Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 Sep;15(7):3465-3478.
doi: 10.1177/21925682251336715. Epub 2025 Apr 22.

Radiological Assessment of Lumbar Fusion Status: Which Imaging Modality is Best Assessing Non-union in Lumbar Spine Pseudarthrosis?

Affiliations
Review

Radiological Assessment of Lumbar Fusion Status: Which Imaging Modality is Best Assessing Non-union in Lumbar Spine Pseudarthrosis?

Enrique González-Gallardo et al. Global Spine J. 2025 Sep.

Erratum in

Abstract

Study DesignSystematic Review.ObjectiveTo assess the current literature regarding the accuracy of different imaging modalities and criteria used to assess lumbar fusion, and their correlation with surgical direct observation as the current Gold Standard.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, studies were included if they focused on patients with a prior history of lumbar interbody fusion and at least 1 year of radiographic follow-up. The review assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of different imaging techniques, and their correlation with surgical findings.ResultsThirteen studies (1989-2019) were reviewed, including 715 patients, common imaging modalities included plain radiographs (53.8%), Computed Tomography (CT) (69.2%), and dynamic radiographs (30.7%). CT appeared as the most utilized modality post-2006. There was substantial variability in diagnostic accuracy, with CT showing high variability in sensitivity and specificity. Descriptive criteria for fusion were widely used, but interobserver agreement was generally low.ConclusionThe review highlights a lack of standardized criteria for assessing lumbar fusion. Despite advancements in imaging techniques, the variability in diagnostic parameters suggests a need for consensus and multicentric studies to stablish reliable, universal criteria for evaluating fusion success.

Keywords: arthrodesis; diagnostic techniques and procedures; lumbar vertebrae; pseudarthrosis; spine.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow chart of the systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines.

References

    1. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. 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(1):2-18. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gruskay JA, Webb ML, Grauer JN. Methods of evaluating lumbar and cervical fusion. Spine J. 2014;14(3):531-539. - PubMed
    1. Saleem S, Aslam HM, Rehmani MAK, Raees A, Alvi AA, Ashraf J. Lumbar disc degenerative disease: disc degeneration symptoms and magnetic resonance image findings. Asian Spine J. 2013;7(4):322-334. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Albee FH. Transplantation of a portion of the tibia into the spine for Pott’s disease: a preliminary report 1911. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;460:14-16. - PubMed
    1. Hibbs RA. An operation for progressive spinal deformities: a preliminary report of three cases from the service of the orthopaedic hospital. 1911. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;460:17-20. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources