Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Spondylolisthesis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Spondylolisthesis

  • 348 Accesses

Abstract

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) was first described by Cloward in 1953. As the procedure has gained more popularity over the past several decades, studies reporting fusion rates have been high. The introduction of pedicle screw instrumentation and concomitant posterolateral fusion with bone grafting makes the likelihood of successful fusion after combined PLIF and posterolateral instrumentation extremely high. The PLIF is performed from a true direct posterior angle, retracting the dura and preserving part of the facet joint. There is a significant risk of complications with the PLIF procedure, and careful surgical technique should be adhered to to minimize these risks. Transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) was introduced by Harms as an adaptation of the PLIF, has similar indications, and is designed primarily to decrease the amount of dural retraction necessary during the discectomy and interbody cage insertion. This chapter will discuss the indications for PLIF, including deciding between the PLIF and other interbody fusion techniques, the surgical technique, and complications of the procedure and their management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg. 1953;10:154–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lin PM. A technical modification of Cloward’s posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 1977;1:118–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Elias WJ, Simmons NE, Kaptain GJ, Chadduck JB, Whitehill R. Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device. J Neurosurg. 2000;93:45–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Steffee AD, Sitkowski DJ. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion and plates. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;227:99–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schnee CL, Freese A, Ansell LV. Outcome analysis for adults with spondylolisthesis treated with posterolateral fusion and transpedicular screw fixation. J Neurosurg. 1997;86:56–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schwab FJ, Nazarian DG, Mahmud F, Michelsen CB. Effects of spinal instrumentation on fusion of the lumbosacral spine. Spine. 1995;20:2023–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wood GW 2nd, Boyd RJ, Carothers TA, et al. The effect of pedicle screw/plate fixation on lumbar/lumbosacral autogenous bone graft fusions in patients with degenerative disc disease. Spine. 1995;20:819–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, Quinn LM, Persenaire JM. Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: 2-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine. 2000;25:1437–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brantigan JW, Neidre A, Toohey JS. The lumbar I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion with the variable screw placement system: 10-year results of a Food and Drug Administration clinical trial. Spine J. 2004;4:681–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dehoux E, Fourati E, Madi K, Reddy B, Segal P. Posterolateral versus interbody fusion in isthmic spondylolisthesis: functional results in 52 cases with a minimum follow-up of 6 years. Acta Orthop Belg. 2004;70:578–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ekman P, Moller H, Tullberg T, Neumann P, Hedlund R. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Spine. 2007;32:2178–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Chrastil J, Patel AA. Complications associated with posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2012;20:283–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Li Y, Wu Z, Guo D, You H, Fan X. A comprehensive comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for the treatment of isthmic and degenerative spondylolisthesis: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2020;188:105594.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu X, Wang Y, Qiu G, Weng X, Yu B. A systematic review with meta-analysis of posterior interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion in lumbar spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2014;23(1):43–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Luo J, Cao K, Yu T, et al. Comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion for the treatment of isthmic spondylolisthesis. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(7):E915–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Urquhart JC, Alnaghmoosh N, Gurr KR, et al. Posterolateral versus posterior interbody fusion in lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Clin Spine Surg. 2018;31(9):E446–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wu CH, Wong CB, Chen LH, Niu CC, Tsai TT, Chen WJ. Instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion for patients with degenerative lumbar scoliosis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21:310–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kwon BK, Berta S, Daffner SD, et al. Radiographic analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2003;16:469–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sun J, Wang JJ, Zhang LW, Huang H, Fu NX. Sagittal alignment as predictor of adjacent segment disease after lumbar transforaminal interbody fusion. World Neurosurg. 2018;110:e567–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chitnavis B, Barbagallo G, Selway R, Dardis R, Hussain A, Gullan R. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for revision disc surgery: review of 50 cases in which carbon fiber cages were implanted. J Neurosurg. 2001;95:190–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Brox JI, Sorensen R, Friis A, et al. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine. 2003;28:1913–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mirza SK, Deyo RA. Systematic review of randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion surgery to nonoperative care for treatment of chronic back pain. Spine. 2007;32:816–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, Nordwall A, Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. 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. 2002;27:1131–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sakaura H, Yamashita T, Miwa T, Ohzono K, Ohwada T. Outcomes of 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion for 2-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(1):90–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Enker P, Steffee AD. Interbody fusion and instrumentation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;300:90–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Qureshi R, Puvanesarajah V, Jain A, Shimer AL, Shen FH, Hassanzadeh H. A comparison of anterior and posterior lumbar interbody fusions: complications, readmissions, discharge dispositions, and costs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(24):1865–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Huang KT, Hazzard M, Thomas S, et al. Differences in the outcomes of anterior versus posterior interbody fusion surgery of the lumbar spine: a propensity score-controlled cohort analysis of 10,941 patients. J Clin Neurosci. 2015;22(5):848–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dorward IG, Lenke LG, Bridwell KH, et al. Transforaminal versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion in long deformity constructs: a matched cohort analysis. Spine. 2013;38(12):E755–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Min JH, Jang JS, Lee SH. Comparison of anterior- and posterior-approach instrumented lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:21–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Banagan K, Gelb D, Poelstra K, Ludwig S. Anatomic mapping of lumbar nerve roots during a direct lateral transpsoas approach to the spine: a cadaveric study. Spine. 2011;36:E687–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Ahmadian A, Deukmedjian AR, Abel N, Dakwar E, Uribe JS. Analysis of lumbar plexopathies and nerve injury after lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach: diagnostic standardization. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18:289–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pumberger M, Hughes AP, Huang RR, Sama AA, Cammisa FP, Firardi FP. Neurologic deficit following lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(6):1192–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Arnold P, Anderson K, McGuire R. The lateral transpsoas approach to the lumbar and thoracic spine: a review. Surg Neurol Int. 2012;3(4):198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Laws CJ, Coughlin DG, Lotz JC, Serhan HA, Hu SS. Direct lateral approach to lumbar fusion is a biomechanically equivalent alternative to the anterior approach: an in vitro study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(10):819–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ploumis A, Wu C, Fischer G, et al. Biomechanical comparison of anterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2008;21(2):120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author’s transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982;120:343–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yang EZ, Xu JG, Liu XK, et al. An RCT study comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes with the use of PLIF or TLIF after instrumented reduction in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(5):1587–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. de Kunder SL, van Kuijk SMJ, Rijkers K, et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2017;17(11):1712–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Xu H, Tang H, Guan X, et al. Biomechanical comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis. Neurosurgery. 2013;72:21–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Paik H, Kang DG, Lehman RA Jr, Gaume RE, Ambati DV, Dmitriev AE. The biomechanical consequences of rod reduction on pedicle screws: should it be avoided? Spine J. 2013;13(11):1617–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jaslow IA. Intercorporal bone graft in spinal fusion after disc removal. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1946;82:215–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Sears W. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: restoration of sagittal balance using insert-and-rotate interbody spacers. Spine J. 2005;5:170–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lee JH, Lee JH, Yoon KS, Kang SB, Jo CH. Comparative study of unilateral and bilateral cages with respect to clinical outcomes and stability in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 2008;63:109–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Molinari RW, Sloboda J, Johnstone FL. Are 2 cages needed with instrumented PLIF? A comparison of 1 versus 2 interbody cages in a military population. Am J Orthop. 2003;32:337–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rihn JA, Kirkpatrick K, Albert TJ. Graft options in posterolateral and posterior interbody lumbar fusion. Spine. 2010;35:1629–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Godde S, Fritsch E, Dienst M, Kohn D. Influence of cage geometry on sagittal alignment in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003;28(15):1693–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Khan TR, Pearce KR, McAnany SJ, Peters CM, Gupta MC, Zebala LP. Comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion outcomes in patients receiving rhBMP-2 versus autograft. Spine J. 2018;18(3):439–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Michielsen J, Sys J, Rigaux A, Bertrand C. The effect of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in single-level posterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2013;95(10):873–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Haid RW Jr, Branch CL Jr, Alexander JT, Burkus JK. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein type 2 with cylindrical interbody cages. Spine J. 2004;4:527–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. Spine J. 2011;11:471–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Goodkin R, Laska LL. Vascular and visceral injuries associated with lumbar disc surgery: medicolegal implications. Surg Neurol. 1998;49:358–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Papadoulas S, Konstantinou D, Kourea HP, Kritikos N, Haftouras N, Tsolakis JA. Vascular injury complicating lumbar disc surgery. A systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2002;24:189–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Szolar DH, Preidler KW, Steiner H, et al. Vascular complications in lumbar disk surgery: report of four cases. Neuroradiology. 1996;38:521–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Postacchini R, Cinotti G, Postacchini F. Injury to major abdominal vessels during posterior lumbar interbody fusion. A case report and review of the literature. Spine J. 2013;13:e7–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. van Zitteren M, Fan B, Lohle PN, et al. A shift toward endovascular repair for vascular complications in lumbar disc surgery during the last decade. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27(6):810–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Helgeson MD, Bevevino AJ, Hilibrand AS. Update on the evidence for adjacent segment degeneration and disease. Spine J. 2013;13:342–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Okuda S, Iwasaki M, Miyauchi A, Aono H, Morita M, Yamamoto T. Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after PLIF. Spine. 2004;29:1535–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kumar N, Judith MR, Kumar A, Mishra V, Robert MC. Analysis of stress distribution in lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2005;30:1731–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bertrand G. The “battered” root problem. Orthop Clin N Am. 1975;6:305–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Matsui H, Kitagawa H, Kawaguchi Y, Tsuji H. Physiologic changes of nerve root during posterior lumbar discectomy. Spine. 1995;20:654–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Madan SS, Boeree NR. Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J. 2003;12:567–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG, Eck JC, Murphy RB, Covington LA. Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine. 2001;26:567–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Mehta VA, McGirt MJ, Garces Ambrossi GL, et al. Trans-foraminal versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparison of surgical morbidity. Neurol Res. 2011;33:38–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Desai A, Ball PA, Bekelis K, et al. Surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis in spine patient outcomes research trial: does incidental durotomy affect outcome? Spine. 2012;37:406–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Goodkin R, Laska LL. Unintended “incidental” durotomy during surgery of the lumbar spine: medicolegal implications. Surg Neurol. 1995;43:4–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Epstein NE. The frequency and etiology of intraoperative dural tears in 110 predominantly geriatric patients undergoing multilevel laminectomy with noninstrumented fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20:380–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Eismont FJ, Wiesel SW, Rothman RH. Treatment of dural tears associated with spinal surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 1981;63:1132–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Koo J, Adamson R, Wagner FC Jr, Hrdy DB. A new cause of chronic meningitis: infected lumbar pseudomeningocele. Am J Med. 1989;86:103–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Cammisa FP Jr, Girardi FP, Sangani PK, Parvataneni HK, Cadag S, Sandhu HS. Incidental durotomy in spine surgery. Spine. 2000;25:2663–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Low JC, von Niederhausern B, Rutherford SA, King AT. Pilot study of perioperative accidental durotomy: does the period of postoperative bed rest reduce the incidence of complication? Br J Neurosurg. 2013;27(6):800–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Lin PM. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique: complications and pitfalls. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;193:90–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Proubasta IR, Vallve EQ, Aguilar LF, Villanueva CL, Iglesias JJ. Intraoperative antepulsion of a fusion cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a case report and review of the literature. Spine. 2002;27:E399–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Chen L, Yang H, Tang T. Cage migration in spondylolisthesis treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using BAK cages. Spine. 2005;30:2171–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kimura H, Shikata J, Odate S, Soeda T, Yamamura S. Risk factors for cage retropulsion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of 1070 cases. Spine. 2012;37:1164–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Musluman AM, Yilmaz A, Cansever T, et al. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion versus posterolateral fusion with instrumentation in the treatment of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis: midterm clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14:488–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Raizman NM, O’Brien JR, Poehling-Monaghan KL, Yu WD. Pseudarthrosis of the spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(8):494–503.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Larsen JM, Capen DA. Pseudarthrosis of the lumbar spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 1997;5:153–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Khalid SI, Nunna RS, Maasarani S, et al. Association of osteopenia and osteoporosis with higher rates of pseudarthrosis and revision surgery in adult patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusion. Neurosurg Focus. 2020;49(2):E6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Fogel GR, Toohey JS, Neidre A, Brantigan JW. Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion. Spine J. 2008;8:570–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Sierra-Hoffman M, Jinadatha C, Carpenter JL, Rahm M. Postoperative instrumented spine infections: a retrospective review. South Med J. 2010;103:25–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Sweet FA, Roh M, Sliva C. Intrawound application of vancomycin for prophylaxis in instrumented thoracolumbar fusions: efficacy, drug levels, and patient outcomes. Spine. 2011;36:2084–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Devin CJ, Chotai S, McGirt MJ, et al. Intrawound vancomycin decreases the risk of surgical site infection after posterior spine surgery: a multicenter analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43(1):65–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Ha KY, Kim YH. Postoperative spondylitis after posterior lumbar interbody fusion using cages. Eur Spine J. 2004;13:419–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Mirovsky Y, Floman Y, Smorgick Y, et al. Management of deep wound infection after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007;20:127–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Mehbod AA, Ogilvie JW, Pinto MR, et al. Postoperative deep wound infections in adults after spinal fusion: management with vacuum-assisted wound closure. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18:14–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Jones GA, Butler J, Lieberman I, Schlenk R. Negative-pressure wound therapy in the treatment of complex postoperative spinal wound infections: complications and lessons learned using vacuum-assisted closure. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6:407–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Dumanian GA, Ondra SL, Liu J, Schafer MF, Chao JD. Muscle flap salvage of spine wounds with soft tissue defects or infection. Spine. 2003;28:1203–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, USC Spine Center, Keck Medical School of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Ram Alluri

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Westchester Medical Center, New York Medical College, Hawthorne, NY, USA

    Louis F. Amorosa

  3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Jeffrey A. Rihn

  4. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Todd J. Albert

Authors
  1. Ram Alluri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louis F. Amorosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey A. Rihn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Todd J. Albert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Stryker Spine, Brookfield, CT, USA

    Adam L. Wollowick

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY, USA

    Vishal Sarwahi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Alluri, R., Amorosa, L.F., Rihn, J.A., Albert, T.J. (2023). Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Spondylolisthesis. In: Wollowick, A.L., Sarwahi, V. (eds) Spondylolisthesis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27253-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27253-0_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-27252-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-27253-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation