Trends in Surgical Approach for Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Over the Past Decade
- PMID: 35969681
- DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001373
Trends in Surgical Approach for Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Over the Past Decade
Abstract
Study design: Retrospective Comparative Study.
Objective: The purpose of this study was to characterize trends in surgical approach for single-level lumbar fusion over the past decade.
Summary of background data: The number of elective lumbar fusion cases performed is increasing annually. Several different surgical approaches exist for lumbar spinal fusion including novel anterior approaches developed in recent years. With ongoing innovation, trends in the utilization of common surgical approaches in recent years are unclear.
Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the PearlDiver database (Fort Wayne, IN). Patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusion between 2010 and 2019 were identified using Current Procedural Technology codes and divided into 4 mutually exclusive cohorts based on surgical approach: (1) anterior-only, (2) anterior approach with posterior instrumentation, (3) posterolateral, and (4) posterior-only interbody. Trend analyses of surgical approach utilization over the last decade were performed with the Cochran-Armitage test to evaluate the 2-tailed null hypothesis that utilization of each surgical approach for single-level lumbar fusion remained constant.
Results: A total of 53,234 patients met inclusion criteria and were stratified into 4 cohorts: anterior-only (n=5104), anterior with posterior instrumentation (n=23,515), posterolateral (n=5525), and posterior-only interbody (n=19,090). Trend analysis revealed the utilization of a posterior-only interbody approach significantly decreased from 36.7% to 29.2% ( P <0.001), whereas the utilization of a combined anterior and posterior approach significantly increased from 45.8% to 50.4% ( P <0.001). The utilization of an anterior-only approach also significantly increased from 7.9% to 10.5% ( P <0.001).
Conclusions: Utilization of anterior-only and anterior with posterior instrumentation approaches for single-level lumbar fusion have been significantly increasing over the past decade while use of posterior-only interbody approach trended significantly downward. These data may be particularly useful for trainees and spine surgeons as new techniques and technology become available.
Level of evidence: Level III-retrospective cohort study.
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Similar articles
-
Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy Versus Multilevel Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Treatment of Adult Spinal Deformity: Trends, Outcomes, and Cost.Clin Spine Surg. 2024 Jun 1;37(5):E192-E200. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001566. Epub 2023 Dec 28. Clin Spine Surg. 2024. PMID: 38158597
-
Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (Direct Lateral Interbody Fusion/Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion) versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery in Spinal Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review.World Neurosurg. 2023 Mar;171:10-18. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.12.033. Epub 2022 Dec 12. World Neurosurg. 2023. PMID: 36521760
-
Minimally invasive versus mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in managing low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis.Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2024 Sep 12;166(1):365. doi: 10.1007/s00701-024-06231-7. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2024. PMID: 39264454 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of the Outcomes of Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Conventional Fusion Operations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World Neurosurg. 2022 Apr;160:55-66. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.01.071. Epub 2022 Jan 25. World Neurosurg. 2022. PMID: 35085805
-
A Systematic Review of Lumbar Fusion Rates With and Without the Use of rhBMP-2.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Jul 15;40(14):1132-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000971. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015. PMID: 25955186
Cited by
-
Complications and Clinical Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients With Primary Hypercoagulable Disorders.Global Spine J. 2025 Jul;15(6):2931-2937. doi: 10.1177/21925682251316555. Epub 2025 Feb 4. Global Spine J. 2025. PMID: 39904491 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of transversus abdominis plane block on length of stay and postoperative opioid use in anterior lumbar interbody fusions.N Am Spine Soc J. 2025 Jul 18;23:100771. doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2025.100771. eCollection 2025 Sep. N Am Spine Soc J. 2025. PMID: 40822243 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE, et al. Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37:67–76.
-
- Yavin D, Casha S, Wiebe S, et al. Lumbar fusion for degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery. 2017;80:701–715.
-
- Yoshihara H, Yoneoka D. National trends in the surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative disc disease: United States, 2000 to 2009. Spine J. 2015;15:265–271.
-
- Martin BI, Mirza SK, Spina N, et al. Trends in lumbar fusion procedure rates and associated hospital costs for degenerative spinal diseases in the United States, 2004 to 2015. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44:369–376.
-
- Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg. 2015;1:2–18.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous