Sagittal Alignment After Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Anterior, Lateral, and Transforaminal Approaches

Study Design: Retrospective radiographic analysis. Objective: To determine which lumbar interbody technique is most effective for restoring lordosis, increasing disk height, and reducing spondylolisthesis. Summary of Background Data: Lumbar interbody fusions are performed in hopes of increasing fusion potential, correcting deformity, and indirectly decompressing nerve roots. No published study has directly compared anterior, lateral, and transforaminal lumber interbody fusions in terms of ability to restore lordosis, increase disk height, and reduce spondylolisthesis. Materials and Methods: Lumbar interbody fusion techniques were retrospectively compared in terms of improvement of lordosis, disk height, and spondylolisthesis between preoperative and follow-up lateral radiographs. Results: A total of 220 consecutive patients with 309 operative levels were compared by surgery type: anterior (184 levels), lateral (86 levels), and transforaminal (39 levels). Average follow-up was 19.2 months (range, 1–56 mo), with no statistical difference between the groups. Intragroup analysis showed that the anterior (4.5 degrees) and lateral (2.2 degrees) groups significantly improved lordosis from preoperative to follow-up, whereas the transforaminal (0.8 degrees) group did not. Intergroup analysis showed that the anterior group significantly improved lordosis more than both the lateral and transforaminal groups. The anterior (2.2 mm) and lateral (2.0 mm) groups both significantly improved disk height more than the transforaminal (0.5 mm) group. All 3 groups significantly reduced spondylolisthesis, with no difference between the groups. Conclusions: After lumbar interbody fusion, improvement of lordosis was significant for both the anterior and lateral groups, but not the transforaminal group. Intergroup analysis showed the anterior group had significantly improved lordosis compared to both the other groups. The anterior and lateral groups had significantly increased disk height compared to the transforaminal group. All the 3 groups significantly reduced spondylolisthesis, with no difference between the groups.

[1]  Malhar N. Kumar,et al.  Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion , 2001, European Spine Journal.

[2]  R. Fessler,et al.  Changes in coronal and sagittal plane alignment following minimally invasive direct lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease in adults: a radiographic study. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[3]  A. Sama,et al.  Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes at 1 Year A Preliminary Report , 2011, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[4]  L. Pimenta,et al.  A Radiographic Assessment of the Ability of the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion Procedure to Indirectly Decompress the Neural Elements , 2010, Spine.

[5]  Jin-Sung Kim,et al.  Comparison study of the instrumented circumferential fusion with instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion as a surgical procedure for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. , 2010, World neurosurgery.

[6]  Taek-Soo Jeon,et al.  Radiographic Results of Single Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spine Disease: Focusing on Changes of Segmental Lordosis in Fusion Segment , 2009, Clinics in orthopedic surgery.

[7]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  RADIOGRAPHIC RESTORATION OF LUMBAR ALIGNMENT AFTER TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION , 2009, Neurosurgery.

[8]  Jin-Sung Kim,et al.  Comparison between Instrumented Mini-TLIF and Instrumented Circumferential Fusion in Adult Low-Grade Lytic Spondylolisthesis : Can Mini-TLIF with PPF Replace Circumferential Fusion? , 2009, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.

[9]  Patrick C. Hsieh,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. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[10]  Jun-Hong Min,et al.  Comparison of anterior- and posterior-approach instrumented lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. , 2007, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[11]  E. Wai,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging 20 Years After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2006, Spine.

[12]  H. Labelle,et al.  The Importance of Spino-Pelvic Balance in L5–S1 Developmental Spondylolisthesis: A Review of Pertinent Radiologic Measurements , 2005, Spine.

[13]  Paul Park,et al.  Adjacent Segment Disease after Lumbar or Lumbosacral Fusion: Review of the Literature , 2004, Spine.

[14]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  The biomechanical effect of postoperative hypolordosis in instrumented lumbar fusion on instrumented and adjacent spinal segments. , 2000, Spine.

[15]  B. Cunningham,et al.  Does spinal kyphotic deformity influence the biomechanical characteristics of the adjacent motion segments? An in vivo animal model. , 1999, Spine.