Noninstrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusions Continue to Fade Relative to Instrumented Posterolateral Approaches for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Over the Past Decade
- PMID: 40828985
- PMCID: PMC12366972
- DOI: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-25-00192
Noninstrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusions Continue to Fade Relative to Instrumented Posterolateral Approaches for Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis Over the Past Decade
Abstract
Introduction: Although posterolateral lumbar fusions (PLFs) were historically routinely performed without instrumentation, instrumentation has become ubiquitous in this setting. Recent assessments of noninstrumented PLFs practices are lacking.
Methods: Lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis patients undergoing noninstrumented or instrumented single-level PLFs (with or without interbody) were identified from 2012 to 2022 M170 Ortho PearlDiver. Univariable analysis identified differences in patient characteristics. Yearly utilization trends were tracked and analyzed using simple linear regression/overall F-tests. Ninety-day postoperative adverse outcomes were compared using multivariable logistic regression with 4:1 matching for patient age, sex, and Elixhauser comorbidity index. Five-year lumbar revision surgery rates were assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and log-rank tests.
Results: A total of 117,796 (95.8%) instrumented and 5147 (4.2%) noninstrumented PLF lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis patients were identified. Noninstrumented PLFs declined from 5.52% to 3.49% from 2012 to 2022 (P < 0.001). These were more common in older, male, osteoporotic patients, varied by insurance and region, and were more often performed by orthopaedic surgeons. After matching, no notable differences were found between instrumented versus noninstrumented cases in 90-day aggregated adverse events or 5-year lumbar revision surgery rates.
Discussion: For lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis, noninstrumented fusion represents a small and declining percentage of PLFs over the past decade, with usage varied by clinical and nonclinical patient characteristics. No differences were found in 90-day aggregated postoperative adverse events and 5-year lumbar revision surgery rates, suggesting that instrumentation can be safely performed and that both approaches had similarly durable results. These findings support considering noninstrumented PLFs in select cases when the safety, utility, or cost-benefit of instrumentation is questioned.
Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Conflict of interest statement
Dr. Grauer or an immediate family member serves as a board member, owner, officer, or committee member of Editor-in-chief of North America Spine Society Journal, Deputy Editor Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and past board member of North American Spine Society. Day or an immediate family member serves as a board member, owner, officer, or committee member of Associate editor of North America Spine Society Journal. None of the following authors or any immediate family member has received anything of value from or has stock or stock options held in a commercial company or institution related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article: Lee, Lavu, Pappajohn, and Gouzoulis.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Effect of interbody fusion compared with posterolateral fusion on lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Spine J. 2022 May;22(5):756-768. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.12.001. Epub 2021 Dec 9. Spine J. 2022. PMID: 34896611
-
Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Spine J. 2021 Jun;21(6):945-954. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.018. Epub 2021 Jan 22. Spine J. 2021. PMID: 33493680
-
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
-
Posterolateral Fusion Versus Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Dec 1;41(23):E1408-E1414. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001638. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016. PMID: 27105465
-
Evaluation of the degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis instability classification (DSIC) system as a guide to surgical technique selection.Eur Spine J. 2025 May;34(5):1985-1994. doi: 10.1007/s00586-025-08770-8. Epub 2025 Mar 17. Eur Spine J. 2025. PMID: 40094991
References
-
- Fredrickson BE, Baker D, McHolick WJ, Yuan HA, Lubicky JP: The natural history of spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984;66:699-707. - PubMed
-
- Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LEA, Delamarter RB: Spinal fusion in the United States: Analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37:67-76. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous