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
- PMID: 36521760
- DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.12.033
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
Abstract
Background: Degenerative diseases of the lumbar spine are often treated with posterior interbody fusion surgery (posterior lumbar interbody fusion [PLIF]) for spinal instability or intractable back pain with neurologic impairment. Several lateral, less invasive procedures have recently been described (lateral lumbar interbody fusion [LLIF]/direct lateral interbody fusion/extreme lateral interbody fusion [XLIF]). The aim of this systematic review is to compare structural and functional outcomes of lateral surgical approaches to PLIF.
Methods: We conducted a MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library search for studies focusing on outcomes and complications comparing LLIF (direct lateral interbody fusion/XLIF) and PLIF. The systematic review was reported using the PRISMA criteria.
Results: In total, 1000 research articles were identified, of which 5 studies were included comparing the outcomes and complications between the lateral and posterior approach. Three studies found significantly less perioperative blood loss with a lateral approach. Average hospital stay was shorter in populations who underwent the lateral approach compared with PLIF. Functional outcomes (visual analog scale score/Oswestry Disability Index) were similar or better with LLIF. In most of the included studies, complication rates did not differ between the posterior and lateral approach. Most of the neurologic deficits with XLIF/LLIF were temporary and healed completely within 1 year follow-up.
Conclusions: A lateral approach (XLIF/LLIF) is a good and safe alternative for PLIF in single-level degenerative lumbar diseases, with comparable functional outcomes, shorter hospital stays, and less blood loss. Future prospective studies are needed to establish the role of lateral minimally invasive approaches in spinal degenerative surgery.
Keywords: LLIF; Lumbar fusion; PLIF; Postoperative recovery; Structural and functional outcomes; Surgery; XLIF.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
A systematic review of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral lumbar fusion (PLF).Eur Spine J. 2023 Jun;32(6):1911-1926. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07567-x. Epub 2023 Apr 18. Eur Spine J. 2023. PMID: 37071155
-
Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurg Rev. 2018 Jul;41(3):755-770. doi: 10.1007/s10143-016-0806-8. Epub 2016 Dec 24. Neurosurg Rev. 2018. PMID: 28013419
-
Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review.J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Mar;24(3):416-27. doi: 10.3171/2015.2.SPINE14973. Epub 2015 Nov 13. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016. PMID: 26565767
-
Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature.Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Oct;39(4):E4. doi: 10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15278. Neurosurg Focus. 2015. PMID: 26424344
-
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
Cited by
-
Effect of Different Minimally Invasive Posterior Stabilization Techniques After Direct Lateral Interbody Fusion With Long-Term Clinical and Radiological Outcomes in Railway Workers: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Global Spine J. 2025 Mar 27:21925682251331462. doi: 10.1177/21925682251331462. Online ahead of print. Global Spine J. 2025. PMID: 40148253 Free PMC article.
-
Lumbar total disk replacement versus microsurgical lumbar discectomy in treatment of radicular and back pain in railway workers: a prospective randomized controlled trial.J Spine Surg. 2024 Dec 20;10(4):642-652. doi: 10.21037/jss-24-63. Epub 2024 Nov 13. J Spine Surg. 2024. PMID: 39816781 Free PMC article.
-
The role of XLIF in spinal revision surgery involving failed interbody implants: a review of technique, outcomes, and indications.Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2025 Aug 13;167(1):221. doi: 10.1007/s00701-025-06643-z. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2025. PMID: 40802105 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Prevalence and Clinical Impact of Coronal Malalignment Following Circumferential Minimally Invasive Surgery (CMIS) for Adult Spinal Deformity Correction.Global Spine J. 2025 May;15(4):2201-2208. doi: 10.1177/21925682241290759. Epub 2024 Oct 3. Global Spine J. 2025. PMID: 39361369 Free PMC article.
-
Comparative analysis of acute postoperative pain and opioid use between lateral transpsoas, anterior, and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions.N Am Spine Soc J. 2025 Aug 8;23:100781. doi: 10.1016/j.xnsj.2025.100781. eCollection 2025 Sep. N Am Spine Soc J. 2025. PMID: 40919055 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources