduce surgery-related complications and improve early postoperative recovery. Despite advances in surgical technology, surgery-related complications after LIF, such as pseudoarthrosis, have not yet been overcome. Although autogenous iliac crest bone graft is the gold standard for spinal fusion, other bone substitutes are available to enhance fusion rate and reduce complications associated with bone harvest. This article reviews the surgical procedures and characteristics of each LIF and the osteobiologics utilized in LIF based on the available evidence.

Study Design This is a retrospective comparative cohort study. Purpose To investigate the prevalence of anterior resorption of the cervical spine in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and its relationship with sagittal alignment. Overview of Literature This study believes that no published reports exist regarding the relationship between anterior resorption and spinopelvic alignment. Methods This retrospective study included 238 patients with AS who underwent surgical correction for thoracolumbar kyphosis. Of these, 80 patients with complete subaxial ankylosis were selected and divided into two groups: groups 1 (consisting of 28 patients with anterior bony resorption) and 2 (consisting of 52 patients without anterior resorption). Cervical sagittal parameters were analyzed and compared between the two groups. Results The average lateral diameter measured in patients with C5 anterior resorption was 84.2%±7.8% (62.4%–96.8%). Cervical lordosis was 8.7° ±13.4° and 10.9°±11.5° in groups 1 and 2 (p=0.556), respectively. No significant differences were noted between the two groups on spinopelvic alignment in the T1 slope (52.2°±11.1° and 53.3°±9.9° in groups 1 and 2, respectively; p=0.742), C2–C7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA; 6.2±1.7 cm and 6.2±1.8 cm in groups 1 and 2, respectively; p=0.978), C7 SVA (14.3±4.9 cm and 14.6±6.2 cm in groups 1 and 2, respectively; p=0.823), or T1 pelvic angle (27.1°±8.9° and 31.6°±11.2° in groups 1 and 2, respectively; p=0.382). Correlation analyses were significant between the extent of anterior resorption and sagittal parameters, C2–C7 lordosis (R2=−0.428, p=0.021), and T1–T4 kyphosis (R2=−0.375, p=0.045). Conclusions Anterior bony resorption could develop by stress concentration. However, the development was not related to the sagittal alignment. The particular segments involved in developing anterior resorption varied, possibly because of their dependence on the preceding pattern of ankylosis.

Proximal junctional problems are among the potential complications of surgery for adult spinal deformity (ASD) and are associated with higher morbidity and increased rates of revision surgery. The diverse manifestations of proximal junctional problems range from proximal junctional kyphosis (PJK) to proximal junctional failure (PJF). Although there is no universally accepted definition for PJK, the most common is a proximal junctional angle greater than 10° that is at least 10° greater than the preoperative measurement. PJF represents a progression from PJK and is characterized by pain, gait disturbances, and neurological deficits. The risk factors for PJK can be classified according to patient-related, radiological, and surgical factors. Based on an understanding of the modifiable factors that contribute to reducing the risk of PJK, prevention strategies are critical for patients with ASD.

Study Design This study is a retrospective analysis of a case. Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the fracture patterns and risk factors of sacral insufficiency fractures (SIFs) to improve their diagnosis in clinical practice. Overview of Literature SIFs occur when normal stresses are applied to a bone with decreased density, most often due to osteoporosis. Individuals who receive lumbosacral fusion procedures may also suffer from increased incidents of SIFs because of decreased bone density related to aging. Methods In total, 55 patients with SIFs were retrospectively investigated in this study. The study population was divided into lumbosacral fusion (n=20) and non-fusion (n=35) groups. Subsequently, the patients’ demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medication history, results of diagnostic imaging studies, and bone mineral density were assessed. The fracture patterns were classified either according to the five typical types (H-pattern bilateral vertical plus horizontal component, unilateral vertical only, bilateral vertical only, unilateral vertical plus horizontal component, and horizontal only fracture) or atypical types. Results In total, 44 of 55 patients (80%) suffered from more than one senile disease and received corresponding medications that caused secondary osteoporosis. A total of 12 patients had S1 lumbosacral fixation. Moreover, three of these 12 patients who developed a SIF immediately after a lumbosacral fracture had an unstable sacral U fracture. The remaining nine patients showed fracture patterns similar to the non-fusion patients. Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/computed tomography (CT) can identify fracture recurrence in previously healed fractures. In total, 24 patients (43.6%) had fractures of the pelvis, femur, and thoracolumbar spine. Conclusions SIF develops in elderly patients with multiple adult diseases that can induce secondary osteoporosis. Such fractures may occur in the patients with instrumented lumbosacral fusion. Importantly, some patients showed stress fractures after multilevel instrumented lumbosacral fusion, whereas others showed insufficiency fractures. The different fracture patterns correspond to different grades of SIF, and SPECT/CT can easily identify the fracture status.

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.