Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected observational data.

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) as a salvage option for lumbar pseudarthrosis following failed posterior lumbar fusion surgery.

Methods

From 2009 to 2013, patient outcome data was collected prospectively over 5 years from 327 patients undergoing ALIF performed by a single surgeon (R.J.M.) with 478 levels performed. Among these, there were 20 cases of failed prior posterior fusion that subsequently underwent ALIF. Visual analog score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form 12-item health survey (SF-12) were measured pre- and postoperatively. The verification of fusion was determined by utilizing a fine-cut computed tomography scan at 12-month follow-up.

Results

There was a significant difference between the preoperative (7.25 ± 0.8) and postoperative (3.1 ± 2.1) VAS scores (p < 0.0001). The ODI scale also demonstrated a statistically significant reduction from preoperative (56.3 ± 16.5) and postoperative (30.4 ± 19.3) scores (p < 0.0001). The SF-12 scores were significantly improved after ALIF salvage surgery: Physical Health Composite Score (32.18 ± 5.5 versus 41.07 ± 9.67, p = 0.0003) and Mental Health Composite Score (36.62 ± 12.25 versus 50.89 ± 10.86, p = 0.0001). Overall, 19 patients (95%) achieved successful fusion.

Conclusions

Overall, our results suggest that the ALIF procedure results not only in radiographic improvements in bony fusion but in significant improvements in the patient's physical and mental experience of pain secondary to lumbar pseudarthrosis. Future multicenter registry studies and randomized controlled trials should be conducted to confirm the long-term benefit of ALIF as a salvage option for failed posterior lumbar fusion.

Keywords

anterior lumbar interbody fusion ALIF posterior lumbar fusion pseudarthrosis nonunion

Introduction

Spinal fusion has evolved as a treatment modality for the management of spinal conditions that require stabilization, which include symptomatic degenerative disk disease, infection, scoliosis, traumatic injuries, and neoplasia.¹ Several techniques are available to achieve stabilization of the lumbar spine, which include the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), direct lateral interbody fusion, posterolateral onlay (intertransverse) fusion, and facet screw or pedicle screw/rod placement.² In addition, minimally invasive variations of these techniques have also been developed to minimize soft tissue dissection with the intention of minimizing intraoperative blood loss and complications as well as reducing postoperative pain and subsequent hospital stay.³,⁴,⁵,⁶,⁷,⁸,⁹,¹⁰

Fusion of the affected segments is influenced by surgical technique including end plate preparation, by patient factors such as smoking and diabetes, and by the choice of bone graft, all of which are critical in influencing the degree and rate of fusion.¹¹ If the fusion is incomplete, there is the risk of developing a painful pseudarthrosis of which there are four types: atrophic, transverse, shingle, and complex.¹² The transverse type is the most common,¹³ where there is a horizontal discontinuity despite remodeled bone. The source of pain is partly attributed to the sclerotic bone adjacent to fibrous soft tissue accompanied by microfractures of cancellous bone and motion of this segment.¹² Although difficult to diagnose, pseudarthrosis following lumbar fusion surgery is one of the most common complications,¹⁴ and together with the chronic pain and disability that ensues,¹³,¹⁵,¹⁶ is a common indication for revision surgery.¹⁷,¹⁸

Despite its relatively high prevalence, there is a lack of robust clinical evidence on salvage options for lumbar pseudorthrosis.¹⁹ A prospective study was conducted to assess the radiographic and functional outcomes of ALIF as a salvage option for pseudarthrosis following posterior lumbar fusion surgery.

