Assessment of Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion

Background: Noninvasive assessment of osseous fusion after spinal fusion surgery is essential for timely diagnosis of patients with symptomatic pseudarthrosis and for evaluation of the performance of spinal fusion procedures. There is, however, no consensus on the definition and assessment of successful posterolateral fusion (PLF) of the lumbar spine. This systematic review aimed to (1) summarize the criteria used for imaging-based fusion assessment after instrumented PLF and (2) evaluate their diagnostic accuracy and reliability. Methods: First, a search of the literature was conducted in November 2018 to identify reproducible criteria for imaging-based fusion assessment after primary instrumented PLF between T10 and S1 in adult patients, and to determine their frequency of use. A second search in July 2021 was directed at primary studies on the diagnostic accuracy (with surgical exploration as the reference) and/or reliability (interobserver and intraobserver agreement) of these criteria. Article selection and data extraction were performed by at least 2 reviewers independently. The methodological quality of validation studies was assessed with the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and QAREL (Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies). Results: Of the 187 articles included from the first search, 47% used a classification system and 63% used ≥1 descriptive criterion related to osseous bridging (104 articles), absence of motion (78 articles), and/or absence of static signs of nonunion (39 articles). A great variation in terminology, cutoff values, and assessed anatomical locations was observed. While the use of computed tomography (CT) increased over time, radiographs remained predominant. The second search yielded 11 articles with considerable variation in outcomes and quality concerns. Agreement between imaging-based assessment and surgical exploration with regard to demonstration of fusion ranged between 55% and 80%, while reliability ranged from poor to excellent. Conclusions: None of the available criteria for noninvasive assessment of fusion status after instrumented PLF were demonstrated to have both sufficient accuracy and reliability. Further elaboration and validation of a well-defined systematic CT-based assessment method that allows grading of the intertransverse and interfacet fusion mass at each side of each fusion level and includes signs of nonunion is recommended. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.