Lumbar Fusion Techniques

Lumbar fusion involves creating a bony bridge between vertebral segments to eliminate motion and treat instability or degenerative conditions. Interbody fusion techniques place bone graft or cages within the disc space for anterior column support, typically combined with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation for immediate stability.

Historical Development

The first lumbar fusions were posterolateral (bone grafting between transverse processes). Interbody techniques developed to improve fusion rates through anterior column support. PLIF was introduced in the 1950s-60s, ALIF in the 1980s, TLIF in the 1990s, and lateral approaches (XLIF/LLIF) in the 2000s.

Current Trends

TLIF has become the most commonly performed interbody fusion due to its balance of visualization, fusion rates, and complication profile. Minimally invasive techniques are increasingly utilized. Multi-level constructs and adult deformity correction remain specialized applications.

Relevant Anatomy by Approach

Posterior Approach (PLIF/TLIF):

• Paraspinal muscles, lamina, facet joints
• Dura, cauda equina, exiting/traversing nerve roots
• Epidural veins (can bleed significantly)

Anterior Approach (ALIF):

• Retroperitoneal space
• Great vessels (aorta/IVC, iliac vessels)
• Sympathetic plexus (hypogastric plexus at L5-S1)
• Ureter (lateral structure)
• Psoas muscle laterally

Lateral Approach (LLIF/XLIF):

• Psoas muscle (traversed directly)
• Lumbar plexus (within/behind psoas)
• Genitofemoral nerve (anterior on psoas)
• Segmental vessels

Lumbar Plexus Anatomy for Lateral Approach

Biomechanics of Fusion

Load Distribution:

• Anterior column: 80% of axial load
• Posterior elements: 20% (facets, pedicles)
• Interbody cage restores anterior column support

Fusion Environment:

• Compressive forces promote fusion
• Decorticated endplates expose vascular bone
• Bone graft or substitutes fill disc space
• Motion eliminated by instrumentation

Indications for Lumbar Fusion

Differential Diagnosis of the Fusion Candidate

Before committing a patient to fusion, exclude conditions that present with overlapping back or leg pain but are managed very differently. Misattributing pain to a degenerative segment is the commonest reason for a poor fusion outcome.

Choosing the Right Approach

Consider TLIF when:

• Single or two-level fusion needed
• Radiculopathy requiring decompression
• Moderate loss of disc height
• Revision discectomy with instability

Consider ALIF when:

• L5-S1 primary level
• Significant disc collapse requiring height restoration
• Desire to preserve posterior structures
• Failed posterior fusion (pseudarthrosis)

Consider Lateral (LLIF) when:

• L1-L4 levels (avoid L5-S1)
• Multi-level degenerative disease
• Indirect decompression desired
• Coronal/sagittal correction needed

Contraindications

Absolute:

• Active infection
• Uncontrolled medical comorbidities
• No clear structural indication

Relative/Approach-Specific:

• ALIF: Previous anterior surgery, retroperitoneal scarring
• Lateral: L5-S1 level, previous psoas surgery
• All: Severe osteoporosis, unrealistic expectations

Additional Studies

Bone Density (DEXA):

• Essential in elderly patients
• T-score below -2.5 = osteoporosis
• Affects fixation strategy (cement augmentation)

Vascular Surgery Consultation:

• Consider for ALIF at L4 and above
• Previous vascular surgery
• Aberrant vessel anatomy

Imaging Gallery - Pre-operative Assessment and Post-operative Radiographic Outcomes

View larger

View larger

View larger

Graft Options

Autograft:

• Local bone (laminectomy, facetectomy)
• Iliac crest (rarely used now)
• Gold standard biologically

Allograft:

• Structural (femoral ring, etc.)
• Particulate (chips, DBM)

Synthetics:

• BMP-2 (bone morphogenetic protein)
• TCP, hydroxyapatite
• Avoid BMP in ALIF (ectopic bone)

Cage Filling:

• Usually combination of local autograft + allograft/DBM
• BMP may be used (controversial, off-label in some applications)

Approach-Specific Complications

General Complications

Intraoperative:

• Wrong level surgery (fluoroscopy confirmation essential)
• Bleeding (epidural veins, segmental vessels)
• Cage malposition

Postoperative:

• Infection (1-3%)
• Pseudarthrosis (5-15% depending on factors)
• Adjacent segment disease (2-3% per year)
• Hardware failure (loosening, breakage)
• Cage subsidence

Pseudarthrosis (Non-union)

Risk Factors:

• Smoking (most significant modifiable factor)
• Diabetes
• Obesity
• Multi-level fusion
• Osteoporosis
• Poor nutrition

Diagnosis:

• Persistent pain
• CT shows no bridging bone at 1 year
• Hardware loosening/breakage
• Dynamic motion on flexion-extension

Management:

• Optimize modifiable factors
• Revision with improved fixation, graft augmentation
• Consider different approach

Immediate Postoperative

Day 0-1:

• Neurological assessment (especially motor function)
• Pain management (multimodal)
• DVT prophylaxis
• Early mobilization

Approach-Specific Considerations:

• ALIF: Bowel function assessment (ileus possible)
• Lateral: Hip flexor assessment

Activity Guidelines

Fusion Assessment

Imaging Timeline:

• 6 weeks: Radiographs, assess alignment, hardware
• 3 months: Progress check
• 6 months: CT if concern for pseudarthrosis
• 12 months: Final fusion assessment

Signs of Solid Fusion:

• Bridging bone on CT
• No motion on flexion-extension
• No hardware loosening
• Resolution of symptoms

Rehabilitation

Physical Therapy:

• Core strengthening (delayed until fusion consolidating)
• Flexibility and conditioning
• Functional training

Lifestyle Modifications:

• Smoking cessation mandatory
• Weight optimization
• Activity modification

Fusion Rates

Clinical Outcomes

Success Rates (symptom improvement):

• Spondylolisthesis: 70-80% good/excellent
• DDD with instability: 60-70% (controversial indication)
• Revision/pseudarthrosis: Variable (50-70%)

Prognostic Factors

Favorable:

• Clear structural indication
• Non-smoker
• Normal BMI
• Single level
• Good psychosocial status
• No workers compensation

Unfavorable:

• Smoking (most important)
• Obesity
• Multi-level
• Osteoporosis
• Depression
• Workers compensation

Minimally Invasive Fusion

Advantages:

• Less muscle damage
• Reduced blood loss
• Shorter hospital stay
• Faster recovery

Disadvantages:

• Steep learning curve
• More radiation exposure
• Limited visualization
• Not suitable for all cases

Revision Fusion

Challenges:

• Scarring, obscured anatomy
• Hardware removal
• Bone loss
• Higher pseudarthrosis rate

Strategies:

• Consider different approach (anterior if previous posterior)
• Augment fixation (longer constructs, cement)
• Optimize bone graft (BMP, autograft)

Osteoporotic Spine

Challenges:

• Poor screw purchase
• Cage subsidence
• Higher failure rate

Solutions:

• Cement augmentation of screws
• Larger/expandable cages
• Extended fixation
• Optimize bone health

Multi-Level Fusion

Considerations:

• Higher complication rate
• Adjacent segment disease risk
• Consider combined approaches
• Staged procedures may be safer

Approach Selection Pathway

Step 1: Confirm Fusion Indication

• Spondylolisthesis, instability, deformity, failed decompression
• Avoid fusion for DDD alone without instability

Step 2: Assess Levels

• L5-S1: ALIF or TLIF both excellent
• L4-5: TLIF preferred (vascular concerns with ALIF)
• L1-L4: Lateral approach efficient for multi-level

Step 3: Consider Patient Factors

• Previous surgery (choose different approach)
• Vascular anatomy (CT angiogram for ALIF)
• Osteoporosis (plan augmentation)
• Smoking status (cessation required)

Step 4: Choose Technique

• Single level with radiculopathy: TLIF
• L5-S1 with significant collapse: ALIF + posterior
• Multi-level deformity: Lateral + posterior
• Revision pseudarthrosis: Consider circumferential

Global Epidemiology and Practice Variation

Elective lumbar fusion rates have risen steadily across high-income countries over the past two decades, with marked variation by region, hospital type and surgeon. In a US Nationwide Inpatient Sample analysis of degenerative spondylolisthesis (2001-2010), the choice of fusion technique varied significantly with geographic region, teaching status and hospital size, and combined anterior/posterior or interbody constructs carried higher complication and mortality risk than posterolateral fusion alone in the acute phase. In Norway, the rate of lumbar spinal stenosis surgery more than tripled between 1999 and 2013, with surgery in those over 65 years more than quadrupling, although the proportion involving fusion actually fell from 19.3% to 10.9%. The take-home for any examination: fusion utilisation reflects health-system and surgeon factors as much as pathology, and "more fusion" has not consistently meant "better outcome".

Guidelines Side by Side

Major bodies converge on the same core principle: fusion needs a structural indication (instability, deformity, neural compression requiring destabilising decompression), and is not supported for axial low back pain from degenerative disc disease alone.

The unresolved SLIP versus Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study controversy is a classic viva discussion point: SLIP supports fusion for unstable Grade I spondylolisthesis, while the Swedish trial found no benefit from adding fusion to decompression. The pragmatic synthesis is to fuse when there is demonstrable instability or when decompression itself will destabilise the segment, and to decompress alone when the segment is stable.

Approach Choice and Modifiable Risk - Global Standard of Care

• Technique: TLIF is the most widely used posterior interbody technique; meta-analysis favours it over PLIF on complication grounds. ALIF, LLIF/XLIF and OLIF are valid alternatives selected by level and sagittal goals, with comparable fusion rates.
• Anterior approaches: an access surgeon (vascular/general) for ALIF and continuous EMG neuromonitoring for transpsoas LLIF are widely regarded as standard safeguards.
• Modifiable risk: smoking cessation is the single most important modifiable factor (nonunion relative risk 1.91); diabetic control, weight optimisation and treatment of osteoporosis (including screw cement augmentation) are recommended before elective fusion regardless of health system.

Key Takeaways

1. TLIF Has Replaced PLIF: The unilateral transforaminal approach provides adequate disc access with less nerve retraction compared to bilateral PLIF. TLIF is now the most commonly performed interbody fusion technique.

2. ALIF Best at L5-S1: The great vessels bifurcate at L5-S1, providing safe access. Above this level, vascular surgery involvement is recommended. Know the retrograde ejaculation risk from sympathetic plexus injury.

3. Lateral Approach Avoids L5-S1: The iliac crest blocks lateral access to L5-S1. The lumbar plexus runs within the psoas and is at risk - neuromonitoring is essential. Transient symptoms are common (15-25%).

4. Interbody Fusion Improves Fusion Rates: Adding an interbody cage to pedicle screw fixation increases fusion rates from 70-80% to 90-95%. Circumferential fusion provides the highest fusion rate.

5. Smoking is the Most Important Modifiable Factor: A meta-analysis found smoking nearly doubled the nonunion risk (relative risk 1.91). Cessation before elective fusion should be required.

6. Know the Indications: Clear structural indications (spondylolisthesis, instability, deformity) produce the best outcomes. Fusion for degenerative disc disease alone remains controversial.

7. Approach Selection Matters: Match the approach to the level, pathology, and patient factors. L5-S1 suits ALIF or TLIF; L1-L4 suits lateral or TLIF; multi-level deformity may need combined approaches.