Background: Posterior lumbar fixation surgery is common procedure associated with lumbar fusion with different technique. The most frequent type of spine fusion is lumbar spine fusion, which can be done for a variety of reasons. There are two main techniques for lumbar spine fusion, posterolateral fusion and lumbar interbody fusion. This review aims to summarise, evaluate systematic reviews and analyze the therapeutic efficacy and outcome of posterior lumbar fixation surgeries and lumbar fusion including posterolateral fusion, PLIF and TLIF for most common diagnoses. In cases of recurrent lumbar disc herniation, there is no evidence that spine fusion has therapeutic advantage over repeated discectomy. There was no difference in the rates of re-operation between the two surgical procedures. According to lumbar fracture, we found no superiority in clinical benefit, system failure rate and other radiological parameters of arthrodesis over fixation only, in thoracolumbar burst fracture. The no-fusion group had much less surgical time and blood loss. Results of review for patients receiving fusion surgery for spondylolisthesis show that, In terms of attaining radiographic fusion, TLIF is superior to PLF without any observable increased risk for infection. However, There is very little evidence, that TLIF is better than PLF for attaining clinical improvement. If surgical intervention for spondylodiscitis is needed, less invasive surgical approaches (single-stage anterior or posterior fusion techniques) are strongly recommended, since they can have a better therapeutic outcome than more complex mixed anterior–posterior procedures. For more accurate evaluation of the efficacy of spinal fusion surgery on all indications, more evidence is required.
| Published in | International Journal of Neurosurgery (Volume 5, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijn.20210501.21 |
| Page(s) | 47-51 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Spine Fusion, Lumbar Fixation, Back Pain, Surgery
| [1] | Harris, E. B., Massey, P., Lawrence, J., Rihn, J., Vaccaro, A., & Anderson, D. G. (2008). Percutaneous techniques for minimally invasive posterior lumbar fusion. Neurosurgical focus, 25 (2), E12. |
| [2] | Brantigan, J. W., Neidre, A., & Toohey, J. S. (2004). The Lumbar I/F Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the variable screw placement system: 10-year results of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. The Spine Journal, 4 (6), 681-688. |
| [3] | Tajima, N., Kawano, K., Sera, K., Taguchi, A., Torigoshi, T., & Konishi, H. (1989). Posterolateral fusion of the lumbar and lumbosacral spine--a review of long term results. Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi, 63 (4), 262-268. |
| [4] | DiPaola, C. P., & Molinari, R. W. (2008). Posterior lumbar interbody fusion. JAAOS-Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 16 (3), 130-139. |
| [5] | Barth M, Weiss C, Thome C. Two-year outcome after lumbar microdiscectomy versus microscopic sequestrectomy: Part 1: Evaluation of clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008 (33): 265–72. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318162018c. |
| [6] | Carragee EJ, Han MY, Suen PW, Kim D. Clinical outcomes after lumbar discectomy for sciatica: the effects of fragment type and anular competence. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol 2003; 85-A: 102–8. |
| [7] | Heindel P, Tuchman A, Hsieh PC, Pham MH, D’Oro A, Patel NN, et al. Reoperation rates after single-level lumbar discectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2017; 42: E496–501. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001855. |
| [8] | Chitnavis B, Barbagallo G, Selway R, Dardis R, Hussain A, Gullan R. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for revision disc surgery: review of 50 cases in which carbon fiber cages were implanted. J Neurosurg 2001; 95: 190–5. |
| [9] | Chen Z, Zhao J, Liu A, Yuan J, Li Z. Surgical treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Int Orthop 2009; 33: 197–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0531-1. |
| [10] | Tanavalee, C., Limthongkul, W., Yingsakmongkol, W., Luksanapruksa, P., & Singhatanadgige, W. (2019). A comparison between repeat discectomy versus fusion for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 66, 202-208. |
| [11] | Harris, I. A., Traeger, A., Stanford, R., Maher, C. G., & Buchbinder, R. (2018). Lumbar spine fusion: what is the evidence?. Internal medicine journal, 48 (12), 1430-1434. |
| [12] | Avanzi O, Landim E, Meves R, Caffaro MF, de Albuquerque Araujo Luyten F, Faria AA: Thoracolumbar burst fracture: load sharing classification and posterior instrumentation failure. Rev Bras Ortop 45: 236–240, 2010. |
| [13] | Kumar A, Aujla R, Lee C: The management of thoracolumbar burst fractures: a prospective study between conservative management, traditional open spinal surgery and minimally interventional spinal surgery. SpringerPlus 4: 204, 2015. |
| [14] | Diniz, J. M., & Botelho, R. V. (2017). Is fusion necessary for thoracolumbar burst fracture treated with spinal fixation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, 27 (5), 584-592. |
| [15] | Palmisani M, Gasbarrini A, Brodano GB, De Iure F, Cappuccio M, Boriani L, et al: Minimally invasive percutaneous fixation in the treatment of thoracic and lumbar spine fractures. Eur Spine J 18 (Suppl 1): 71–74, 2009. |
| [16] | Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LEA, Delamarter RB. Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis 31 of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine 2012; 37: 67–76. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31820cccfb. |
| [17] | Sudo H, Oda I, Abumi K, Ito M, Kotani Y, Minami A. Biomechanical study on the effect of 16 five different lumbar reconstruction techniques on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and 17 lamina strain. J Neurosurg Spine 2006; 5: 150–5. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.5.2.150. |
| [18] | Levin, J. M., Tanenbaum, J. E., Steinmetz, M. P., Mroz, T. E., & Overley, S. C. (2018). Posterolateral fusion (PLF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Spine Journal, 18 (6), 1088-1098. |
| [19] | Skaf, G. S., Domloj, N. T., Fehlings, M. G., Bouclaous, C. H., Sabbagh, A. S., Kanafani, Z. A., & Kanj, S. S. (2010). Pyogenic spondylodiscitis: an overview. Journal of infection and public health, 3 (1), 5-16. |
| [20] | Rutges, J. P. H. J., Kempen, D. H., Van Dijk, M., & Oner, F. C. (2016). Outcome of conservative and surgical treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis: a systematic literature review. European Spine Journal, 25 (4), 983-999. |
| [21] | Linhardt O, Matussek J, Refior HJ, Krodel A (2007) Long-term results of ventro-dorsal versus ventral instrumentation fusion in the treatment of spondylitis. Int Orthop 31 (1): 113–119. doi: 10. 1007/s00264-006-0140-9. |
| [22] | Si M, Yang ZP, Li ZF, Yang Q, Li JM (2013) Anterior versus posterior fixation for the treatment of lumbar pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis. Orthopedics 36 (6): 831–836. |
| [23] | Vcelak J, Chomiak J, Toth L (2014) Surgical treatment of lumbar spondylodiscitis: a comparison of two methods. Int Orthop 38 (7): 1425–1434. doi: 10.1007/s00264-014-2360-8. |
| [24] | Lee BH, Park JO, Kim HS, Lee HM, Cho BW, Moon SH (2014) Transpedicular curettage and drainage versus combined anterior and posterior surgery in infectious spondylodiscitis. Indian J Orthop 48 (1): 74–80. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.125508. |
| [25] | Lin TY, Tsai TT, Lu ML, Niu CC, Hsieh MK, Fu TS, Lai PL, Chen LH, Chen WJ (2014) Comparison of two-stage open versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in treating pyogenic spondylodiscitis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15 (1): 443. doi: 10. 1186/1471-2474-15-443. |
| [26] | Schomacher M, Finger T, Koeppen D, Suss O, Vajkoczy P, Kroppenstedt S, Cabraja M (2014) Application of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages in the treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 127: 65–70. pii: S0303- 8467(14)00389-8 42. |
| [27] | Yong HP, Jong DP, Choi YG, Lee SH (2008) Anterior debridement and fusion followed by posterior pedicle screw fixation in pyogenic spondylodiscitis: autologous iliac bone strut versus cage. J Neurosurg Spine 8 (5): 405–412. |
APA Style
Adel Nabih Mohamed, Ahmed Faisal Toubar, Muhamed Abdelmoez, Omar Elfarouk. (2021). Posterior Lumbar Fixation Surgeries, Indications and Approaches (Posterolateral Fixation, PLIF and TLIF) Clinical Perspective. International Journal of Neurosurgery, 5(1), 47-51. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijn.20210501.21
ACS Style
Adel Nabih Mohamed; Ahmed Faisal Toubar; Muhamed Abdelmoez; Omar Elfarouk. Posterior Lumbar Fixation Surgeries, Indications and Approaches (Posterolateral Fixation, PLIF and TLIF) Clinical Perspective. Int. J. Neurosurg. 2021, 5(1), 47-51. doi: 10.11648/j.ijn.20210501.21
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijn.20210501.21,
author = {Adel Nabih Mohamed and Ahmed Faisal Toubar and Muhamed Abdelmoez and Omar Elfarouk},
title = {Posterior Lumbar Fixation Surgeries, Indications and Approaches (Posterolateral Fixation, PLIF and TLIF) Clinical Perspective},
journal = {International Journal of Neurosurgery},
volume = {5},
number = {1},
pages = {47-51},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijn.20210501.21},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijn.20210501.21},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijn.20210501.21},
abstract = {Background: Posterior lumbar fixation surgery is common procedure associated with lumbar fusion with different technique. The most frequent type of spine fusion is lumbar spine fusion, which can be done for a variety of reasons. There are two main techniques for lumbar spine fusion, posterolateral fusion and lumbar interbody fusion. This review aims to summarise, evaluate systematic reviews and analyze the therapeutic efficacy and outcome of posterior lumbar fixation surgeries and lumbar fusion including posterolateral fusion, PLIF and TLIF for most common diagnoses. In cases of recurrent lumbar disc herniation, there is no evidence that spine fusion has therapeutic advantage over repeated discectomy. There was no difference in the rates of re-operation between the two surgical procedures. According to lumbar fracture, we found no superiority in clinical benefit, system failure rate and other radiological parameters of arthrodesis over fixation only, in thoracolumbar burst fracture. The no-fusion group had much less surgical time and blood loss. Results of review for patients receiving fusion surgery for spondylolisthesis show that, In terms of attaining radiographic fusion, TLIF is superior to PLF without any observable increased risk for infection. However, There is very little evidence, that TLIF is better than PLF for attaining clinical improvement. If surgical intervention for spondylodiscitis is needed, less invasive surgical approaches (single-stage anterior or posterior fusion techniques) are strongly recommended, since they can have a better therapeutic outcome than more complex mixed anterior–posterior procedures. For more accurate evaluation of the efficacy of spinal fusion surgery on all indications, more evidence is required.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Posterior Lumbar Fixation Surgeries, Indications and Approaches (Posterolateral Fixation, PLIF and TLIF) Clinical Perspective AU - Adel Nabih Mohamed AU - Ahmed Faisal Toubar AU - Muhamed Abdelmoez AU - Omar Elfarouk Y1 - 2021/06/25 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijn.20210501.21 DO - 10.11648/j.ijn.20210501.21 T2 - International Journal of Neurosurgery JF - International Journal of Neurosurgery JO - International Journal of Neurosurgery SP - 47 EP - 51 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2640-1959 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijn.20210501.21 AB - Background: Posterior lumbar fixation surgery is common procedure associated with lumbar fusion with different technique. The most frequent type of spine fusion is lumbar spine fusion, which can be done for a variety of reasons. There are two main techniques for lumbar spine fusion, posterolateral fusion and lumbar interbody fusion. This review aims to summarise, evaluate systematic reviews and analyze the therapeutic efficacy and outcome of posterior lumbar fixation surgeries and lumbar fusion including posterolateral fusion, PLIF and TLIF for most common diagnoses. In cases of recurrent lumbar disc herniation, there is no evidence that spine fusion has therapeutic advantage over repeated discectomy. There was no difference in the rates of re-operation between the two surgical procedures. According to lumbar fracture, we found no superiority in clinical benefit, system failure rate and other radiological parameters of arthrodesis over fixation only, in thoracolumbar burst fracture. The no-fusion group had much less surgical time and blood loss. Results of review for patients receiving fusion surgery for spondylolisthesis show that, In terms of attaining radiographic fusion, TLIF is superior to PLF without any observable increased risk for infection. However, There is very little evidence, that TLIF is better than PLF for attaining clinical improvement. If surgical intervention for spondylodiscitis is needed, less invasive surgical approaches (single-stage anterior or posterior fusion techniques) are strongly recommended, since they can have a better therapeutic outcome than more complex mixed anterior–posterior procedures. For more accurate evaluation of the efficacy of spinal fusion surgery on all indications, more evidence is required. VL - 5 IS - 1 ER -
Email: