Background: Lumbar interbody fusion is among the most common types of spinal surgery performed. Over time, the term has evolved to encompass a number of different approaches to the intervertebral space, as well as differing implant materials. Questions remain over which approaches and materials are best for achieving fusion and restoring disc height. Questions/Purposes: We reviewed the literature on the advantages and disadvantages of various methods and devices used to achieve and augment fusion between the disc spaces in the lumbar spine. Methods: Using search terms specific to lumbar interbody fusion, we searched PubMed and Google Scholar and identified 4993 articles. We excluded those that did not report clinical outcomes, involved cervical interbody devices, were animal studies, or were not in English. After exclusions, 68 articles were included for review. Results: Posterior approaches have advantages, such as providing 360° support through a single incision, but can result in retraction injury and do not always restore lordosis or correct deformity. Anterior approaches allow for the largest implants and good correction of deformities but can result in vascular, urinary, psoas muscle, or lumbar plexus injury and may require a second posterior procedure to supplement fixation. Titanium cages produce improved osteointegration and fusion rates but also increase subsidence caused by the stiffness of titanium relative to bone. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has an elasticity closer to that of bone and shows less subsidence than titanium cages, but as an inert compound PEEK results in lower fusion rates and greater osteolysis. Combination PEEK–titanium coating has not yet achieved better results. Expandable cages were developed to increase disc height and restore lumbar lordosis, but the data on their effectiveness have been inconclusive. Three-dimensionally (3D)-printed cages have shown promise in biomechanical and animal studies at increasing fusion rates and reducing subsidence, but additive manufacturing options are still in their infancy and require more investigation. Conclusions: All of the approaches to spinal fusion have plusses and minuses that must be considered when determining which to use, and newer-technology implants, such as PEEK with titanium coating, expandable, and 3D-printed cages, have tried to improve upon the limitations of existing grafts but require further study.

BACKGROUND: Sagittal alignment is an important consideration in spine surgery. The literature is conflicted regarding the effect of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) on sagittal parameters and the role of expandable cage technology. OBJECTIVE: To compare lordosis generated by static and expandable cages and to determine what factors affect postoperative sagittal parameters. METHODS: Preoperative regional lordosis (RL), segmental lordosis (SL), and posterior disc height (PDH) were compared to postoperative values in single-level MI-TLIF performed using expandable or static cages. Patients were stratified based on preoperative SL: low lordosis (25 degrees). Regression analyses were conducted to determine factors associated with postoperative SL and PDH. RESULTS: Of the 171 patients included, 111 were in the static and 60 in the expandable cohorts. Patients with low preoperative lordosis experienced an increase in SL and maintained RL regardless of cage type. Those with moderate to high preoperative lordosis experienced a decrease in SL and RL with the static cage, but maintained SL and RL with the expandable cage. Although both cohorts showed an increase in PDH, the increase in the expandable cohort was greater. Preoperative SL was predictive of postoperative SL; preoperative SL, preoperative PDH, and cage type were predictive of postoperative PDH. CONCLUSION: Expandable cages showed favorable results in restoring disc height and maintaining lordosis in the immediate postoperative period. Preoperative SL was the most significant predictor of postoperative SL. Thus, preoperative radiographic parameters and goals of surgery should be important considerations in surgical planning.

OBJECTIVE: The accuracy of percutaneous pedicle screw placement has increased with the advent of robotic and surgical navigation technologies. However, the effect of robotic intraoperative screw size and trajectory templating remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare pedicle screw sizes and accuracy of placement using robotic navigation (RN) versus skin-based intraoperative navigation (ION) alone in minimally invasive lumbar fusion procedures. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a single-institution registry of spine procedures performed over a 4-year period. Patients who underwent 1- or 2-level primary or revision minimally invasive surgery (MIS)–transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with pedicle screw placement, via either robotic assistance or surgical navigation alone, were included. Demographic, surgical, and radiographic data were collected. Pedicle screw type, quantity, length, diameter, and the presence of endplate breach or facet joint violation were assessed. Statistical analysis using the Student t-test and chi-square test was performed to evaluate the differences in pedicle screw sizes and the accuracy of placement between both groups. RESULTS: Overall, 222 patients were included, of whom 92 underwent RN and 130 underwent ION MIS-TLIF. A total of 403 and 534 pedicle screws were placed with RN and ION, respectively. The mean screw diameters were 7.25 ± 0.81 mm and 6.72 ± 0.49 mm (p < 0.001) for the RN and ION groups, respectively. The mean screw length was 48.4 ± 4.48 mm in the RN group and 45.6 ± 3.46 mm in the ION group (p < 0.001). The rates of “ideal” pedicle screws in the RN and ION groups were comparable at 88.5% and 88.4% (p = 0.969), respectively. The overall screw placement was also similar. The RN cohort had 63.7% screws rated as good and 31.4% as acceptable, while 66.1% of ION-placed screws had good placement and 28.7% had acceptable placement (p = 0.661 and p = 0.595, respectively). There was a significant reduction in high-grade breaches in the RN group (0%, n = 0) compared with the ION group (1.2%, n = 17, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that robotic assistance allows for placement of screws with greater screw diameter and length compared with surgical navigation alone, although with similarly high accuracy. These findings have implied that robotic platforms may allow for safe placement of the “optimal screw,” maximizing construct stability and, thus, the ability to obtain a successful fusion.

OBJECTIVE: In an effort to prevent loss of segmental lordosis (SL) with minimally invasive interbody fusions, manufacturers have increased the amount of lordosis that is built into interbody cages. However, the relationship between cage lordotic angle and actual SL achieved intraoperatively remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if the lordotic angle manufactured into an interbody cage impacts the change in SL during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) done for degenerative pathology. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of a single-surgeon database of adult patients who underwent primary LIF between April 2017 and December 2018. Procedures were performed for 1–2-level lumbar degenerative disease using contemporary MIS techniques, including transforaminal LIF (TLIF), lateral LIF (LLIF), and anterior LIF (ALIF). Surgical levels were classified on lateral radiographs based on the cage lordotic angle (6°–8°, 10°–12°, and 15°–20°) and the position of the cage in the disc space (anterior vs posterior). Change in SL was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analyses of the cage lordotic angle within each surgical approach were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 116 surgical levels in 98 patients were included. Surgical approaches included TLIF (56.1%), LLIF (32.7%), and ALIF (11.2%). There were no differences in SL gained by cage lordotic angle (2.7° SL gain with 6°–8° cages, 1.6° with 10°–12° cages, and 3.4° with 15°–20° cages, p = 0.581). Subgroup analysis of LLIF showed increased SL with 15° cages only (p = 0.002). The change in SL was highest after ALIF (average increase 9.8° in SL vs 1.8° in TLIF vs 1.8° in LLIF, p < 0.001). Anterior position of the cage in the disc space was also associated with a significantly greater gain in SL (4.2° vs −0.3°, p = 0.001), and was the only factor independently correlated with SL gain (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with cage lordotic angle, cage position and approach play larger roles in the generation of SL in 1–2-level MIS for lumbar degenerative disease.