Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Spine Journal 8/2018

01-08-2018 | Review

Critical analysis of trends in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders revisited: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcomes

Authors: Heeren Makanji, Andrew J. Schoenfeld, Amandeep Bhalla, Christopher M. Bono

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 8/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders is among the most common spine surgical procedures performed. The purpose of this study was to analyze fusion, complications, and clinical success for lumbar fusion performed with various surgical techniques as reported in the literature from 2000 to 2015 and compare with previous critical analysis of outcomes from 1980 to 2000.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature to identify all studies of adult lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders published between January 1, 2000, and August 31, 2015, was performed adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they enabled analysis of outcomes of individual fusion techniques.

Results

Data from 8599 patients extracted from 160 studies were recorded. Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF and TLIF) had significantly higher fusion rates compared to instrumented posterolateral fusion (PLF) (OR 3.20 and 2.46, respectively). Clinical success rate was statistically higher with MIS versus non-MIS fusion (OR 2.44). While methodological quality was higher in studies from 2000 to 2015 than prior decades, the outcomes of comparable procedures were about the same.

Conclusions

Lumbar fusions for degenerative disorders from 2000 to 2015 demonstrate a trend toward more interbody fusions and MIS techniques than prior decades. Clinical success with MIS appears more likely than with non-MIS fusions, despite equivalent fusion and complication rates. While these data are intriguing, they should be interpreted cautiously considering the level of heterogeneity of the studies available. Further, high-quality comparative studies are warranted to better understand the relative benefits of more complex interbody and MIS fusions for these conditions.

