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 Aug 13;167(1):221.
doi: 10.1007/s00701-025-06643-z.

The role of XLIF in spinal revision surgery involving failed interbody implants: a review of technique, outcomes, and indications

Yusuf-Zain Ansari  1 , Arwa Jader  2 , Abdul Hameed Kidwai  3 , Dia R Halalmeh  4
Affiliations
Review

The role of XLIF in spinal revision surgery involving failed interbody implants: a review of technique, outcomes, and indications

Yusuf-Zain Ansari et al. Acta Neurochir (Wien). .

Abstract

Background: This review examines the novel application of the Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) approach for the removal of foreign bodies in the spine, including subsided cages, failed hardware, and other implants. It aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and technical considerations of XLIF in this context and compare it to traditional anterior and posterior surgical approaches.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search in accordance with PRISMA was conducted using Google Scholar, PubMed/MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Search terms included "extreme lateral interbody fusion," "lateral lumbar interbody fusion," "cage retrieval," "revision surgery," and "foreign body removal." Articles were selected based on relevance to XLIF use in foreign body removal and included case reports, clinical trials, and observational studies published in English before April 7, 2025.

Results: Seven documented cases met inclusion criteria. The XLIF approach demonstrated advantages such as reduced operative time, blood loss, and shorter hospital stays. It allowed safe access around scar tissue and critical neurovascular structures. The technique was successfully used to remove migrated or failed implants in the lumbar spine with minimal complications, most of which were transient. The approach also enabled the insertion of larger interbody cages, contributing to improved spinal stability and fusion outcomes.

Conclusion: The XLIF approach is a promising alternative for foreign body removal in complex spinal revision surgeries. However, potential complications, such as transient nerve injury, underscore the need for careful patient selection and surgical expertise. Further studies are needed to validate its broader clinical application.

Keywords: Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion; Foreign Body Removal; Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion; Spinal Revision Surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethical approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Informed consent: Not applicable. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Registration: Not registered in PROSPERO.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Hook used to retrieve loosened cage
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Computed tomography of migrated cage for case 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Traffic-light plot
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Al-Rabiah AM, Alghafli ZI, Almazrua I (2021) Using an extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) in revising failed transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with exchange of cage. Cureus 13(3):e14123. 10.7759/cureus.14123 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alzhrani GA, Alturki AY, Almusrea KN (2015) Removal of lumber spine foreign body using minimal access system with navigation. Asian J Neurosurg 10(2):108–110. 10.4103/1793-5482.145160 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Amorim-Barbosa T, Pereira C, Catelas D et al (2022) Risk factors for cage subsidence and clinical outcomes after transforaminal and posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 32(7):1291–1299. 10.1007/s00590-021-03103-z - PubMed
    1. Bamps S, Raymaekers V, Roosen G et al (2023) 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 171:10–18. 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.12.033 - PubMed
    1. Eom JS, Jeon I, Kim SW (2017) Application of lateral approach for the removal of migrated interbody cage: taphole and fixing technique. Korean J Spine 14(1):23–26. 10.14245/kjs.2017.14.1.23 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources