Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF

Ralph J. Mobbs1,2,3, Kevin Phan1,2,3, Greg Malham4, Kevin Seex5, Prashanth J. Rao1,2,3

Research

Degenerative disc and facet joint disease of the lumbar spine is common in the ageing population, and is one of the most frequent causes of disability. Lumbar spondylosis may result in mechanical back pain, radicular and claudicant symptoms, reduced mobility and poor quality of life. Surgical interbody fusion of degenerative levels is an effective treatment option to stabilize the painful motion segment, and may provide indirect decompression of the neural elements, restore lordosis and correct deformity.

1NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG), Sydney, Australia; 2Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Randwick, Sydney, Australia; 3University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia; 4Neuroscience Institute, Epworth Hospital, Richmond VIC, Australia; 5Neurosurgery Department, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Summary

Degenerative disc and facet joint disease of the lumbar spine is common in the ageing population, and is one of the most frequent causes of disability. Lumbar spondylosis may result in mechanical back pain, radicular and claudicant symptoms, reduced mobility and poor quality of life. Surgical interbody fusion of degenerative levels is an effective treatment option to stabilize the painful motion segment, and may provide indirect decompression of the neural elements, restore lordosis and correct deformity. The surgical options for interbody fusion of the lumbar spine include: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion/anterior to psoas (OLIF/ATP), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). The indications may include: discogenic/facetogenic low back pain, neurogenic claudication, radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis, lumbar degenerative spinal deformity including symptomatic spondylolisthesis and degenerative scoliosis. In general, traditional posterior approaches are frequently used with acceptable fusion rates and low complication rates, however they are limited by thecal sac and nerve root retraction, along with iatrogenic injury to the paraspinal musculature and disruption of the posterior tension band. Minimally invasive (MIS) posterior approaches have evolved in an attempt to reduce approach related complications. Anterior approaches avoid the spinal canal, cauda equina and nerve roots, however have issues with approach related abdominal and vascular complications.

In addition, lateral and OLIF techniques have potential risks to the lumbar plexus and psoas muscle. The present study aims firstly to comprehensively review the available literature and evidence for different lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques. Secondly, we propose a set of recommendations and guidelines for the indications for interbody fusion options. Thirdly, this article provides a description of each approach, and illustrates the potential benefits and disadvantages of each technique with reference to indication and spine level performed.

 

Keywords

Degenerative disc disease; spine; interbody; lumbar spine fusion; posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF); transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF); minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF); lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF); oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF); anterior to psoas (ATP); anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)

 

Request a consultation

Our friendly Sydney-based team can provide you with further details on back and neck pain.
Contact us today to find out more.

Scroll to Top