SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.7 número2EditorialAn approach to failed lumbar surgery índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados



Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google


SA Orthopaedic Journal

versión On-line ISSN 2309-8309
versión impresa ISSN 1681-150X

SA orthop. j. vol.7 no.2 Centurion abr./jun. 2008




Lumbar fusion - indications and surgical options



RN Dunn

MBChB(UCT), MMed(UCT)Orth, FCS(SA)Orth. Head of Spinal Services, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Cape Town





The sacrifice of motion to achieve spinal stability and pain relief has been practised since the early 20th century by means of iatrogenically induced ankylosis or fusion. Initially this was practised in the management of Pott's disease and indications have been expanded over the years to include trauma, deformity and degenerative conditions. In the last few decades there has been a proliferation of options as regards surgical technique and instrumentation. This often overwhelms the surgeon where more is perceived to be better, yet there is limited evidence that this is in fact so.



“Full text available only in PDF format”




1. Mirza SK, Deyo RA. Systematic review of randomised trials comparing lumbar fusion surgery to non-operative care for the treatment of chronic back pain. Spine 2007 Apr 1; 32(7):816-23.         [ Links ]

2. White AA, Panjabi MM. Clinical biomechanics of the spine. Philadelphia. Lippincott 1978 p35.         [ Links ]

3. McCulloch JA. Uninstrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion for single level isolated disc resorption and/or degenerative disc disease. J Spinal Disorder 1999;12(1):34-9.         [ Links ]

4. Zdeblick TA. A prospective randomised study of lumbar fusions. Spine 1993;18:983-91.         [ Links ]

5. Kanayama M, Cunningham BW, Sefter JC et al. Does spinal instrumentation influence the healing process of posterolateral fusion? Spine 1999 Jun 1;24(11):1058-65.         [ Links ]

6. McAfee P, Forey ID, Suttlin CE et al. Device related osteoporosis with spinal instrumentation. Spine 1989 14 Sept.         [ Links ]

7. Andersen T, Christiansen FB, Hansen ES, Bunger C. Pain 5 years after instrumented and non-instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 2003; 12(4):393-9.         [ Links ]

8. Van Tulder MW, Koes B, Seitsalo, Malmivaara A. Outcome of invasive treatment modalities on back pain and sciatica: an evidence-based review. Eur Spine J 2006 15 Jan;Supp 1:S82-92 .         [ Links ]

9. Wang JC, Mummaneni PV, Haid RW. Current treatment strategies of the painful lumbar motion segment. Posterolateral fusion versus interbody fusion. Spine 2005;30(165):S33-43.         [ Links ]

10. Kulkarni SS, Lowery GL, Ross RE et al. Arterial complications following ALIF: report of 8 cases. Eur Spine J 2003 Feb 12;(1):48-54.         [ Links ]

11. Hseih PC, Koski TR, O'Shaughnessy BA. ALIF in comparison with TLIF: implications for restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine 2007;7(4):379-86.         [ Links ]



Dr RN Dunn
Head of Spinal Services, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery. University of Cape Town
PO Box 30086, Tokai, 7966
Tel: (021) 404-5108; Fax: 086 671 5294

Creative Commons License Todo el contenido de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons