Fusion Rate and Influence of Surgery-related Factors in Lumbar Interbody Arthrodesis for Degenerative Spine Diseases: a Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Musculoskelet Surg

Date 2020 Jan 3

PMID 31894472

Citations 26

Authors

M Formica

D Vallerga

A Zanirato

L Cavagnaro

M Basso

S Divano

L Mosconi

E Quarto

G Siri

L Felli

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to summarize and critically analyze the influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spine diseases. A systematic review of the literature was carried out with a primary search being performed on Medline through PubMed. The 2009 PRISMA flowchart and checklist were taken into account. Sixty-seven articles were included in the analysis: 48 studies were level IV of evidence, whereas 19 were level III. All interbody fusion techniques analyzed have proved to reach a good fusion rate. An overall mean fusion rate of 93% (95% CI 92-95%, p < 0.001) was estimated pooling the selected studies. The influence of sagittal parameters and cages features in fusion rate was not clear. Autograft is considered the gold standard material. The use of synthetic bone substitutes and biological factors alone or combined with bone graft have shown conflicting results. Low level of evidence studies and high heterogeneity (χ = 271.4, df = 72, p < 0.001; I = 73.5%, τ = 0.05) in data analysis could result in the risk of bias. Further high-quality studies would better clarify these results in the future.

Citing Articles

Verification of the Cage Stability and the Superiority of Titanium Coating in the Bone Fusion of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Polyetheretherketone Cages.

Masamoto K, Tanida S, Otsuki B, Fujibayashi S Cureus. 2025; 17(1):e77485.

PMID: 39958005 PMC: 11827893. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.77485.

Lumbar Spinal Rahisynthesis with Plif: a Retrospective Study of 58 Patients Demonstrating Imaging and Clinical Outcomes with One Year Follow-up.

Zygogiannis K, Chatzikomninos I, Moschos S, Palavos I, Thivaios G, Kalampokis A Maedica (Bucur). 2024; 19(3):502-510.

PMID: 39553352 PMC: 11565143. DOI: 10.26574/maedica.2024.19.3.502.

Tomographic Assessment of Fusion Rate, Implant-Endplate Contact Area, Subsidence, and Alignment With Lumbar Personalized Interbody Implants at 1-Year Follow-Up.

Ames C, Smith J, Nicolau R Int J Spine Surg. 2024; 18(S1):S41-S49.

PMID: 39191476 PMC: 11483439. DOI: 10.14444/8640.

Pseudarthrosis risk factors in lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Boonsirikamchai W, Wilartratsami S, Ruangchainikom M, Korwutthikulrangsri E, Tongsai S, Luksanapruksa P BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):433.

PMID: 38831392 PMC: 11149252. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07531-w.

Biomechanical comparison of polyetheretherketone rods and titanium alloy rods in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.

Li J, Cao S, Zhao B BMC Surg. 2024; 24(1):169.

PMID: 38811965 PMC: 11134660. DOI: 10.1186/s12893-024-02462-8.

References

Inose H, Yamada T, Mulati M, Hirai T, Ushio S, Yoshii T . Bone Turnover Markers as a New Predicting Factor for Nonunion After Spinal Fusion Surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 43(1):E29-E34. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001995. View

Kim H, Lee C, Yeom J, Lee J, Lee K, Chang B . The efficacy of porous hydroxyapatite bone chip as an extender of local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2011; 21(7):1324-30. PMC: 3389110. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-2092-z. View

Bach K, Ahmadian A, Deukmedjian A, Uribe J . Minimally invasive surgical techniques in adult degenerative spinal deformity: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472(6):1749-61. PMC: 4016426. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3441-5. View

Lee C, Yoon K, Ha S . Which Approach Is Advantageous to Preventing Development of Adjacent Segment Disease? Comparative Analysis of 3 Different Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques (ALIF, LLIF, and PLIF) in L4-5 Spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg. 2017; 105:612-622. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.06.005. View

Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U . Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J. 2005; 14(6):551-8. PMC: 3489237. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1. View

Hoy K, Bunger C, Niederman B, Helmig P, Hansen E, Li H . Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterolateral instrumented fusion (PLF) in degenerative lumbar disorders: a randomized clinical trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22(9):2022-9. PMC: 3777065. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-013-2760-2. View

Xue H, Tu Y, Cai M . Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine J. 2012; 12(3):209-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2012.01.010. View

Kenneth Burkus J, Dorchak J, Sanders D . Radiographic assessment of interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein type 2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(4):372-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000048469.45035.B9. View

Seo D, Kim M, Roh S, Jeon S . Morphological analysis of interbody fusion following posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages using computed tomography. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(34):e7816. PMC: 5572007. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007816. View

10.

Nakashima H, Yukawa Y, Ito K, Horie Y, Machino M, Kanbara S . Extension CT scan: its suitability for assessing fusion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20(9):1496-502. PMC: 3175889. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-011-1739-0. View

11.

Andersen T, Christensen F, Laursen M, Hoy K, Hansen E, Bunger C . Smoking as a predictor of negative outcome in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(23):2623-8. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200112010-00018. View

12.

Berjano P, Langella F, Damilano M, Pejrona M, Buric J, Ismael M . Fusion rate following extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24 Suppl 3:369-71. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-3929-7. View

13.

Lee N, Kim K, Yi S, Ha Y, Shin D, Yoon D . Comparison of Outcomes of Anterior, Posterior, and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery at a Single Lumbar Level with Degenerative Spinal Disease. World Neurosurg. 2017; 101:216-226. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.01.114. View

14.

Fogel G, Toohey J, Neidre A, Brantigan J . Is one cage enough in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison of unilateral single cage interbody fusion to bilateral cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007; 20(1):60-5. DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000211251.59953.a4. View

15.

Carpenter C, Dietz J, Leung K, Hanscom D, Wagner T . Repair of a pseudarthrosis of the lumbar spine. A functional outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996; 78(5):712-20. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-199605000-00011. View

16.

Rihn J, Makda J, Hong J, Patel R, Hilibrand A, Anderson D . The use of RhBMP-2 in single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiographic analysis. Eur Spine J. 2009; 18(11):1629-36. PMC: 2899399. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1046-1. View

17.

Kai Y, Oyama M, Morooka M . Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using local facet joint autograft and pedicle screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 29(1):41-6. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000103940.57588.50. View

18.

Kim M, Chung H, Kim D, Kim S, Jeon S . The clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody single level fusion. Asian Spine J. 2011; 5(2):111-6. PMC: 3095800. DOI: 10.4184/asj.2011.5.2.111. View

19.

Thalgott J, Giuffre J, Klezl Z, Timlin M . Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with titanium mesh cages, coralline hydroxyapatite, and demineralized bone matrix as part of a circumferential fusion. Spine J. 2003; 2(1):63-9. DOI: 10.1016/s1529-9430(01)00155-3. View

20.

Formica M, Zanirato A, Cavagnaro L, Basso M, Divano S, Felli L . Extreme lateral interbody fusion in spinal revision surgery: clinical results and complications. Eur Spine J. 2017; 26(Suppl 4):464-470. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5115-6. View