Graphical abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W et al (2005) United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1441–1445CrossRef Deyo RA, Gray DT, Kreuter W et al (2005) United States trends in lumbar fusion surgery for degenerative conditions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30:1441–1445CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC et al (1994) Low back pain hospitalization: recent United States trends and regional variations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:1207–1212CrossRef Taylor VM, Deyo RA, Cherkin DC et al (1994) Low back pain hospitalization: recent United States trends and regional variations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:1207–1212CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Gray DT, Deyo RA, Kreuter W et al (2006) Population-based trends in volumes and rates of ambulatory lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1957–1963CrossRef Gray DT, Deyo RA, Kreuter W et al (2006) Population-based trends in volumes and rates of ambulatory lumbar spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:1957–1963CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE et al (2012) Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(1):67–76CrossRef Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE et al (2012) Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(1):67–76CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN et al (1997) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:2807–2812CrossRef Fischgrund JS, Mackay M, Herkowitz HN et al (1997) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective randomized study comparing decompressive laminectomy and arthrodesis with and without spinal instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:2807–2812CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Parker LM, Murrell SE, Boden SD et al (1996) The outcome of posterolateral fusion in highly selected patients with discogenic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:1909–1917CrossRef Parker LM, Murrell SE, Boden SD et al (1996) The outcome of posterolateral fusion in highly selected patients with discogenic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:1909–1917CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Anderson DG, Sayadipour A, Shelby K et al (2011) Anterior interbody arthrodesis with percutaneous posterior pedicle fixation for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 20:1323–1330CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Anderson DG, Sayadipour A, Shelby K et al (2011) Anterior interbody arthrodesis with percutaneous posterior pedicle fixation for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 20:1323–1330CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L et al (2006) Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:435–443CrossRefPubMed Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L et al (2006) Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:435–443CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR et al (2006) United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992–2003. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2707–2714CrossRef Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Olson PR et al (2006) United States’ trends and regional variations in lumbar spine surgery: 1992–2003. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:2707–2714CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Deyo R, Mirza S (2006) Trends and variations in the use of spine surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 443:139–146CrossRefPubMed Deyo R, Mirza S (2006) Trends and variations in the use of spine surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 443:139–146CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Xu H, Tang H, Li Z (2009) Surgical treatment of adult degenerative spondylolisthesis by instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the Han nationality. J Neurosurg Spine 10:496–499CrossRefPubMed Xu H, Tang H, Li Z (2009) Surgical treatment of adult degenerative spondylolisthesis by instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the Han nationality. J Neurosurg Spine 10:496–499CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Boden SD, Zdebick TA, Sandhu HS et al (2000) The use of rhBMP-2 in Interbody fusion cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:376–381CrossRef Boden SD, Zdebick TA, Sandhu HS et al (2000) The use of rhBMP-2 in Interbody fusion cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:376–381CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Thirukumaran CP, Raudenbush B, Li Y et al (2016) National trends in the surgical management of adult lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis: 1998 to 2011. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(6):490–501CrossRef Thirukumaran CP, Raudenbush B, Li Y et al (2016) National trends in the surgical management of adult lumbar isthmic spondylolisthesis: 1998 to 2011. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(6):490–501CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Kepler CK, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS et al (2014) National trends in the use of fusion techniques to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(19):1584–1589CrossRef Kepler CK, Vaccaro AR, Hilibrand AS et al (2014) National trends in the use of fusion techniques to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(19):1584–1589CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Yoshihara H, Yoneoka D (2015) National trends in the surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative disc disease: United States, 2000 to 2009. Spine J 15(2):265–271CrossRefPubMed Yoshihara H, Yoneoka D (2015) National trends in the surgical treatment for lumbar degenerative disc disease: United States, 2000 to 2009. Spine J 15(2):265–271CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Bono CM, Lee CK (2004) Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(4):455–463CrossRef Bono CM, Lee CK (2004) Critical analysis of trends in fusion for degenerative disc disease over the past 20 years: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 29(4):455–463CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, The PRISMA Group et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, The PRISMA Group et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Bhalla A, Schoenfeld AJ, George J et al (2017) The influence of subgroup diagnosis on radiographic and clinical outcomes after lumbar fusion for degenerative disc disorders revisited: a systematic review of the literature. Spine J 17(1):143–149CrossRefPubMed Bhalla A, Schoenfeld AJ, George J et al (2017) The influence of subgroup diagnosis on radiographic and clinical outcomes after lumbar fusion for degenerative disc disorders revisited: a systematic review of the literature. Spine J 17(1):143–149CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA (2006) A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 25(20):3443–3457CrossRefPubMed Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA (2006) A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med 25(20):3443–3457CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Fritz JM, Hebert J, Koppenhaver S et al (2009) Beyond minimally important change: defining a successful outcome of physical therapy for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(25):2803–2809CrossRef Fritz JM, Hebert J, Koppenhaver S et al (2009) Beyond minimally important change: defining a successful outcome of physical therapy for patients with low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(25):2803–2809CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG (2010) Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum? Spine J 10(4):321–327CrossRefPubMed Gatchel RJ, Mayer TG (2010) Testing minimal clinically important difference: consensus or conundrum? Spine J 10(4):321–327CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P et al (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(1):90–94CrossRef Ostelo RW, Deyo RA, Stratford P et al (2008) Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33(1):90–94CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Glassman S, Gornet MF, Branch C et al (2006) MOS short form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience. Spine J 6(1):21–26CrossRefPubMed Glassman S, Gornet MF, Branch C et al (2006) MOS short form 36 and Oswestry Disability Index outcomes in lumbar fusion: a multicenter experience. Spine J 6(1):21–26CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Liu XY, Qiu GX, Weng XS et al (2014) What is the optimum fusion technique for adult spondylolisthesis-PLIF or PLF or PLIF plus PLF? A meta-analysis from 17 comparative studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(22):1887–1898CrossRef Liu XY, Qiu GX, Weng XS et al (2014) What is the optimum fusion technique for adult spondylolisthesis-PLIF or PLF or PLIF plus PLF? A meta-analysis from 17 comparative studies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 39(22):1887–1898CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Zhou ZJ, Zhao FD, Fang XQ et al (2011) Meta-analysis of instrumented posterior interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 15(3):295–310CrossRefPubMed Zhou ZJ, Zhao FD, Fang XQ et al (2011) Meta-analysis of instrumented posterior interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 15(3):295–310CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Liu X, Wang Y, Qiu G et al (2014) A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 23(1):43–56CrossRefPubMed Liu X, Wang Y, Qiu G et al (2014) A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 23(1):43–56CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Putzier M, Hartwig T, Hoff EK et al (2016) Minimally invasive TLIF leads to increased muscle sparing of the multifidus muscle but not the longissimus muscle compared with conventional PLIF-a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine J 16(7):811–819CrossRefPubMed Putzier M, Hartwig T, Hoff EK et al (2016) Minimally invasive TLIF leads to increased muscle sparing of the multifidus muscle but not the longissimus muscle compared with conventional PLIF-a prospective randomized clinical trial. Spine J 16(7):811–819CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F et al (2010) Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 19(2):316–324CrossRefPubMed Fan S, Hu Z, Zhao F et al (2010) Multifidus muscle changes and clinical effects of one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion: minimally invasive procedure versus conventional open approach. Eur Spine J 19(2):316–324CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Sidhu GS, Henkelman E, Vaccaro AR et al (2014) Minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(6):1792–1799CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sidhu GS, Henkelman E, Vaccaro AR et al (2014) Minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(6):1792–1799CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
go back to reference Sofianos DA, Briseno MR, Abrams J et al (2012) Complications of the lateral transpsoas approach for lumbar interbody arthrodesis: a case series and literature review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(6):1621–1632CrossRefPubMed Sofianos DA, Briseno MR, Abrams J et al (2012) Complications of the lateral transpsoas approach for lumbar interbody arthrodesis: a case series and literature review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(6):1621–1632CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Cummock MD, Vanni S, Levi AD et al (2011) An analysis of postoperative thigh symptoms after minimally invasive transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 15(1):11–18CrossRefPubMed Cummock MD, Vanni S, Levi AD et al (2011) An analysis of postoperative thigh symptoms after minimally invasive transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 15(1):11–18CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV et al (2001) Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg 83A:15–24CrossRef Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV et al (2001) Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg 83A:15–24CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M et al (2009) Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 9(1):13–21CrossRefPubMed Glassman SD, Carreon LY, Djurasovic M et al (2009) Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 9(1):13–21CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Critical analysis of trends in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders revisited: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcomes
Authors
Heeren Makanji
Andrew J. Schoenfeld
Amandeep Bhalla
Christopher M. Bono
Publication date
01-08-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-018-5544-x

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

European Spine Journal 8/2018 Go to the issue