Skip to main content

Lumbale Spondylodese – Indikationen und Techniken

Lumbar fusion—Indications and techniques

Der Orthopäde volume 48, pages 50–58 (2019)Cite this article

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die lumbale Spondylodese stellt ein etabliertes Operationsverfahren in der Wirbelsäulenchirurgie dar. Die Indikationen sind alle Arten von Instabilitäten des betroffenen Bewegungssegmentes. Ziel der Operation ist eine biomechanisch dauerhafte Fusion der Wirbel, welche durch verschiedene Zugangswege, Implantate und Fusionsmaterialen erreicht werden kann.

Techniken

Hauptsächlich verwendete Techniken sind die posteriore lumbale Fusion (PLF), die posteriore lumbale interkorporelle Fusion (PLIF), die transforaminale lumbale interkoporelle Fusion (TLIF), die anteriore lumbale interkorporelle Fusion (ALIF), die oblique lumbale interkorporelle Fusion (OLIF) und die extrem laterale interkorporelle Fusion (XLIF). Die Techniken sowie deren Indikationen, Komplikationen und Ergebnisse werden in dieser Übersicht beschrieben.

Abstract

Background

Lumbar spinal fusion is an established surgical technique in spine surgery. The goal of spinal fusion is a biomechanically lasting interbody union, which can be accomplished through different surgical approaches, implants and grafts.

Techniques

The mainly surgical techniques used are: posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), posterior interbody lumbar fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF). These procedures, their indications, complications and results are described in this narrative review.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Abbreviations

ALIF:

Anteriore lumbale interkorporelle Fusion

BMP :

„Bone morphogenetic proteins“

BV :

Bildverstärker

DBM :

Demineralisierte Knochenmatrix

DLIF :

„Direct lateral interbody fusion“

EMG :

Elektromyographie

LLIF :

„Lateral lumbar interbody fusion“

LWK :

Lendenwirbelkörper

LWS :

Lendenwirbelsäule

OLIF :

Oblique lumbale interkorporelle Fusion

OPS :

Operationen- und Prozedurenschlüssel

PEEK :

Polyetheretherketon

PLF :

Posteriore lumbale Fusion

PLIF :

Posteriore lumbale interkorporelle Fusion

rhBMP :

Rekombinantes humanes BMP

TLIF :

Transforaminale lumbale interkoporelle Fusion

XLIF :

Extrem laterale interkorporelle Fusion

Literatur

  1. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 1:2–18

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Martin B, Mirza SK, Spina N, Spiker WR, Lawrence B, Brodke DS (2018) Trends in lumbar fusion procedure rates and associated hospital costs for degenerative spinal diseases in the United States, 2004–2015. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000002822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertelsmann Stiftung (2016) Faktencheck Rücken, Rückenschmerzbedingte Krankenhausaufenthalte und operative Eingriffe – Mengenentwicklung und regionale Unterschiede. https://www.bertelsmannstiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/Studie_VV_FC_Ruecken_Behandlungsfaelle-Bildgebung.pdf. Zugegriffen: 11. Nov. 2018

    Google Scholar 

  4. de Kunder SL, Rijkers K, Caelers IJMH, de Bie RA, Koehler PJ, van Santbrink H (2018) Lumbar interbody fusion: a historical overview and a future perspective. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 43:1161–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dimar JR 2nd, Glassman SD, Burkus JK, Pryor PW, Hardacker JW, Carreon LY (2009) Clinical and radiographic analysis of an optimized rhBMP-2 formulation as an autograft replacement in posterolateral lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1377–1386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Viglione LL, Chamoli U, Diwan AD (2017) Evaluating outcomes of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. World Neurosurg 104:259–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Seaman S, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M, Torner JC, Hitchon PW (2017) Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: meta-analysis and review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci 44:23–29

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fritzell P, Hägg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group (2002) Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27:1131–1141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Briggs H, Milligan P (1944) Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal. J Bone Joint Surg 26:125–130

    Google Scholar 

  10. de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SMJ, Rijkers K, Caelers IJMH, van Hemert WLW, de Bie RA, van Santbrink H (2017) Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J 17:1712–1721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Teng I, Han J, Phan K, Mobbs R (2017) A meta-analysis comparing ALIF, PLIF, TLIF and LLIF. J Clin Neurosci 44:11–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhou ZJ, Zhao FD, Fang XQ, Zhao X, Fan SW (2011) Meta-analysis of instrumented posterior interbody fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine. J Neurosurg Spine 15:295–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Harms J, Rolinger H (1982) Die operative Therapie der Spondylolisthese durch dorsale Aufrichtung und ventrale Verblockung. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 120:343–347

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Yan D‑L, Pei F‑X, Li J, Soo C‑L (2008) Comparative study of PILF and TLIF treatment in adult degenerative spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 17(10):1311–1316

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Tatsumi R, Lee YP, Khajavi K, Taylor W, Chen F, Bae H (2015) In vitro comparison of endplate preparation between four mini-open interbody fusion approaches. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):372–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Khan NR, Clark AJ, Lee SL, Venable GT, Rossi NB, Foley KT (2015) Surgical outcomes for minimally invasive vs open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurgery 77:847–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Capener N (1932) Spondylolisthesis. Br J Surg 19:374–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mayer HM (1997) A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22:691–699

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bateman DK, Millhouse PW, Shahi N, Kadam AB, Maltenfort MG, Koerner JD, Vaccaro AR (2015) Anterior lumbar spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of associated complications. Spine J 15:1118–1132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Giang G, Mobbs R, Phan S, Tran TM, Phan K (2017) Evaluating outcomes of stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. World Neurosurg 104:259–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mehren C, Mayer HM, Zandanell C, Siepe CJ, Korge A (2016) The oblique anterolateral approach to the lumbar spine provides access to the lumbar spine with few early complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:2020–2027

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Schroeder GD, Kepler CK, Millhouse PW, Fleischman AN, Maltenfort MG, Bateman DK, Vaccaro AR (2016) L5/S1 fusion rates in degenerative spine surgery: a systematic review comparing ALIF, TLIF, and axial interbody arthrodesis. Clin Spine Surg 29:150–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Phan K, Thayaparan GK, Mobbs RJ (2015) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion—systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Neurosurg 29:705–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg 1:2–18

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Bertagnoli R, Vazquez RJ (2003) The AnteroLateral transPsoatic Approach (ALPA): a new technique for implanting prosthetic disc-nucleus devices. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:398–404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR (2006) Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:435–443

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Joseph JR, Smith BW, La Marca F, Park P (2015) Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus 39:E4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Xu DS, Walker CT, Godzik J, Turner JD, Smith W, Uribe JS (2018) Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Ann Transl Med 6:104

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson J (2011) Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:26–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Berjano P, Langella F, Damilano M et al (2015) Fusion rate following extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):369–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Oliveira L, Marchi L, Coutinho E et al (2010) A radiographic assessment of the ability of the extreme lateral interbody fusion procedure to indirectly decompress the neural elements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:S331–S337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dimitriou R, Mataliotakis GI, Angoules AG, Kanakaris NK, Giannoudis PV (2011) Complications following autologous bone graft harvesting from the iliac crest and using the RIA: a systematic review. Injury 42(Suppl 2):S3–S15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schwartz CE, Martha JF, Kowalski P, Wang DA, Bode R, Li L, Kim DH (2009) Prospective evaluation of chronic pain associated with posterior autologous iliac crest bone graft harvest and its effect on postoperative outcome. Health Qual Life Outcomes 7:49

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim DH, Rhim R, Li L, Martha J, Swaim BH, Banco RJ, Jenis LG, Tromanhauser SG (2009) Prospective study of iliac crest bone graft harvest site pain and morbidity. Spine J 9:886–892

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ito Z, Imagama S, Kanemura T, Hachiya Y, Miura Y, Kamiya M, Yukawa Y, Sakai Y, Katayama Y, Wakao N, Matsuyama Y, Ishiguro N (2013) Bone union rate with autologous iliac bone versus local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a multicenter study. Eur Spine J 22:1158–1163

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Liao Z, Wang CH, Cui WL (2016) Comparison of allograft and autograft in lumbar fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review. J Invest Surg 29:373–382

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tilkeridis K, Touzopoulos P, Ververidis A, Christodoulou S, Kazakos K, Drosos GI (2014) Use of demineralized bone matrix in spinal fusion. World J Orthop 5:30–37

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Vaccaro AR, Chiba K, Heller JG, Patel TC, Thalgott JS, Truumees E, Fischgrund JS, Craig MR, Berta SC, Wang JC, North American Spine Society for Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care (2002) Bone grafting alternatives in spinal surgery. Spine J 2:206–215

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Galimberti F, Lubelski D, Healy AT, Wang T, Abdullah KG, Nowacki AS, Benzel EC, Mroz TE (2015) A systematic review of lumbar fusion rates with and without the use of rhBMP-2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 40:1132–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Burkus JK, Gornet MF, Schuler TC, Kleeman TJ, Zdeblick TA (2009) Six-year outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis with use of interbody fusion cages and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(5):1181–1189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Benglis D, Wang MY, Levi AD (2008) A comprehensive review of the safety profile of bone morphogenetic protein in spine surgery. Neurosurgery 62(5 Suppl 2):ONS423–ONS431

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Miyazaki M, Tsumura H, Wang JC, Alanay A (2009) An update on bone substitutes for spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 18:783–799

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Buser Z, Brodke DS, Youssef JA, Meisel HJ, Myhre SL, Hashimoto R, Park JB, Yoon TS, Wang JC (2016) Synthetic bone graft versus autograft or allograft for spinal fusion: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine 25:509–516

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lechner R, Putzer D, Liebensteiner M, Bach C, Thaler M (2017) Fusion rate and clinical outcome in anterior lumbar interbody fusion with beta-tricalcium phosphate and bone marrow aspirate as a bone graft substitute. A prospective clinical study in fifty patients. Int Orthop 41:333–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Zentrum für Wirbelsäulen- und Skoliosetherapie, Schön Klinik Nürnberg Fürth, Europa-Allee 1, 90763, Fürth, Deutschland

    K. J. Schnake, D. Rappert, S. Schreyer & F. Hilber

  2. Wirbelsäulenzentrum, Schön Klinik München Harlaching, Harlachinger Str. 51, 81547, München, Deutschland

    B. Storzer & C. Mehren

  3. Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus Paracelsus Medizinische Universität Salzburg (PMU), Salzburg, Österreich

    B. Storzer & C. Mehren

Authors
  1. K. J. Schnake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Rappert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Storzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Schreyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. Hilber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. Mehren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. J. Schnake.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

K. J. Schnake, D. Rappert, B. Storzer, S. Schreyer, F. Hilber und C. Mehren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schnake, K.J., Rappert, D., Storzer, B. et al. Lumbale Spondylodese – Indikationen und Techniken. Orthopäde 48, 50–58 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-018-03670-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-018-03670-w

Schlüsselwörter

  • Lendenwirbelsäule
  • Chirurgische Technik
  • Literaturübersicht
  • Wirbelsäule
  • Spondylodese
  • Interkorporelle Fusion

Keywords

  • Lumbar vertebrae
  • Surgical technique
  • Review literature
  • Spine
  • Spondylodesis
  • Interbody fusion