Lateral-PLIF for spinal arthrodesis: concept, technique, results, complications, and outcomes
- PMID: 38451339
- DOI: 10.1007/s00701-024-06024-y
Lateral-PLIF for spinal arthrodesis: concept, technique, results, complications, and outcomes
Abstract
Background: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery represents an effective option to treat degenerative conditions in the lumbar spine. To reduce the drawbacks of the classical technique, we developed a variant, so-called Lateral-PLIF, which we then evaluated through a prospective consecutive series of patients.
Methods: All adult patients treated at our institute with single or double level Lateral-PLIF for lumbar degenerative disease from January to December 2017 were prospectively collected. Exclusion criteria were patients < 18 years of age, traumatic patients, active infection, or malignancy, as well as unavailability of clinical and/or radiological follow-up data. The technique consists of insert the cages bilaterally through the transition zone between the central canal and the intervertebral foramen, just above the lateral recess. Pre- and postoperative (2 years) questionnaires and phone interviews (4 years) assessed pain and functional outcomes. Data related to the surgical procedure, postoperative complications, and radiological findings (1 year) were collected.
Results: One hundred four patients were selected for the final analysis. The median age was 58 years and primary symptoms were mechanical back pain (100, 96.1%) and/or radicular pain (73, 70.2%). We found a high fusion rate (95%). A statistically significant improvement in functional outcome was also noted (ODI p < 0.001, Roland-Morris score p < 0.001). Walking distance increased from 812 m ± 543 m to 3443 m ± 712 m (p < 0.001). Complications included dural tear (6.7%), infection/wound dehiscence (4.8%), and instrument failure (1.9%) but no neurological deterioration.
Conclusions: Lateral-PLIF is a safe and effective technique for lumbar interbody fusion and may be considered for further comparative study validation with other techniques before extensive use to treat lumbar degenerative disease.
Keywords: Arthrodesis; Circumferential fixation; Interbody lumbar fusion; Lateral-PLIF; Neurosurgery; Spine surgery.
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature.
Similar articles
-
[Adjacent segment degeneration after lumbosacral fusion in spondylolisthesis: a retrospective radiological and clinical analysis].Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2010 Apr;77(2):124-30. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2010. PMID: 20447355 Czech.
-
Comparison of safety and efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and modified transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (M-TLIF) in the treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative diseases.J Orthop Surg Res. 2024 Jan 30;19(1):95. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-04531-3. J Orthop Surg Res. 2024. PMID: 38287376 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical Outcomes of Posterolateral Fusion vs. Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis and Degenerative Instability.Pain Physician. 2018 Jul;21(4):383-406. Pain Physician. 2018. PMID: 30045595 Clinical Trial.
-
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion using traditional pedicle screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a comparative study.J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Nov;25(5):591-595. doi: 10.3171/2016.3.SPINE151525. Epub 2016 May 27. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016. PMID: 27231813
-
Dynamic Stabilization Adjacent to Fusion versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Meta-Analysis.Biomed Res Int. 2020 May 20;2020:9309134. doi: 10.1155/2020/9309134. eCollection 2020. Biomed Res Int. 2020. PMID: 32550234 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Comparison of Endoscopic Unilateral Laminectomy for Bilateral Decompression (Endo-ULBD) and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PLIF) in Managing Multi-Segmental Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Technique and Early Outcomes.Orthop Surg. 2025 Jun;17(6):1620-1632. doi: 10.1111/os.70013. Epub 2025 Apr 23. Orthop Surg. 2025. PMID: 40269503 Free PMC article.
-
When can lumbar fusion be considered appropriate in the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain Spine. 2025 May 30;5:104285. doi: 10.1016/j.bas.2025.104285. eCollection 2025. Brain Spine. 2025. PMID: 40546274 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Agha RA, Sohrabi C, Mathew G, Franchi T, Kerwan A, O’Neill N (2020) The PROCESS 2020 guideline: updating consensus Preferred Reporting Of CasESeries in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines. Int J Surg 84:231–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.11.005 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Aoki Y, Yamagata M, Ikeda Y, Nakajima F, Ohtori S, Nakagawa K, Nakajima A, Toyone T, Orita S, Takahashi K (2012) A prospective randomized controlled study comparing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques for degenerative spondylolisthesis: unilateral pedicle screw and 1 cage versus bilateral pedicle screws and 2 cages. J Neurosurg Spine 17:153–159. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.5.Spine111044 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Audat Z, Moutasem O, Yousef K, Mohammad B (2012) Comparison of clinical and radiological results of posterolateral fusion, posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion techniques in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine. Singapore Med J 53:183–187 - PubMed
-
- Barrey CY, Boissiere L, D’Acunzi G, Perrin G (2013) One-stage combined lumbo-sacral fusion, by anterior then posterior approach: clinical and radiological results. Eur Spine J 22(Suppl 6):S957-964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3017-9 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Barrey C, Darnis A (2015) Current strategies for the restoration of adequate lordosis during lumbar fusion. World J Orthop 6:117–126. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v6.i1.117 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources