The presacral retroperitoneal approach for axial lumbar interbody fusion (presacral ALIF) is not widely reported, particularly with regard to the mid-term outcome. This prospective study describes the clinical outcomes, complications and rates of fusion at a follow-up of two years for 26 patients who underwent this minimally invasive technique along with further stabilisation using pedicle screws. The fusion was single-level at the L5-S1 spinal segment in 17 patients and two-level at L4–5 and L5-S1 in the other nine. The visual analogue scale for pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores were recorded pre-operatively and during the 24-month study period. The evaluation of fusion was by thin-cut CT scans at six and 12 months, and flexion-extension plain radiographs at six, 12 and 24 months. Significant reductions in pain and disability occurred as early as three weeks postoperatively and were maintained. Fusion was achieved in 22 of 24 patients (92%) at 12 months and in 23 patients (96%) at 24 months. One patient (4%) with a pseudarthrosis underwent successful revision by augmentation of the posterolateral fusion mass through a standard open midline approach. There were no severe adverse events associated with presacral ALIF, which in this series demonstrated clinical outcomes and fusion rates comparable with those of reports of other methods of interbody fusion

We carried out a prospective study to determine whether the addition of a recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP-2) to a machined allograft spacer would improve the rate of intervertebral body fusion in the spine. We studied 77 patients who were to undergo an interbody fusion with allograft and instrumentation. The first 36 patients received allograft with adjuvant rhBMP-2 (allograft/rhBMP-2 group), and the next 41, allograft and demineralised bone matrix (allograft/demineralised bone matrix group). Each patient was assessed clinically and radiologically both pre-operatively and at each follow-up visit using standard methods. Follow-up continued for two years. Every patient in the allograft/rhBMP-2 group had fused by six months. However, early graft lucency and significant (> 10%) subsidence were seen radiologically in 27 of 55 levels in this group. The mean graft height subsidence was 27% (13% to 42%) for anterior lumbar interbody fusion, 24% (13% to 40%) for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and 53% (40% to 58%) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Those who had undergone fusion using allograft and demineralised bone matrix lost only a mean of 4.6% (0% to 15%) of their graft height. Although a high rate of fusion (100%) was achieved with rhBMP-2, significant subsidence occurred in more than half of the levels (23 of 37) in the lumbar spine and 33% (6 of 18) in the cervical spine. A 98% fusion rate (62 of 63 levels) was achieved without rhBMP-2 and without the associated graft subsidence. Consequently, we no longer use rhBMP-2 with allograft in our practice if the allograft has to provide significant structural support

Aims. The aim of this study was to reassess the rate of neurological, psoas-related, and abdominal complications associated with L4-L5 lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) undertaken using a standardized preoperative assessment and surgical technique. Methods. This was a multicentre retrospective study involving consecutively enrolled patients who underwent L4-L5 LLIF by seven surgeons at seven institutions in three countries over a five-year period. The demographic details of the patients and the details of the surgery, reoperations and complications, including femoral and non-femoral neuropraxia, thigh pain, weakness of hip flexion, and abdominal complications, were analyzed. Neurological and psoas-related complications attributed to LLIF or posterior instrumentation and persistent symptoms were recorded at one year postoperatively. Results. A total of 517 patients were included in the study. Their mean age was 65.0 years (SD 10.3) and their mean BMI was 29.2 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.5). A mean of 1.2 levels (SD 0.6) were fused with LLIF, and a mean of 1.6 (SD 0.9) posterior levels were fused. Femoral neuropraxia occurred in six patients (1.2%), of which four (0.8%) were LLIF-related and two (0.4%) had persistent symptoms one year postoperatively. Non-femoral neuropraxia occurred in nine patients (1.8%), one (0.2%) was LLIF-related and five (1.0%) were persistent at one year. All LLIF-related neuropraxias resolved by one year. A total of 32 patients (6.2%) had thigh pain, 31 (6.0%) were LLIF-related and three (0.6%) were persistent at one year. Weakness of hip flexion occurred in 14 patients (2.7%), of which eight (1.6%) were LLIF-related and three (0.6%) were persistent at one year. No patients had bowel injury, three (0.6%) had an intraoperative vascular injury (not LLIF-related), and five (1.0%) had ileus. Reoperations occurred in five patients (1.0%) within 30 days, 37 (7.2%) within 90 days, and 41 (7.9%) within one year postoperatively. Conclusion. LLIF involving the L4-L5 disc level has a low rate of persistent neurological, psoas-related, and abdominal complications in patients with the appropriate indications and using a standardized surgical technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):53–61

1. At the present stage of our experience, when 150 patients have been analysed over a period of five years, the conclusion has been reached that anterior interbody fusion in the lower lumbar spine is a procedure which should be added to our surgical armamentarium for use in selected cases. 2. Patients suffering from chronic intervertebral disc degeneration whose main symptoms are recurrent incapacitating backache derive the most benefit from this procedure. 3. When used as a salvage operation in patients who have had previous unsuccessful laminectomy or posterior fusion, good results can be expected. 4. In patients with spondylolisthesis anterior interbody fusion should be confined to cases in which the vertebral bodies have not slipped forward more than one-third

Aims. We compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of using a polyetheretherketone cage with (TiPEEK) and without a titanium coating (PEEK) for instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Materials and Methods. We conducted a randomised clinical pilot trial of 40 patients who were scheduled to undergo a TLIF procedure at one or two levels between L2 and L5. The Oswestry disability index (ODI), EuroQoL-5D, and back and leg pain were determined pre-operatively, and at three, six, and 12 months post-operatively. Fusion rates were assessed by thin slice CT at three months and by functional radiography at 12 months. Results. At final follow-up, one patient in each group had been lost to follow-up. Two patients in each of the PEEK and TiPEEK groups were revised for pseudarthrosis (p = 1.00). The rate of complete or partial fusion at three months was 91.7% in both groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in ODI or in radiological outcomes between the groups. Conclusion. Favourable results with identical clinical outcomes and a high rate of fusion was seen in both groups. The titanium coating appears to have no negative effects on outcome or safety in the short term. A future study to determine the effect of titanium coating is warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1366–72

We evaluated the efficacy of Escherichia coli-derived recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (E-BMP-2) in a mini-pig model of spinal anterior interbody fusion. A total of 14 male mini-pigs underwent three-level anterior lumbar interbody fusion using polyether etherketone (PEEK) cages containing porous hydroxyapatite (HA). Four groups of cages were prepared: 1) control (n = 10 segments); 2) 50 μg E-BMP-2 (n = 9); 3) 200 μg E-BMP-2 (n = 10); and 4) 800 μg E-BMP-2 (n = 9). At eight weeks after surgery the mini-pigs were killed and the specimens were evaluated by gross inspection and manual palpation, radiological evaluation including plain radiographs and micro-CT scans, and histological analysis. Rates of fusion within PEEK cages and overall union rates were calculated, and bone formation outside vertebrae was evaluated. One animal died post-operatively and was excluded, and one section was lost and also excluded, leaving 38 sites for assessment. This rate of fusion within cages was 30.0% (three of ten) in the control group, 44.4% (four of nine) in the 50 μg E-BMP-2 group, 60.0% (six of ten) in the 200 μg E-BMP-2 group, and 77.8% (seven of nine) in the 800 μg E-BMP-2 group. Fusion rate was significantly increased by the addition of E-BMP-2 and with increasing E-BMP-2 dose (p = 0.046). In a mini-pig spinal anterior interbody fusion model using porous HA as a carrier, the implantation of E-BMP-2-loaded PEEK cages improved the fusion rate compared with PEEK cages alone, an effect that was significantly increased with increasing E-BMP-2 dosage. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:217–23

Aims. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) has been well validated in overweight and obese patients who are consequently subject to a higher radiation exposure. This prospective multicentre study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a novel lumbar localisation system for MITLIF in overweight patients. Patients and Methods. The initial study group consisted of 175 patients. After excluding 49 patients for various reasons, 126 patients were divided into two groups. Those in Group A were treated using the localisation system while those in Group B were treated by conventional means. The primary outcomes were the effective radiation dosage to the surgeon and the exposure time. Results. There were 62 patients in Group A and 64 in Group B. The mean effective dosage was 0.0217 mSv (standard deviation (. sd. ) 0.0079) in Group A and 0.0383 mSv (. sd. 0.0104) in Group B (p <  0.001). The mean fluoroscopy exposure time was 26.42 seconds (. sd. 5.91) in Group A and 40.67 seconds (. sd. 8.18) in Group B (p < 0.001). The operating time was 175.56 minutes (. sd. 32.23) and 206.08 minutes (. sd. 30.15) (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean pre-operative localisation time was 4.73 minutes (. sd. 0.84) in Group A and 7.03 minutes (. sd. 1.51) in Group B (p < 0.001). The mean screw placement time was 47.37 minutes (. sd. 10.43) in Group A and 67.86 minutes (. sd. 14.15) in Group B (p < 0.001). The pedicle screw violation rate was 0.35% (one out of 283) in Group A and 2.79% (eight out of 287) in Group B (p = 0.020). Conclusion. The study shows that the localisation system can effectively reduce radiation exposure, exposure time, operating time, pre-operative localisation time, and screw placement time in overweight patients undergoing MITLIF. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:944–50

We conducted a prospective, randomised study of 42 cervical interbody fusions undertaken with either an autologous tricortical graft or a cage. The factors assessed in the two groups were: (1) time taken to achieve fusion; (2) neck disability index; (3) pain score; (4) interbody height ratio; (5) interbody angle and (6) the influence of smoking on fusion. No statistical difference was seen in the time taken to achieve fusion, neck disability index, interbody height ratio, or interbody angles. Smoking did not have any effect on the fusion process. The pain score was significantly lower in the tricortical graft group at six months. We conclude that both methods of fusion give similar results, although tricortical graft fusion is cheaper than cage fusion, and is more effective in reducing the pain score

In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (. sd. 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (. sd. 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); ‘good’ global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52). The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes. Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patient-orientated results at two years

We evaluated the maturation of grafted bone in cases of successful fusion after a one- or two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using interbody carbon cages. We carried out a five-year prospective longitudinal radiological evaluation of patients using plain radiographs and CT scans. One year after surgery, 117 patients with an early successful fusion were selected for inclusion in the study. Radiological evaluation of interbody bone fusion was graded on a 4-point scale. The mean grades of all radiological and CT assessments increased in the five years after surgery, and differences compared to the previous time interval were statistically significant for three or four years after surgery. Because the grafted bone continues to mature for three years after surgery, the success of a fusion should not be assessed until at least three years have elapsed. There were no significant differences in the longitudinal patterns of grafted bone maturity between iliac bone and local bone. However, iliac bone grafting may remodel faster than local bone

Assessment of bony union after anterior fusion of the lumbar spine has previously relied on the skilled interpretation of plain radiograph. A biplanar radiographic technique was used to measure small movements between vertebrae and to give a quantitative measure of bony union in 11 patients who had undergone interbody fusion with autogenous bone chips at one level in the lumbar spine. The investigation gave three types of results: bony union, where the fused level showed marked restriction of movement relative to the rest of the lumbar spine; paradoxical movement, where the fused joint showed marked reverse movement (when the patient flexed, the fused level of the lumbar spine extended) which was thought to be due to an anterior bony bar which caused an altered pattern of movement; and non-union, where the level of fusion showed no restriction of movement. The intervertebral joint above the level of fusion was shown to move more than the other joints in the lumbar spine. The study showed that bony union is possible with the use of autogenous cancellous bone chips, and that biplanar radiographic technique can determine the extent of union

Recurrence of back or leg pain after discectomy is a well-recognised problem with an incidence of up to 28%. Once conservative measures have failed, several surgical options are available and have been tried with varying degrees of success. In this study, 42 patients with recurrent symptoms after discectomy underwent less invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion (LI-PLIF). Clinical outcome was measured using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires and visual analogue scales for back (VAS-BP) and leg pain (VAS-LP). There was a statistically significant improvement in all outcome measures (p < 0.001). The debate around which procedure is the most effective for these patients remains controversial.

Our results show that LI-PLIF is as effective as any other surgical procedure. However, given that it is less invasive, we feel that it should be considered as the preferred option.

Aims. To determine the effectiveness of prone traction radiographs in predicting postoperative slip distance, slip angle, changes in disc height, and lordosis after surgery for degenerative spondylolisthesis of the lumbar spine. Methods. A total of 63 consecutive patients with a degenerative spondylolisthesis and preoperative prone traction radiographs obtained since 2010 were studied. Slip distance, slip angle, disc height, segmental lordosis, and global lordosis (L1 to S1) were measured on preoperative lateral standing radiographs, flexion-extension lateral radiographs, prone traction lateral radiographs, and postoperative lateral standing radiographs. Patients were divided into two groups: posterolateral fusion or posterolateral fusion with interbody fusion. Results. The mean changes in segmental lordosis and global lordosis were 7.1° (SD 6.7°) and 2.9° (SD 9.9°) respectively for the interbody fusion group, and 0.8° (SD 5.1°) and -0.4° (SD 10.1°) respectively for the posterolateral fusion-only group. Segmental lordosis (ρ = 0.794, p < 0.001) corrected by interbody fusion correlated best with prone traction radiographs. Global lumbar lordosis (ρ = 0.788, p < 0.001) correlated best with the interbody fusion group and preoperative lateral standing radiographs. The least difference in slip distance (-0.3 mm (SD 1.7 mm), p < 0.001), slip angle (0.9° (SD 5.2°), p < 0.001), and disc height (0.02 mm (SD 2.4 mm), p < 0.001) was seen between prone traction and postoperative radiographs. Regression analyses suggested that prone traction parameters best predicted correction of slip distance (Corrected Akaike’s Information Criterion (AICc) = 37.336) and disc height (AICc = 58.096), while correction of slip angle (AICc = 26.453) was best predicted by extension radiographs. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) cut-off showed, with 68.3% sensitivity and 64.5% specificity, that to achieve a 3.0° increase in segmental lordotic angle, patients with a prone traction disc height of 8.5 mm needed an interbody fusion. Conclusion. Prone traction radiographs best predict the slip distance and disc height correction achieved by interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. To achieve this maximum correction, interbody fusion should be undertaken if a disc height of more than 8.5 mm is attained on preoperative prone traction radiographs. Level of Evidence: Level II Prognostic Study. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1062–1071

The February 2024 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Surgeon assessment of bone – any good?; Robotics reduces radiation exposure in some spinal surgery; Interbody fusion cage versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion with posterior instrumentation; Is robotic-assisted pedicle screw placement an answer to the learning curve?; Acute non-traumatic spinal subarachnoid haematomas: a report of five cases and a systematic review of the literature; Is L4-L5 lateral interbody fusion safe and effective?

Aims. Chronic low back pain due to degenerative disc disease is sometimes treated with fusion. We compared the outcome of three different fusion techniques in the Swedish Spine Register: noninstrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF), instrumented posterolateral fusion (IPLF), and interbody fusion (IBF). Patients and Methods. A total of 2874 patients who were operated on at one or two lumbar levels were followed for a mean of 9.2 years (3.6 to 19.1) for any additional lumbar spine surgery. Patient-reported outcome data were available preoperatively (n = 2874) and at one year (n = 2274), two years (n = 1958), and a mean of 6.9 years (n = 1518) postoperatively and consisted of global assessment and visual analogue scales of leg and back pain, Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol five-dimensional index, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and satisfaction with treatment. Statistical analyses were performed with competing-risks proportional hazards regression or analysis of covariance, adjusted for baseline variables. Results. The number of patients with additional surgery were 32/183 (17%) in the PLF group, 229/1256 (18%) in the IPLF group, and 439/1435 (31%) in the IBF group. With the PLF group as a reference, the hazard ratio for additional lumbar surgery was 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.72) for the IPLF group and 2.13 (95% CI 1.45 to 3.12) for the IBF group. All patient-reported outcomes improved after surgery (p < 0.001) but were without statistically significant differences between the groups at the one-, two- and 6.9-year follow-ups (all p ≥ 0.12). Conclusion. The addition of interbody fusion to posterolateral fusion was associated with a higher risk for additional surgery and showed no advantages in patient-reported outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1526–1533