Methods

Institutional Ethics Board Review approval was obtained from the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, New South Wales Australia–Northern Sector (SESLHD-NS) ethics committee, Ref: HREC 11/183. From 2009 to 2013, patient outcome data was collected prospectively over 5 years from 327 patients undergoing ALIF performed by a single surgeon (R.J.M.) with 478 levels performed. Among these were 20 cases of failed prior posterior fusion that subsequently underwent ALIF and were retrospectively analyzed. Inclusion criteria specified patients who were at least 9 months post–posterior fusion with no evidence of infection or malignancy. Symptomatic nonunion was diagnosed with a combination of the following: movement on flexion/extension X-rays at the previous operative level, halo around the pedicle screws on fine-cut computed tomography (CT) scan, no evidence of bone integration through or around the interbody implants, and uptake on bone scan consistent with nonunion.

Clinical factors including smoking, diabetes, and worker's compensation were recorded. Clinical parameters such as the visual analog score (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Short Form 12-item health survey (SF-12) were measured pre- and postoperatively. The verification of fusion was determined by utilizing a fine-cut CT scan at 12 months postoperatively, performed and agreed on by an independent neuroradiologist and a senior spine surgeon (R.J.M.). Statistical analysis using Student t test was used to analyze the clinical parameters from the outcome questionnaires.

Results

From the prospective database of ALIF procedures, 20 patients had previous failed posterior fusion (either TLIF or PLIF) and thus met the inclusion criteria of the present study. The baseline characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 1. The patient group had revision surgery on average 17.5 months (range: 9 to 36) after the initial posterior fusion over a total of 27 lumbar spinal levels. There was an equal gender distribution with an average age of 56 years (range: 32 to 81) with 5 (25%) smokers, 3 (15%) diabetics, and 4 (20%) patients receiving workers’ compensation (Table 1). Bone grafts included the following²⁰: 1 (5%) received autograft and 8 (40%) received iFactor (Cerapedics, Inc., Denver, CO, United States), 11 (55%) patients received allograft and INFUSE (Medtronic, Memphis, TN, United States), and the remainder used allograft and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-7 (osteogenic protein 1; Stryker, Boston, MA, United States; n = 2, 10%). There were 2 postoperative complications including 1 hernia and 1 case of postoperative hematuria. No postoperative infections occurred.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of included patients

Patient	Gender	Age (y)	WC	DM	Smoker	Time to revision (mo)	Level	Number of levels	Bone graft (conductive)	Bone graft (inductive)	Fusion	Complications	Infections
1	F	78	N	N	N	15	L5–S1	1	iF	iF	Y	N	N
2	M	47	N	N	N	18	L5–S1	1	iF	iF	Y	N	N
3	F	46	N	N	N	9	L3–4	1	Alo	IN	Y	N	N
4	M	63	Y	N	N	15	L5–S1	1	iF	iF	N	N	N
5	F	63	N	N	N	12	L4–5 + L5–S1	2	iF	iF	Y	Hernia	N
6	F	67	N	N	N	18	L5–S1	1	Alo	IN	Y	N	N
7	M	52	N	N	N	18	L3–4 + L4–5	2	iF	iF	Y	N	N
8	M	48	Y	N	Y	24	L5–S1	1	iF	iF	Y	N	N
9	M	41	Y	N	Y	24	L5–S1	1	Alo	IN	Y	N	N
10	M	64	N	Y	N	18	L3-S1	3	Alo	IN	Y	N	N
11	M	65	N	Y	N	18	L5–S1	1	iF	iF	Y	N	N
12	M	42	Y	N	Y	12	L5–S1	1	Alo	IN	Y	N	N
13	M	58	N	N	N	20	L3–4	1	iF	iF	Y	N	N
14	F	67	N	Y	N	18	L4–5	1	Alo	IN	Y	N	N
15	M	38	N	N	Y	12	L4–5	1	Alo	IN	Y	N	N
16	F	47	N	N	Y	18	L4–5 + L5–S1	2	Alo	IN	Y	Post op hematuria	N
17	F	32	N	N	N	9	L4–5	1	Aut	Aut	Y	N	N
18	F	59	N	N	N	36	L5–S1	1	Alo	IN	Y	N	N
19	F	81	N	N	N	12	L4–5	1	Alo	OP1	Y	N	N
20	F	59	N	N	N	24	L5–S1	1	Alo	OP1	Y	N	N
Total	10 (50%)	56 (32–81)^a	4 (20%)	3 (15%)	5 (25%)	17.5 (9–36)^a	–	27	–	–	19 (95%)	2 (10%)	0 (%)

Abbreviations: Alo, allograft; Aut, autograft; DM, diabetes mellitus; IN, INFUSE (Medtronic, Memphis, TN, United States); N, no; iF, iFactor (Cerapedics, Inc., Denver, CO, United States), OP1, osteogenic protein 1 (Stryker, Boston, MA, United States); WC, worker's compensation; Y, yes.

Average (range).

Clinical outcome parameters showed overall mean improvements in the VAS (Fig. 1), ODI (Fig. 2), and SF12 (Fig. 3) scales. There was a significant difference between the preoperative (7.25 ± 0.8) and postoperative (3.1 ± 2.1) VAS scores (p < 0.0001). The ODI scale also demonstrated a statistically significant reduction from preoperative (56.3 ± 16.5) and postoperative (30.4 ± 19.3) scores (p < 0.0001). Likewise, the SF-12 scores also demonstrated statistically significant improvement after ALIF surgery: Physical Health Composite Score (32.18 ± 5.5 versus 41.07 ± 9.67, p = 0.0003) and Mental Health Composite Score (36.62 ± 12.25 versus 50.89 ± 10.86, p = 0.0001). The SF-12 total score was significantly higher after ALIF fusion (68.78 ± 12.39 versus 93.21 ± 16.16, p < 0.0001).

Fig. 1

Preoperative versus postoperative visual analog score (VAS) for back pain following anterior lumbar interbody fusion revision surgery.

Fig. 2

Preoperative versus postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores following anterior lumbar interbody fusion revision surgery.

Fig. 3

Preoperative versus postoperative Short Form 12-item health survey (SF-12) scores following anterior lumbar interbody fusion revision surgery. Significantly higher postoperative SF-12 PCS scores and MCS scores were observed postoperatively compared to preoperative scores. PCS, Physical Health Composite Score; MCS, Mental Health Composite Score.

Overall, 19 patients (95%) achieved successful fusion, as verified by at least 12-month follow-up with imaging. Radiographic improvements in bony fusions were confirmed by X-ray and CT, as demonstrated in Figs. 4,5 to 6.

Fig. 4

Revision anterior lumbar interbody fusion performed 18 months after initial L3–L4 posterior onlay fusion. Arrow demonstrates lack of bone union across the motion segment.

Fig. 5

Sequence of events with nonunion. A 56-year-old woman presented with nonunion following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) at L3–L4. (A) TLIF cage with no bone integration through implant. (B) Intraoperative X-ray demonstrating removal of TLIF cage and insertion of Synfix (Synthes Bettlach, Bettlach, Switzerland) anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). (C) Solid union of the L3–L4 motion segment can be seen at 12 months post-ALIF.

Fig. 6

Utility of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for multilevel nonunion. (A) X-ray of multilevel posterior onlay fusion. (B) Intraoperative X-ray with three-level ALIF implants. (C) Computed tomography scan 12 months postoperatively with solid union through all three levels.

Discussion

The aims of revision fusion surgery include correcting any technical errors, placement of superior graft material, maximizing end plate preparation, enhancing the biological environment for fusion, and improving biomechanical environment.¹⁵,¹⁶,²¹ Although the literature demonstrates that ALIF has been used to correct previously failed fusions, the overall number of cases for ALIF as an indication for pseudarthrosis is low. Other approaches for revision surgery have been demonstrated to be costly and difficult to perform with varied and unpredictable outcomes.¹³

