• Adrian J Talia, Michael L Wong, Hui C Lau, and Andrew H Kaye.
• Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC 3050, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: ajtalia@gmail.com.
• J Clin Neurosci. 2015 Feb 1; 22 (2): 243-51.

AbstractThis review will outline the history of spinal fusion. It will compare the different approaches currently in use for interbody fusion. A comparison of the techniques, including minimally invasive surgery and graft options will be included. Lumbar interbody fusion is a commonly performed surgical procedure for a variety of spinal disorders, especially degenerative disease. Currently this procedure is performed using anterior, lateral, transforaminal and posterior approaches. Minimally invasive techniques have been increasing in popularity in recent years. A posterior approach is frequently used and has good fusion rates and low complication rates but is limited by the thecal and nerve root retraction. The transforaminal interbody fusion avoids some of these complications and is therefore preferable in some situations, especially revision surgery. An anterior approach avoids the spinal cord and cauda equina all together, but has issues with visceral exposure complications. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion has a risk of lumbar plexus injury with dissection through the psoas muscle. Studies show less intraoperative blood loss for minimally invasive techniques, but there is no long-term data. Iliac crest is the gold standard for bone graft, although adjuncts such as bone morphogenetic proteins are being used more frequently, despite their controversial history. More high-level studies are needed to make generalisations regarding the outcomes of one technique compared with another.Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…