Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lateral versus posterior approaches to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies–systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

The lateral lumbar interbody fusion arose as a revolutionary approach to treating several spinal pathologies because the techniques were able to promote indirect decompression and lordosis restoration through a minimally invasive approach allowing for reduced blood loss and early recovery for patients. However, it is still not clear how the technique compares to other established approaches for treating spinal degenerative diseases, such as TLIF, PLIF, and PLF.

Material and methods

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published in the last 10 years comparing lateral approaches to posterior techniques. The authors included articles that compared the LLIF technique to one or more posterior approaches, treating only degenerative pathologies, and containing at least one of the key outcomes of the study. Exclusion articles that were not original and the ones that the authors could not obtain the full text; also articles without the possibility to calculate the standard deviation or mean were excluded. For count variables, the odds ratio was used, and for continuous variables, the standard means difference (SMD) was used, and the choice between random or fixed-effects model was made depending on the presence or not of significant (p < 0.05) heterogeneity in the sample.

Results

Twenty-four articles were included in the quantitative review. As for the intra-/perioperative variables, the lateral approaches showed a significant reduction in blood loss (SMD–1.56, p < 0.001) and similar operative time (SMD =  − 0.33, p = 0.24). Moreover, the use of the lateral approaches showed a tendency to lead to reduced hospitalization days (SMD =  − 0.15, p = 0.09), with significantly reduced odds ratios of complications (0.53, p = 0.01). As for the clinical outcomes, both approaches showed similar improvement both at improvement as for the last follow-up value, either in ODI or in VAS-BP. Finally, when analyzing the changes in segmental lordosis and lumbar lordosis, the lateral technique promoted significantly higher correction in both outcomes (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Lateral approaches can promote significant radiological correction and similar clinical improvement while reducing surgical blood loss and postoperative complications.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 

  2. Mayer HM (1976) A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 22:691–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 

  4. Pimenta L, Tohmeh A, Jones D, Amaral R, Marchi L, Oliveira L, Pittman BC Jr, Bae H (2018) Rational decision making in a wide scenario of different minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion approaches and devices. J Spine Surg 4:142

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 

  6. Lehmen JA, Gerber EJ (2015) MIS lateral spine surgery: a systematic literature review of complications, outcomes, and economics. Eur Spine J 24(Suppl 3):287–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Choy W, Barrington N, Garcia RM, Kim RB, Rodriguez H, Lam S, Dahdaleh N, Smith ZA (2017) Risk factors for medical and surgical complications following single-level ALIF. Global Spine J 7:141–147

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lundh A, Gøtzsche PC (2008) Recommendations by cochrane review groups for assessment of the risk of bias in studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 8:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 30 Mar 2022

  10. Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G (2019) How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health 22:153–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pustejovsky JE, Rodgers MA (2019) Testing for funnel plot asymmetry of standardized mean differences. Res Synth Methods 10:57–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harbord RM, Harris RJ, Sterne JAC (2009) Updated tests for small-study effects in meta-analyses. Stata J 9:197–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0900900202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) A nonparametric, “trim and fill” Method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 95:89–98

    Google Scholar 

  14. Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56:455–463

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L (2007) Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study heterogeneity. Stat Med 26:4544–4562

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lovakov A, Agadullina ER (2021) Empirically derived guidelines for effect size interpretation in social psychology. Eur J Soc Psychol 51:485–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jacob KC, Patel MR, Ribot MA, Prabhu MC, Pawlowski H, Vanjani NN, Singh K (2022) Single-level TLIF Versus LLIF at L4–5: a comparison of patient-reported outcomes and recovery ratios. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 30:e495–e505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaliya-Perumal AK, Soh TLT, Tan M, Oh JYL (2022) Early postoperative loss of disc height following transforaminal and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a radiographic analysis. Asian Spine J 16:471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Parrish JM, Jenkins NW, Brundage TS, Hrynewycz NM, Podnar J, Buvanendran A, Singh K (2020) Outpatient minimally invasive lumbar fusion using multimodal analgesic management in the ambulatory surgery setting. Int J Spine Surg 14:970

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hiyama A, Katoh H, Sakai D, Tanaka M, Sato M, Watanabe M (2020) Short-term comparison of preoperative and postoperative pain after indirect decompression surgery and direct decompression surgery in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-020-76028-Y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Nakashima H, Kanemura T, Satake K et al (2020) Patient-reported quality of life following posterior lumbar interbody fusion or indirect decompression using lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 45:E1172–E1178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kudo Y, Okano I, Toyone T et al (2020) Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in revision surgery for restenosis after posterior decompression. Neurosurg Focus 49:E11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Park HY, Kim YH, Ha KY, Sl K, Min HK, Oh IS, Seo JY, Chang DG, Park JT (2019) Minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion for clinical adjacent segment pathology: a comparative study with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Spine Surg 32:E426–E433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nakashima H, Kanemura T, Satake K, Ishikawa Y, Ouchida J, Segi N, Yamaguchi H, Imagama S (2019) Changes in sagittal alignment following short-level lumbar interbody fusion: comparison between posterior and lateral lumbar interbody fusions. Asian Spine J 13:904

