Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an effective and popular surgical procedure for the management of various spinal pathologies, especially degenerative diseases. Currently, LIF can be performed with posterior, transforaminal, anterior, and lateral approaches by open surgery or minimally invasive surgery (MIS). Each technique has its own advantages and disadvantages. In general, posterior LIF is a well-established procedure with good fusion rates and low complication rates but is limited by the possibility of iatrogenic injury to the neural structures and paraspinal muscles. Transforaminal LIF is frequently performed using an MIS technique and has an advantage of reducing these iatrogenic injuries. Anterior LIF (ALIF) can restore the disk height and sagittal alignment but has inherent approach-related challenges such as visceral and vascular complications. Lateral LIF and oblique LIF are performed using an MIS technique and have shown postoperative outcomes similar to ALIF; however, these approaches carry a risk of injury to psoas, lumbar plexus, and vascular structures. Herein, we provide a detailed description of the surgical procedures of each LIF technique. We shall then consider the pearls and pitfalls, as well as propose surgical indications and contraindications based on the available evidence in the literatures.

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an excellent treatment option for a number of lumbar diseases. LIF can be performed through posterior, transforaminal, anterior, and lateral or oblique approaches. Each technique has its own pearls and pitfalls. Through LIF, segmental stabilization, neural decompression, and deformity correction can be achieved. Minimally invasive surgery has recently gained popularity and each LIF procedure can be performed using minimally invasive techniques to reduce surgery-related complications and improve early postoperative recovery. Despite advances in surgical technology, surgery-related complications after LIF, such as pseudoarthrosis, have not yet been overcome. Although autogenous iliac crest bone graft is the gold standard for spinal fusion, other bone substitutes are available to enhance fusion rate and reduce complications associated with bone harvest. This article reviews the surgical procedures and characteristics of each LIF and the osteobiologics utilized in LIF based on the available evidence.

Bone fusion is one of the mainstay managements for degenerative spinal diseases and critical-sized bone defects resulting from trauma, tumors, infection, and nonunion. Bone graft materials are required for promoting bone healing, with autografts historically considered the gold standard due to their osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive properties. However, donor site morbidities have led to the development of alternative bone graft substitutes. Currently available alternative options for bone fusion include allografts, ceramics, demineralized bone matrix (DBM), and bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs). Each material has its advantages and disadvantages. Allografts avoid donor site morbidities but lack osteogenic properties and pose disease transmission risks. DBMs are acid-extracted allografts that have osteoconductive and osteoinductive properties but require combination with autografts because of the lack of evidence for their stand-alone use. BMP-2 has potent osteoinductive properties and is considered an ideal fusion material, but faces unresolved challenges related to optimal dosage and carrier. Synthetic peptides, mimicking the cell-binding domain of type I collagen, facilitate the attachment of osteogenic cells (such as osteoblasts) to the graft material and the production of extracellular matrix, leading to improved bone growth at the fusion site. The development of materials with ideal properties is a research hotspot. Recent advancements in biomaterials, such as hydrogels, nanomaterials, and three-dimensional-printed biomaterials, offer promising future options for bone fusion. This review provides an overview of available bone fusion materials, their advantages and disadvantages, and introduces emerging candidate options for bone fusion.

During lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), unintended intraoperative endplate injury (IEPI) can occur and thereafter lead cage subsidence. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of IEPI during LLIF, and its predisposing factors. A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive patients (n = 186; mean age, 70.0 ± 7.6 years) who underwent LLIF at 372 levels. Patient’s demographic and surgical data were compared between patients with and without IEPI. Also, the radiographic data of each level were compared between intact and IEPI segments. IEPI was identified at 76 levels (20.4%) in 65 patients. The incidences of IEPI at every 100 consecutive segments were not different. When 372 segments were analyzed independently, sagittal disc angle (DA) in the extended position (4.3° ± 3.6° at IEPI segments vs. 6.4° ± 4.0° at intact segments), the difference between sagittal DA in the extended position and cage angle (− 2.2° ± 4.0° vs. 0.0° ± 3.9°), and the difference between preoperative disc height and cage height (− 5.4 mm ± 2.4 mm vs. − 4.7 mm ± 2.0 mm) were different significantly. Also, endplate sclerosis was more common at intact segments than IEPI segments (33.2% vs. 17.3%). Multivariate analysis showed that male sex (odds ratio [OR] 0.160; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.036–0.704), endplate sclerosis (OR 3.307; 95% CI 1.450–8.480), and sagittal DA in the extended position (OR 0.674; 95% CI 0.541–0.840) were significant associated factors for IEPI. IEPI was correlated not with surgeon’s experience, but with patient factors, such as sex, preoperative disc angle, and endplate sclerosis. Careful surgical procedures should be employed for patients with these predisposing factors.

Bahk JH, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2020 Sep;35(40):e345. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e345