Advertisement

Der Orthopäde

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 50–58 | Cite as

Lumbale Spondylodese – Indikationen und Techniken

  • K. J. SchnakeEmail author
  • D. Rappert
  • B. Storzer
  • S. Schreyer
  • F. Hilber
  • C. Mehren
Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die lumbale Spondylodese stellt ein etabliertes Operationsverfahren in der Wirbelsäulenchirurgie dar. Die Indikationen sind alle Arten von Instabilitäten des betroffenen Bewegungssegmentes. Ziel der Operation ist eine biomechanisch dauerhafte Fusion der Wirbel, welche durch verschiedene Zugangswege, Implantate und Fusionsmaterialen erreicht werden kann.

Techniken

Hauptsächlich verwendete Techniken sind die posteriore lumbale Fusion (PLF), die posteriore lumbale interkorporelle Fusion (PLIF), die transforaminale lumbale interkoporelle Fusion (TLIF), die anteriore lumbale interkorporelle Fusion (ALIF), die oblique lumbale interkorporelle Fusion (OLIF) und die extrem laterale interkorporelle Fusion (XLIF). Die Techniken sowie deren Indikationen, Komplikationen und Ergebnisse werden in dieser Übersicht beschrieben.

Schlüsselwörter

Lendenwirbelsäule Chirurgische Technik Literaturübersicht Wirbelsäule Spondylodese Interkorporelle Fusion 

Abkürzungen

ALIF

Anteriore lumbale interkorporelle Fusion

BMP

„Bone morphogenetic proteins“

BV

Bildverstärker

DBM

Demineralisierte Knochenmatrix

DLIF

„Direct lateral interbody fusion“

EMG

Elektromyographie

LLIF

„Lateral lumbar interbody fusion“

LWK

Lendenwirbelkörper

LWS

Lendenwirbelsäule

OLIF

Oblique lumbale interkorporelle Fusion

OPS

Operationen- und Prozedurenschlüssel

PEEK

Polyetheretherketon

PLF

Posteriore lumbale Fusion

PLIF

Posteriore lumbale interkorporelle Fusion

rhBMP

Rekombinantes humanes BMP

TLIF

Transforaminale lumbale interkoporelle Fusion

XLIF

Extrem laterale interkorporelle Fusion

Lumbar fusion—Indications and techniques

Abstract

Background

Lumbar spinal fusion is an established surgical technique in spine surgery. The goal of spinal fusion is a biomechanically lasting interbody union, which can be accomplished through different surgical approaches, implants and grafts.

Techniques

The mainly surgical techniques used are: posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), posterior interbody lumbar fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF). These procedures, their indications, complications and results are described in this narrative review.

Keywords

Lumbar vertebrae Surgical technique Review literature Spine Spondylodesis Interbody fusion 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

K. J. Schnake, D. Rappert, B. Storzer, S. Schreyer, F. Hilber und C. Mehren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 1:2–18PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Martin B, Mirza SK, Spina N, Spiker WR, Lawrence B, Brodke DS (2018) Trends in lumbar fusion procedure rates and associated hospital costs for degenerative spinal diseases in the United States, 2004–2015. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).  https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertelsmann Stiftung (2016) Faktencheck Rücken, Rückenschmerzbedingte Krankenhausaufenthalte und operative Eingriffe – Mengenentwicklung und regionale Unterschiede. https://www.bertelsmannstiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/Studie_VV_FC_Ruecken_Behandlungsfaelle-Bildgebung.pdf. Zugegriffen: 11. Nov. 2018Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Kunder SL, Rijkers K, Caelers IJMH, de Bie RA, Koehler PJ, van Santbrink H (2018) Lumbar interbody fusion: a historical overview and a future perspective. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:1161–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dimar JR 2nd, Glassman SD, Burkus JK, Pryor PW, Hardacker JW, Carreon LY (2009) Clinical and radiographic analysis of an optimized rhBMP-2 formulation as an autograft replacement in posterolateral lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1377–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Viglione LL, Chamoli U, Diwan AD (2017) Evaluating outcomes of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. World Neurosurg 104:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seaman S, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M, Torner JC, Hitchon PW (2017) Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: meta-analysis and review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci 44:23–29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:1131–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Briggs H, Milligan P (1944) Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal. J Bone Joint Surg 26:125–130Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SMJ, Rijkers K, Caelers IJMH, van Hemert WLW, de Bie RA, van Santbrink H (2017) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 17:1712–1721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Teng I, Han J, Phan K, Mobbs R (2017) A meta-analysis comparing ALIF, PLIF, TLIF and LLIF. J Clin Neurosci 44:11–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhou ZJ, Zhao FD, Fang XQ, Zhao X, Fan SW (2011) Meta-analysis of instrumented posterior interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 15:295–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) Die operative Therapie der Spondylolisthese durch dorsale Aufrichtung und ventrale Verblockung. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yan D‑L, Pei F‑X, Li J, Soo C‑L (2008) Comparative study of PILF and TLIF treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 17(10):1311–1316CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tatsumi R, Lee YP, Khajavi K, Taylor W, Chen F, Bae H (2015) In vitro comparison of endplate preparation between four mini-open interbody fusion approaches. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):372–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khan NR, Clark AJ, Lee SL, Venable GT, Rossi NB, Foley KT (2015) Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery 77:847–874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Capener N (1932) Spondylolisthesis. Br J Surg 19:374–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mayer HM (1997) A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:691–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bateman DK, Millhouse PW, Shahi N, Kadam AB, Maltenfort MG, Koerner JD, Vaccaro AR (2015) Anterior lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of associated complications. Spine J 15:1118–1132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giang G, Mobbs R, Phan S, Tran TM, Phan K (2017) Evaluating outcomes of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. World Neurosurg 104:259–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mehren C, Mayer HM, Zandanell C, Siepe CJ, Korge A (2016) The oblique anterolateral approach to the lumbar spine provides access to the lumbar spine with few early complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:2020–2027CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schroeder GD, Kepler CK, Millhouse PW, Fleischman AN, Maltenfort MG, Bateman DK, Vaccaro AR (2016) L5/S1 fusion rates in degenerative spine surgery: a systematic review comparing ALIF, TLIF, and axial interbody arthrodesis. Clin Spine Surg 29:150–155CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Phan K, Thayaparan GK, Mobbs RJ (2015) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion—systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg 29:705–711CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 1:2–18PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bertagnoli R, Vazquez RJ (2003) The AnteroLateral transPsoatic Approach (ALPA): a new technique for implanting prosthetic disc-nucleus devices. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:398–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR (2006) Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:435–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Joseph JR, Smith BW, La Marca F, Park P (2015) Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 39:E4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xu DS, Walker CT, Godzik J, Turner JD, Smith W, Uribe JS (2018) Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Ann Transl Med 6:104CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson J (2011) Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berjano P, Langella F, Damilano M et al (2015) Fusion rate following extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):369–371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Oliveira L, Marchi L, Coutinho E et al (2010) A radiographic assessment of the ability of the extreme lateral interbody fusion procedure to indirectly decompress the neural elements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:S331–S337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dimitriou R, Mataliotakis GI, Angoules AG, Kanakaris NK, Giannoudis PV (2011) Complications following autologous bone graft harvesting from the iliac crest and using the RIA: a systematic review. Injury 42(Suppl 2):S3–S15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schwartz CE, Martha JF, Kowalski P, Wang DA, Bode R, Li L, Kim DH (2009) Prospective evaluation of chronic pain associated with posterior autologous iliac crest bone graft harvest and its effect on postoperative outcome. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:49CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim DH, Rhim R, Li L, Martha J, Swaim BH, Banco RJ, Jenis LG, Tromanhauser SG (2009) Prospective study of iliac crest bone graft harvest site pain and morbidity. Spine J 9:886–892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ito Z, Imagama S, Kanemura T, Hachiya Y, Miura Y, Kamiya M, Yukawa Y, Sakai Y, Katayama Y, Wakao N, Matsuyama Y, Ishiguro N (2013) Bone union rate with autologous iliac bone versus local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a multicenter study. Eur Spine J 22:1158–1163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Liao Z, Wang CH, Cui WL (2016) Comparison of allograft and autograft in lumbar fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review. J Invest Surg 29:373–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tilkeridis K, Touzopoulos P, Ververidis A, Christodoulou S, Kazakos K, Drosos GI (2014) Use of demineralized bone matrix in spinal fusion. World J Orthop 5:30–37CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vaccaro AR, Chiba K, Heller JG, Patel TC, Thalgott JS, Truumees E, Fischgrund JS, Craig MR, Berta SC, Wang JC, North American Spine Society for Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care (2002) Bone grafting alternatives in spinal surgery. Spine J 2:206–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Galimberti F, Lubelski D, Healy AT, Wang T, Abdullah KG, Nowacki AS, Benzel EC, Mroz TE (2015) A systematic review of lumbar fusion rates with and without the use of rhBMP-2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:1132–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Burkus JK, Gornet MF, Schuler TC, Kleeman TJ, Zdeblick TA (2009) Six-year outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis with use of interbody fusion cages and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(5):1181–1189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Benglis D, Wang MY, Levi AD (2008) A comprehensive review of the safety profile of bone morphogenetic protein in spine surgery. Neurosurgery 62(5 Suppl 2):ONS423–ONS431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Miyazaki M, Tsumura H, Wang JC, Alanay A (2009) An update on bone substitutes for spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 18:783–799CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Buser Z, Brodke DS, Youssef JA, Meisel HJ, Myhre SL, Hashimoto R, Park JB, Yoon TS, Wang JC (2016) Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 25:509–516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lechner R, Putzer D, Liebensteiner M, Bach C, Thaler M (2017) Fusion rate and clinical outcome in anterior lumbar interbody fusion with beta-tricalcium phosphate and bone marrow aspirate as a bone graft substitute. A prospective clinical study in fifty patients. Int Orthop 41:333–339CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. J. Schnake
    • 1
    Email author
  • D. Rappert
    • 1
  • B. Storzer
    • 2
    • 3
  • S. Schreyer
    • 1
  • F. Hilber
    • 1
  • C. Mehren
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Zentrum für Wirbelsäulen- und SkoliosetherapieSchön Klinik Nürnberg FürthFürthDeutschland
  2. 2.WirbelsäulenzentrumSchön Klinik München HarlachingMünchenDeutschland
  3. 3.Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus Paracelsus Medizinische Universität Salzburg (PMU)SalzburgÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations