Fusion rate following extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Abstract

Reports of XLIF fusion rate in the literature vary from 85 to 93 % at 1-year follow-up. Fusion rate in our series corroborates data from previous publications. The results of this series confirm that anterior inter body fusion by means of XLIF approach is a technique that achieves high fusion rate and satisfactory clinical outcomes.

Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Supplemental Interspinous Process Fixation: Outcomes from a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] However, given the inherent axial and coronal stability of a large anterolateral cage, the structural necessity of invasive/extensive PSF in ALIF/LLIF has come into question, particularly in single-level application. Accordingly, a growing body of literature exploring less invasive and less demanding alternatives for secondary stability in ALIF/LLIF has emerged.…”

“…[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] Rigid interspinous process fixation (ISPF) is one such alternative modality receiving increased consideration as an adjunct to ALIF/LLIF. 1,[18][19][20]23,29,31 Given the favorable proximity of the spinous processes, one can achieve robust sagittal stability while largely preserving the paraspinal muscles, avoiding the posterior neural elements, and conserving the facets. 1,[18][19][20]23,29,31,40 However, despite such biomechanical and perioperative benefits, reports of midterm and long-term clinical outcomes with ISPF are limited and retrospective in design.…”

“…1,[18][19][20]23,29,31 Given the favorable proximity of the spinous processes, one can achieve robust sagittal stability while largely preserving the paraspinal muscles, avoiding the posterior neural elements, and conserving the facets. 1,[18][19][20]23,29,31,40 However, despite such biomechanical and perioperative benefits, reports of midterm and long-term clinical outcomes with ISPF are limited and retrospective in design. 41 Accordingly, the purpose of this prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial was to assess intraoperative outcomes, patientreported outcomes, radiographic success, concomitant medication usage, neurologic status, and complication profiles in patients receiving singlelevel ALIF/LLIF with supplemental ISPF for degenerative pathology.…”

Comparison of ALIF vs. XLIF for L4/5 interbody fusion: pros, cons, and literature review

“…A recent series of 125 patients from Rao et al (10) demonstrated an overall fusion rate of 98% for ALIF using a variety of bone graft substitutes (iFactorCerapedics, Westminster, Colorado, Infuse-Medtronic, Memphis, Tennessee, autologous iliac crest bone and allograft). Similarly, Berjano et al (37) also reported a fusion rate of 98% for XLIF in their series of 77 patients using a combination of autologous bone, calcium triphosphate and Attrax (Nuvasive). Rodgers et al (38) reported XLIF a fusion rate of 93.2% with a mean follow-up of 17.3 months utilizing autograft and demineralized bone matrix with bone marrow aspirated from the iliac crest.…”

Radiographic and Surgical Outcomes After Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

“…When the decision to proceed with fusion is made, debate again exists about the method to use. MIS techniques attempt to provide a stable fusion construct while minimizing collateral damage that may further progress the underlying disease process (14,15). SA-LLIF is a relatively new technique that attempts to minimize the deleterious effects of posterior instrumentation while still providing a reliable segmental fusion.…”