Introduction: Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis usually entails sacrificing one or both of the facet joints when approached posteriorly.
Emmanuel Bhore +5 more
doaj +2 more sources
Are Ceramic Cages an Option for Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Comparative Biomechanical Numerical Study. [PDF]
ABSTRACT Background The treatment of severe disc pathologies through lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) involves the insertion of an interbody cage into the degenerated disc space, together with a supporting fixation system. Conventional cage materials, such as Ti6Al4V and PEEK, present several limitations, most notably their non‐biodegradability ...
Ninarello D, La Barbera L.
europepmc +2 more sources
Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Osteobiologics for Lumbar Fusion
Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an excellent treatment option for a number of lumbar diseases. LIF can be performed through posterior, transforaminal, anterior, and lateral or oblique approaches. Each technique has its own pearls and pitfalls. Through LIF, segmental stabilization, neural decompression, and deformity correction can be achieved ...
Young-Hoon Kim +11 more
openaire +3 more sources
Lumbar interbody fusion via anterior lumbar interbody fusion versus oblique lumbar interbody fusion versus lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a narrative review for surgeons. [PDF]
Anterior column lumbar interbody fusion using an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF)/anterior-to-psoas fusion (ATP), lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), or combination technique allows insertion of a wide-footprint interbody cage and provides immediate segmental stability, indirect neural decompression ...
Malham GM, Seex KA, Claydon MH.
europepmc +3 more sources
Comparison of PLIF/TLIF and LLIF for two-level degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis
Introduction: In recent years, lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), performed as extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), has also become widely used for anterior-posterior corrective fusion.
Takuma Fukuzawa +11 more
doaj +1 more source
Staged Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Targeting Driver and Compensatory Structural Segments for Adult Degenerative Scoliosis: A Novel Strategy and Early Outcomes. [PDF]
Targeting driver and structural vertebrae via LLIF is an effective, minimally invasive strategy for ADS. It offers substantial deformity correction, symptom relief, and progressive postoperative self‐correction while significantly reducing surgical trauma compared to traditional long‐segment fusions.
Wen T +7 more
europepmc +2 more sources
Evaluation of Outcomes of Posterior lumbar Interbody Fusion for Management of Segmental Degenerative Lumbar Canal Stenosis [PDF]
Background: Lumbar degenerative disorders, such as lumbar spinal stenosis, lumbar disc herniation & lumbar degenerative instability, are prevalent crippling illnesses that occur in the elderly population.
Mostafa Elsayed +2 more
doaj +2 more sources
Comparison of Different Approaches in Lumbosacral Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [PDF]
We aimed to systematically review the literature to analyze the differences in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), focusing on the complications, risk ...
Maximilian Lenz +5 more
doaj +1 more source
An in vitro biomechanical comparison of 2 fusion techniques, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), on cadaveric human spines.To compare the immediate construct stability, in terms of range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone, of ALIF, including 2 separate approaches, and TLIF procedures with posterior ...
Ploumis, Avraam +6 more
openaire +4 more sources
Mini-Open Versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients Aged ≥ 75 Years: Perioperative Surgical Burden and Clinical Outcomes. [PDF]
In 172 patients aged ≥ 75 years undergoing TLIF, mini‐open TLIF (MO‐TLIF) reduced perioperative burden (shorter operative time, less blood loss, lower POD3 CK) and enabled faster early pain/function recovery versus open TLIF, while 3–6 month PROMs and 12‐month fusion and satisfaction were comparable.
Huang Z +6 more
europepmc +2 more sources