The indications for ALIF dictate its utility as a surgical option for the management of pseudarthrosis as the technique offers several advantages. First, the direct visualization and efficient access to the anterior column allows for an easier and complete diskectomy while offering better distraction to increase the neuroforaminal volume and to allow the placement of a large interbody fusion device.²²,²³,²⁴,²⁵,²⁶,²⁷,²⁸,²⁹,³⁰,³¹ This technique achieves higher fusion rates,²⁶,²⁸,³² restores lumbar lordosis, and reduces anterior listhesis as well as coronal and sagittal balance,²²,²³,²⁹ leading to reduced pain.²⁵,³³ Second, placement of the intervertebral fusion device and graft material in the anterior column redistributes the load anteriorly providing greater stability,²¹ placing the graft in direct compression together with contact against a larger osseous end plate surface area with a larger vascular supply, thereby increasing the fusion potential.²⁹ Third, there is reduced intraoperative blood loss, reduced operating times,²²,²⁵,²⁶ and reduced iatrogenic trauma to the paraspinal musculature, posterior spinal nerves, and posterior bony elements.²⁶,²⁸,²⁹ The authors therefore report on the utility of ALIF as a salvage procedure for painful established pseudarthrosis following posterior lumbar fusion.

Few studies have reported outcomes for revision or repair of the failed posterior lumbar fusion. In a study by Wetzel and LaRocca,³⁴ 9 of 12 patients developed pseudarthrosis from previous PLIF interventions. After additional procedures for repair of pseudarthrosis and repeat decompression, only 5 patients reported improved pain relief, and 7 patients were thought to have a solid fusion. No correlation was detected between solid fusion revision and relief of pain. In another study, Highhouse et al retrospectively reviewed 6 patients with failed L4–L5 PLIF interventions.³⁵ After 38.5 months of follow-up after lateral intertransverse process fusions for salvage of the failed fusion, five of the six cases were still radiographically fused. Another recent study suggested similar outcomes for anterior versus anteroposterior approaches for salvage of pseudarthrosis following TLIF²⁰; however, it is not clear whether these salvage procedures have directly improved radiographic and functional outcomes of these patients compared with presalvage. Strengths of the present study include being one of the few studies investigating ALIF as a salvage option for pseudarthrosis. Its sample size is relatively larger than prior case series, and its prospective design allows a better comparison between preoperative and postoperative VAS back pain, ODI, and SF-12 scores.

The present study is limited by several constraints. First, the small sample size may not provide adequate statistical power to detect complication rates. In this study, only 2 of 20 (10%) patients reported complications, which is considerably lower than the 40% complication rate (12 of 30 patients) in a previous study using posterolateral revision fusion with stand-alone metallic cages.³⁶ Future multicenter registry studies with large population samples will likely determine more accurately the true complication rate. Second, the study population had confounders including smoking status, diabetes, and workers’ compensation. These factors are known to affect the outcomes of both primary and revision fusion surgery.³⁷,³⁸ Given the small cohort size of this study,³⁹ the effects of these confounders on the outcomes of revision ALIF surgery for nonunion could not be adequately assessed and should be further investigated in future studies. Future studies should also prospectively compare ALIF versus TLIF approaches for salvage of pseudarthrosis following posterior lumbar fusion surgery. Increased follow-up would also allow assessment of long-term radiographic and functional outcomes of ALIF revision for pseudarthrosis.

Conclusions

Overall, our results suggest that the ALIF procedure results not only in radiographic improvements in bony fusion but also in significant improvements in the patient's physical and mental experience of pain secondary to lumbar pseudarthrosis. The advantages offered by the ALIF technique are theoretically sound, and it appears to be a viable option for salvage operations and is safe in well-trained hands. Our strong recommendation is that ALIF be considered as a salvage technique for patients who present with painful pseudarthrosis following posterior lumbar fusion.

Disclosures

Ralph J. Mobbs, Royalties: Stryker Spine; Stock/stock options: Medtronic, J&J

Kevin Phan, none

Ganesha K. Thayaparan, none

Prashanth J. Rao, none

Footnotes

Note

Ralph J. Mobbs and Kevin Phan contributed equally.

References

Hanley

E N

The indications for lumbar spinal fusion with and without instrumentation

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995 20 (24, Suppl): 143S–153S

Foley

K T

Holly

L T

Schwender

J D

Minimally invasive lumbar fusion

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003 28 (15, Suppl): S26–S35

Gejo

Matsui

Kawaguchi

Ishihara

Tsuji

Serial changes in trunk muscle performance after posterior lumbar surgery

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1999 24 10 1023–1028

Kawaguchi

Matsui

Tsuji

Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. A histologic and enzymatic analysis

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996 21 8 941–944

Kawaguchi

Matsui

Tsuji

Back muscle injury after posterior lumbar spine surgery. Part 2: Histologic and histochemical analyses in humans

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994 19 22 2598–2602

Mayer

T G

Vanharanta

Gatchel

R J

, et al.

Comparison of CT scan muscle measurements and isokinetic trunk strength in postoperative patients

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989 14 1 33–36

Rantanen

Hurme

Falck

, et al.

The lumbar multifidus muscle five years after surgery for a lumbar intervertebral disc herniation

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993 18 5 568–574

Sihvonen

Herno

Paljärvi

Airaksinen

Partanen

Tapaninaho

Local denervation atrophy of paraspinal muscles in postoperative failed back syndrome

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993 18 5 575–581

Styf

J R

Willén

The effects of external compression by three different retractors on pressure in the erector spine muscles during and after posterior lumbar spine surgery in humans

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998 23 3 354–358

10.

Mobbs

R J

Chung

Rao

P J

Bone graft substitutes for anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Orthop Surg 2013 5 2 77–85

11.

Heggeness

M H

Esses

S I

Classification of pseudarthroses of the lumbar spine

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991 16 (8, Suppl): S449–S454

12.

Etminan

Girardi

F P

Khan

S N

Cammisa

F P

Revision strategies for lumbar pseudarthrosis

Orthop Clin North Am 2002 33 2 381–392

13.

Dede

Thuillier

Pekmezci

, et al.

Revision surgery for lumbar pseudarthrosis

Spine J 2015 15 5 977–982

14.

Ondra

S L

Marzouk

Revision strategies for lumbar pseudarthrosis

Neurosurg Focus 2003 15 3 E9

15.

Gertzbein

S D

Hollopeter

M R

Hall

Pseudarthrosis of the lumbar spine. Outcome after circumferential fusion

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998 23 21 2352–2356 , discussion 2356–2357

16.

Martin

B I

Mirza

S K

Comstock

B A

Gray

D T

Kreuter

Deyo

R A

Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007 32 3 382–387

17.

R W

Jaglal

Axcell

Anderson

A population-based study of reoperations after back surgery

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997 22 19 2265–2270 , discussion 2271

18.

Mobbs

R J

Loganathan

Yeung

Rao

P J

Indications for anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Orthop Surg 2013 5 3 153–163

19.

Burke

P J

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Radiol Technol 2001 72 5 423–430

20.

Vargas-Soto

H A

Mehbod

Mullaney

K J

, et al.

Salvage procedures for pseudarthrosis after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)-anterior-only versus anterior-posterior surgery: a clinical and radiological outcome study

J Surg Orthop Adv 2009 18 4 200–204

21.

Pradhan

B B

Nassar

J A

Delamarter

R B

Wang

J C

Single-level lumbar spine fusion: a comparison of anterior and posterior approaches

J Spinal Disord Tech 2002 15 5 355–361

22.

Strube

Hoff

Hartwig

Perka

C F

Gross

Putzier

Stand-alone anterior versus anteroposterior lumbar interbody single-level fusion after a mean follow-up of 41 months

J Spinal Disord Tech 2012 25 7 362–369

23.

Matgé

Leclercq

T A

Rationale for interbody fusion with threaded titanium cages at cervical and lumbar levels. Results on 357 cases

Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2000 142 4 425–433 , discussion 434

24.

Kim

J S

Kim

D H

Lee

S H

, et al.

Comparison study of the instrumented circumferential fusion with instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion as a surgical procedure for adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis

World Neurosurg 2010 73 5 565–571

25.

Shim

J H

Kim

W S

Kim

J H

Kim

D H

Hwang

J H

Park

C K

Comparison of instrumented posterolateral fusion versus percutaneous pedicle screw fixation combined with anterior lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients with L5–S1 isthmic spondylolisthesis and foraminal stenosis

J Neurosurg Spine 2011 15 3 311–319

26.

Gumbs

A A

Bloom

N D

Bitan

F D

Hanan

S H

Open anterior approaches for lumbar spine procedures

Am J Surg 2007 194 1 98–102

27.

Mummaneni

P V

Haid

R W

Rodts

G E

Lumbar interbody fusion: state-of-the-art technical advances. Invited submission from the Joint Section Meeting on Disorders of the Spine and Peripheral Nerves, March 2004

J Neurosurg Spine 2004 1 1 24–30

28.

Chen

Fay

L A

Lok

Yuan

Edwards

W T

Yuan

H A

Increasing neuroforaminal volume by anterior interbody distraction in degenerative lumbar spine

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995 20 1 74–79

29.

Dennis

Watkins

Landaker

Dillin

Springer

Comparison of disc space heights after anterior lumbar interbody fusion

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989 14 8 876–878

30.

Shen

F H

Samartzis

Khanna

A J

Anderson

D G

Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar interbody fusions

Orthop Clin North Am 2007 38 3 373–386 , abstract vi

31.

Lee

C S

Hwang

C J

Lee

D H

Kim

Y T

Lee

H S

Fusion rates of instrumented lumbar spinal arthrodesis according to surgical approach: a systematic review of randomized trials

Clin Orthop Surg 2011 3 1 39–47

32.

Truumees

Majid

Brkaric

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of mechanical low back pain

Semin Spine Surg 2008 20 2 113–125

33.

Harmon

P H

Anterior excision and vertebral body fusion operation for intervertebral disk syndromes of the lower lumbar spine: three-to five-year results in 244 cases

Clin Orthop Relat Res 1963 26 26 107–127

34.

Wetzel

F T

LaRocca

The failed posterior lumbar interbody fusion

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991 16 7 839–845

35.

Highhouse

M E

Schultz

R T

Dall

B E

Lateral intertransverse process single-level fusion for salvage of the unstable failed posterior lumbar interbody fusion

J Spinal Disord 1996 9 1 59–63

36.

Cassinelli

E H

Wallach

Hanscom

Vogt

Kang

J D

Prospective clinical outcomes of revision fusion surgery in patients with pseudarthrosis after posterior lumbar interbody fusions using stand-alone metallic cages

Spine J 2006 6 4 428–434

37.

Lauerman

W C

Bradford

D S

Ogilvie

J W

Transfeldt

E E

Results of lumbar pseudarthrosis repair

J Spinal Disord 1992 5 2 149–157

38.

Carpenter

C T

Dietz

J W

Leung

K Y

Hanscom

D A

Wagner

T A

Repair of a pseudarthrosis of the lumbar spine. A functional outcome study

J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996 78 5 712–720

39.

Phan

Tian

D H

Cao

Black

Yan

T D

Systematic review and meta-analysis: techniques and a guide for the academic surgeon

Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2015 4 2 112–122

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion as a Salvage Technique for Pseudarthrosis following Posterior Lumbar Fusion Surgery

Abstract

Study Design

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Disclosures Ralph J. Mobbs, Royalties: Stryker Spine; Stock/stock options: Medtronic, J&J Kevin Phan, none Ganesha K. Thayaparan, none Prashanth J. Rao, none

Disclosures

Footnotes

Note

References

Disclosures

Ralph J. Mobbs, Royalties: Stryker Spine; Stock/stock options: Medtronic, J&J

Kevin Phan, none

Ganesha K. Thayaparan, none

Prashanth J. Rao, none