Aims. People with severe, persistent low back pain (LBP) may be offered lumbar spine fusion surgery if they have had insufficient benefit from recommended non-surgical treatments. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2016 guidelines recommended not offering spinal fusion surgery for adults with LBP, except as part of a randomized clinical trial. This survey aims to describe UK clinicians’ views about the suitability of patients for such a future trial, along with their views regarding equipoise for randomizing patients in a future clinical trial comparing lumbar spine fusion surgery to best conservative care (BCC; the FORENSIC-UK trial). Methods. An online cross-sectional survey was piloted by the multidisciplinary research team, then shared with clinical professional groups in the UK who are involved in the management of adults with severe, persistent LBP. The survey had seven sections that covered the demographic details of the clinician, five hypothetical case vignettes of patients with varying presentations, a series of questions regarding the preferred management, and whether or not each clinician would be willing to recruit the example patients into future clinical trials. Results. There were 72 respondents, with a response rate of 9.0%. They comprised 39 orthopaedic spine surgeons, 17 neurosurgeons, one pain specialist, and 15 allied health professionals. Most respondents (n = 61,84.7%) chose conservative care as their first-choice management option for all five case vignettes. Over 50% of respondents reported willingness to randomize three of the five cases to either surgery or BCC, indicating a willingness to participate in the future randomized trial. From the respondents, transforaminal interbody fusion was the preferred approach for spinal fusion (n = 19, 36.4%), and the preferred method of BCC was a combined programme of physical and psychological therapy (n = 35, 48.5%). Conclusion. This survey demonstrates that there is uncertainty about the role of lumbar spine fusion surgery and BCC for a range of example patients with severe, persistent LBP in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):612–620

The April 2024 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Lengthening behaviour of magnetically controlled growing rods in early-onset scoliosis: a multicentre study; LDL, cholesterol, and statins usage cause pseudarthrosis following lumbar interbody fusion; Decision-making in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis of L4/L5; Does the interfacing angle between pedicle screws and support rods affect clinical outcomes after posterior thoracolumbar fusion?; Returning to the grind: how workload influences recovery post-lumbar spine surgery; Securing the spine: a leap forward with s2 alar-iliac screws in adult spinal deformity surgery

The December 2024 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: Rostral facet joint violations in robotic- and navigation-assisted pedicle screw placement; The inhibitory effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids on spinal fusion: an animal model;L5-S1 transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion is associated with increased revisions compared to L4-L5 TLIF at two years; Immediate versus gradual brace weaning protocols in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized clinical trial; Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualized, progressive walking, and education intervention for the prevention of low back pain recurrence in Australia (WalkBack): a randomized controlled trial; Usefulness and limitations of intraoperative pathological diagnosis using frozen sections for spinal cord tumours; Effect of preoperative HbA1c and blood glucose level on the surgical site infection after lumbar instrumentation surgery; How good are surgeons at achieving their alignment goals?

The October 2012 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: a Japanese questionnaire at work in Iran; curve progression in degenerative lumbar scoliosis; the cause of foot drop; the issue of avoiding the spinal cord at scoliosis surgery; ballistic injuries to the cervical spine; minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion; readmission rates after spinal surgery; clinical complications and the severely injured cervical spine; and stabilising the thoracolumbar burst fracture

Spines are often stabilised posteriorly by internal fixation and anteriorly by a bone graft. The effect of an autologous bone graft from the iliac crest on implant loads is unknown. We used an internal spinal fixation device with telemetry to measure implant loads for several body positions and activities in nine patients before and after anterior interbody fusion. With the body upright, implant loads were often higher after than before fusion using a bone graft. Distraction of the bridged region led to high implant loads in patients with a fractured vertebra and to marked changes in load in those with degenerative instability. Leaving the lower of the bridged intervertebral discs intact led to only small changes in fixator load after anterior interbody fusion. A bone graft alone does not guarantee a reduction of implant loads