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hartman C, Hemphill C, Godzik J, Walker CT, Wewel JT, Turner JD, Uribe JS (2019) Analysis of cost and 30-day outcomes in single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and less invasive, stand-alone lateral transpsoas interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 122:e1037–e1040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jain D, Verma K, Mulvihill J, Mizutani J, Tay B, Burch S, Deviren V (2018) Comparison of stand-alone, transpsoas lateral interbody fusion at L3–4 and cranial vs transforaminal interbody fusion at L3–4 and L4–5 for the treatment of lumbar adjacent segment disease. Int J Spine Surg 12:469

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Schadler P, Derman P, Lee L, Do H, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP, Sama AA, Shue J, Koutsoumbelis S, Hughes AP (2018) Does the addition of either a lateral or posterior interbody device to posterior instrumented lumbar fusion decrease cost over a 6-year period? Global Spine J 8:471

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Verla T, Winnegan L, Mayer R, Cherian J, Yaghi N, Palejwala A, Omeis I (2018) Minimally invasive transforaminal versus direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion: effect on return to work, narcotic use, and quality of life. World Neurosurg 116:e321–e328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ricciardi L, Stifano V, Proietti L, Perna A, Della Pepa GM, La Rocca G, Olivi A, Polli FM (2018) Intraoperative and postoperative segmental lordosis mismatch: analysis of 3 fusion techniques. World Neurosurg 115:e659–e663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Louie PK, Haws BE, Khan JM, Markowitz J, Movassaghi K, Ferguson J, Lopez GD, An HS, Phillips FM (2019) Comparison of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion versus open laminectomy and posterolateral instrumented fusion in the treatment of adjacent segment disease following previous lumbar fusion surgery. Spine 44:E1461–E1469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee CW, Yoon KJ, Ha SS (2017) Which approach is advantageous to preventing development of adjacent segment disease? Comparative analysis of 3 different lumbar interbody fusion techniques (ALIF, LLIF, and PLIF) in L4–5 spondylolisthesis. World Neurosurg 105:612–622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kono Y, Gen H, Sakuma Y, Koshika Y (2018) Comparison of clinical and radiologic results of mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and extreme lateral interbody fusion indirect decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Asian Spine j 12:356–364

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Gandhoke GS, Shin HM, Chang YF, Tempel Z, Gerszten PC, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS (2016) A cost-effectiveness comparison between open transforaminal and minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusions using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at 2-year follow-up. Neurosurgery 78:585–593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Isaacs RE, Sembrano JN, Tohmeh AG (2016) Two-year comparative outcomes of MIS lateral and MIS transforaminal interbody fusion in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis: part II: radiographic findings. Spine 41(Suppl 8):s133–s144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Saadeh YS, Joseph JR, Smith BW, Kirsch MJ, Sabbagh AM, Park P (2019) Comparison of segmental lordosis and global spinopelvic alignment after single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 126:e1374–e1378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ohba T, Ebata S, Haro H (2017) Comparison of serum markers for muscle damage, surgical blood loss, postoperative recovery, and surgical site pain after extreme lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screws or traditional open posterior lumbar interbody fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12891-017-1775-Y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ahlquist S, Park HY, Gatto J, Shamie AN, Park DY (2018) Does approach matter? A comparative radiographic analysis of spinopelvic parameters in single-level lumbar fusion. Spine J 18:1999–2008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chong EY, Tong Tan LY, Chong CS, Yeo W, Siang Koh DT, Jiang L, Guo CM, Cheong Soh RC (2022) Radiological and clinical outcomes comparing 2-level mis lateral and mis transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis. Global Spine J. https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682221132745/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_21925682221132745-FIG3.JPEG

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ko MJ, Park SW, Kim YB (2019) Correction of spondylolisthesis by lateral lumbar interbody fusion compared with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at L4–5. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 62:422

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Tan MWP, Sayampanathan AA, Jiang L, Guo CM (2020) Comparison of outcomes between single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Spine Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Yingsakmongkol W, Jitpakdee K, Varakornpipat P, Choentrakool C, Tanasansomboon T, Limthongkul W, Singhatanadgige W, Kotheeranurak V (2022) Clinical and radiographic comparisons among minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion: a comparison with three-way matching. Asian Spine J 1976–1902

  42. Rothrock RJ, McNeill IT, Yaeger K, Oermann EK, Cho SK, Caridi JM (2018) Lumbar lordosis correction with interbody fusion: systematic literature review and analysis. World Neurosurg 118:21–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Keorochana G, Setrkraising K, Woratanarat P, Arirachakaran A, Kongtharvonskul J (2018) Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev 41:755–770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There was no funding for this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Rodrigo Amaral, Gabriel Pokorny, Fernando Marcelino, Rafael Moriguchi, Jullyene Pokorny, Igor Barreira, Weby Mizael, Marcelo Yozo, Sebastião Fragoso & Luiz Pimenta

Authors
  1. Rodrigo Amaral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriel Pokorny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fernando Marcelino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rafael Moriguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jullyene Pokorny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Igor Barreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Weby Mizael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marcelo Yozo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Sebastião Fragoso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Luiz Pimenta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel Pokorny.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Dr. Luiz Pimenta and Dr. Rodrigo Amaral receive consultancy fees from Atec.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (TIFF 22559 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amaral, R., Pokorny, G., Marcelino, F. et al. Lateral versus posterior approaches to treat degenerative lumbar pathologies–systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature. Eur Spine J 32, 1655–1677 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07619-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07619-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation