Interbody Fusions in the Lumbar Spine: A Review
- 5 Downloads
Lumbar interbody fusion is among the most common types of spinal surgery performed. Over time, the term has evolved to encompass a number of different approaches to the intervertebral space, as well as differing implant materials. Questions remain over which approaches and materials are best for achieving fusion and restoring disc height.
We reviewed the literature on the advantages and disadvantages of various methods and devices used to achieve and augment fusion between the disc spaces in the lumbar spine.
Using search terms specific to lumbar interbody fusion, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar and identified 4993 articles. We excluded those that did not report clinical outcomes, involved cervical interbody devices, were animal studies, or were not in English. After exclusions, 68 articles were included for review.
Posterior approaches have advantages, such as providing 360° support through a single incision, but can result in retraction injury and do not always restore lordosis or correct deformity. Anterior approaches allow for the largest implants and good correction of deformities but can result in vascular, urinary, psoas muscle, or lumbar plexus injury and may require a second posterior procedure to supplement fixation. Titanium cages produce improved osteointegration and fusion rates but also increase subsidence caused by the stiffness of titanium relative to bone. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has an elasticity closer to that of bone and shows less subsidence than titanium cages, but as an inert compound PEEK results in lower fusion rates and greater osteolysis. Combination PEEK–titanium coating has not yet achieved better results. Expandable cages were developed to increase disc height and restore lumbar lordosis, but the data on their effectiveness have been inconclusive. Three-dimensionally (3D)-printed cages have shown promise in biomechanical and animal studies at increasing fusion rates and reducing subsidence, but additive manufacturing options are still in their infancy and require more investigation.
All of the approaches to spinal fusion have plusses and minuses that must be considered when determining which to use, and newer-technology implants, such as PEEK with titanium coating, expandable, and 3D-printed cages, have tried to improve upon the limitations of existing grafts but require further study.
Keywordslumbar interbody fusion ALIF OLIF LLIF
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Ravi Verma, MD, MBA, and Sohrab Virk, MD, MBA, declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Sheeraz Qureshi, MD, MBA, reports receiving consulting fees or royalties from Stryker, K2M, Paradigm Spine, Globus Medical, Medical Device Business Services, and Pacira Pharmaceuticals; owning shares of Avaz Surgical and Vital 5; and receiving royalties from RTI and Zimmer Biomet, outside the submitted work.
Required Author Forms:
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.
- 4.Audat Z, Moutasem O, Yousef K, Mohammad B. Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. Singap Med J. 2012;53:183–187.Google Scholar
- 6.Behrbalk E, Uri O, Parks RM, Musson R, Soh RC, Boszczyk BM. Fusion and subsidence rate of stand alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion using PEEK cage with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:2869–2875.Google Scholar
- 8.Briggs H, Milligan PR. Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1944;26(1):125–130.Google Scholar
- 9.Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X, et al. Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1539–1546.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Cuzzocrea F, Ivone A, Jannelli E, Fioruzzi A, Ferranti E, Vanelli R, Benazzo F. PEEK versus metal cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiological comparative study. Musculoskelet Surg. 2019 Dec;103(3):237-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-018-0580-6. Epub 2018 Dec 10.
- 22.Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA, et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:379–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Kakinuma H, Ishii K, Ishihama H, et al. Antibacterial polyetheretherketone implants immobilized with silver ions based on chelate-bonding ability of inositol phosphate: processing, material characterization, cytotoxicity, and antibacterial properties. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103(1):57–64.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 28.Keorochana G, Setrkraising K, Woratanarat P, Arirachakaran A, Kongtharvonskul J. Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev. 2018;41:755–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.Nemoto O, Asazuma T, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Yasuoka H, Fujikawa A. Comparison of fusion rates following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone cages or titanium cages with transpedicular instrumentation. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:2150–2155.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar