• Ryan Turlip, Hasan S Ahmad, Yohannes G Ghenbot, Connor Wathen, Daksh Chauhan, Kyle McCloskey, and Jang W Yoon.
• Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
• World Neurosurg. 2023 Jul 1; 175: e134e140e134-e140.

ObjectiveLumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques have seen impressive innovation in recent years, leading to an expansion of the LIF lexicon. This study systematically analyzes LIF nomenclature in contemporary literature and proposes a standardized classification system for reporting LIF terminology.MethodsA search query was conducted through the PubMed database using "lumbar fusion OR lumbar interbody fusion." A total of 1455 articles were identified, and 605 references to LIF were recorded. Following a systematic review of the terminology, we developed a LIF reporting guidelines that capture the existing LIF nomenclature while avoiding redundant or ambiguous terminology.ResultsThe most referenced anatomical approaches were transforaminal (43.0%), followed by posterior (25.0%), lateral (19.7%), and anterior (10.9%). Overall, there were 72 unique ways to describe LIF. Unique prefixes were recorded by approach (posterior: 26; lateral: 13; anterior: 3). Forty unique prefixes/suffixes overlapped in their usage. "MI" (14.4%), "MIS" (38.1%), and "MISS" (0.6%) all referenced a minimally invasive approach. "O" (12.5%), "CO" (1.3%), and "TO" (1.3%) all described open techniques. "Endo" (0.6%), "Endoscopic-assisted" (1.3%), and "PE" (1.9%) all referenced endoscopic-assisted procedures.ConclusionsThe current LIF nomenclature contains many unique LIF terms that were found to be inconsistently defined, redundant, or ambiguous. We propose the standardization of a 4-part naming system which highlights the crucial parts of LIF: (1) intraoperative repositioning, (2) patient position, (3) anatomical approach, and (4) orientation of the surgical corridor to the psoas muscles.Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.

17 keywords...

hide…