link
Bookmarks
 (0)
Interventional Radiology
Procedures
Spine Procedures
Surgical Approaches
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Jeffrey S. Ross, MD
To access 4,300 diagnoses written by the world's leading experts in radiology, please log in or subscribe.Log inSubscribe
0
0

KEY FACTS

  • Terminology

    • Pre-Procedure

      TERMINOLOGY

      • Abbreviations

        • Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)
          • Anterior approach to the lumbar disc space for placement of wide variety of grafts/disc spacers and instrumentation

      • Advantages

        • The hope: Circumferential fusion with grafting will improve fusion rates and clinical outcomes
          • Anterior fusion places graft in optimum position for load-bearing
            • Load-bearing increases potential for fusion
          • Restores disc height
          • Restores lordosis
          • Restores sagittal balance
          • Avoids paraspinal muscle trauma
            • When combined with minimally invasive posterior fixation
          • Indirect decompression of neural foramen by increasing disc height

      PRE-PROCEDURE

      • Indications

        • Contraindications

          • Pre-Procedure Imaging

            PROCEDURE

            • Procedure Steps

              • Alternative Procedures/Therapies

                POST-PROCEDURE

                • Expected Outcome

                  OUTCOMES

                  • Problems

                    • Complications

                      Selected References

                      1. Strube P et al: Stand-alone anterior versus anteroposterior lumbar interbody single-level fusion after a mean follow-up of 41 months. J Spinal Disord Tech. 25(7):362-9, 2012
                      2. Wang MY et al: Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a US national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 25(6):324-8, 2012
                      3. Anderson DG et al: Anterior interbody arthrodesis with percutaneous posterior pedicle fixation for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 20(8):1323-30, 2011
                      4. Epstein NE: Pros, cons, and costs of INFUSE in spinal surgery. Surg Neurol Int. 2:10, 2011
                      5. Ho JM et al: Toward the establishment of optimal computed tomographic parameters for the assessment of lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 11(7):636-40, 2011
                      6. Lindley EM et al: Complications of axial lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 15(3):273-9, 2011
                      7. Smoljanovic T et al: 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. 92(15):2614-5; author reply 2615-6, 2010
                      8. Hodges SD et al: Intraoperative loosening of Bagby and Kuslich cages during anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord. 13(6):535-7, 2000
                      9. Kuslich SD et al: Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 25(20):2656-62, 2000
                      10. Bagby G: The Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) method of lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 24(17):1857, 1999
                      11. Rajaraman V et al: Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg. 91(1 Suppl):60-4, 1999
                      12. Kuslich SD et al: The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion. History, techniques, and 2-year follow-up results of a United States prospective, multicenter trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 23(11):1267-78; discussion 1279, 1998
                      Related Anatomy
                      Loading...
                      Related Differential Diagnoses
                      Loading...
                      References
                      Tables

                      Tables

                      KEY FACTS

                      • Terminology

                        • Pre-Procedure

                          TERMINOLOGY

                          • Abbreviations

                            • Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)
                              • Anterior approach to the lumbar disc space for placement of wide variety of grafts/disc spacers and instrumentation

                          • Advantages

                            • The hope: Circumferential fusion with grafting will improve fusion rates and clinical outcomes
                              • Anterior fusion places graft in optimum position for load-bearing
                                • Load-bearing increases potential for fusion
                              • Restores disc height
                              • Restores lordosis
                              • Restores sagittal balance
                              • Avoids paraspinal muscle trauma
                                • When combined with minimally invasive posterior fixation
                              • Indirect decompression of neural foramen by increasing disc height

                          PRE-PROCEDURE

                          • Indications

                            • Contraindications

                              • Pre-Procedure Imaging

                                PROCEDURE

                                • Procedure Steps

                                  • Alternative Procedures/Therapies

                                    POST-PROCEDURE

                                    • Expected Outcome

                                      OUTCOMES

                                      • Problems

                                        • Complications

                                          Selected References

                                          1. Strube P et al: Stand-alone anterior versus anteroposterior lumbar interbody single-level fusion after a mean follow-up of 41 months. J Spinal Disord Tech. 25(7):362-9, 2012
                                          2. Wang MY et al: Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a US national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 25(6):324-8, 2012
                                          3. Anderson DG et al: Anterior interbody arthrodesis with percutaneous posterior pedicle fixation for degenerative conditions of the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J. 20(8):1323-30, 2011
                                          4. Epstein NE: Pros, cons, and costs of INFUSE in spinal surgery. Surg Neurol Int. 2:10, 2011
                                          5. Ho JM et al: Toward the establishment of optimal computed tomographic parameters for the assessment of lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 11(7):636-40, 2011
                                          6. Lindley EM et al: Complications of axial lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 15(3):273-9, 2011
                                          7. Smoljanovic T et al: 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. 92(15):2614-5; author reply 2615-6, 2010
                                          8. Hodges SD et al: Intraoperative loosening of Bagby and Kuslich cages during anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord. 13(6):535-7, 2000
                                          9. Kuslich SD et al: Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 25(20):2656-62, 2000
                                          10. Bagby G: The Bagby and Kuslich (BAK) method of lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 24(17):1857, 1999
                                          11. Rajaraman V et al: Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg. 91(1 Suppl):60-4, 1999
                                          12. Kuslich SD et al: The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion. History, techniques, and 2-year follow-up results of a United States prospective, multicenter trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 23(11):1267-78; discussion 1279, 1998
                                          Contact UsStoreTerms and ConditionsRegistered User AgreementPrivacy PolicyHelp