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 factors, and fusion rate of each approach. Spinal fusion surgery is a well-established surgical procedure for a variety of indications, and different approaches developed. The various approaches and their advantages, as well as approach-related pathology and complications, are well investigated in spinal surgery. Focusing only on lumbosacral fusion, the comparative studies of different approaches remain fewer in numbers. We systematically reviewed the literature on the complications associated with lumbosacral interbody fusion. Only the PLIF, ALIF, or TLIF approaches and studies published within the last decade (2007–2017) were included. The exclusion criteria in this study were oblique lumbar interbody fusion, extreme lateral interbody fusion, more than one procedure per patient, and reported patient numbers less than 10. The outcome variables were indications, fusion rates, operation time, perioperative complications, and clinical outcome by means of Visual Analog Scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association score. Five prospective, 17 retrospective, and two comparative studies that investigated the lumbosacral region were included. Mean fusion rates were 91,4%. ALIF showed a higher operation time, while PLIF resulted in greater blood loss. In all approaches, significant improvements in the clinical outcome were achieved, with ALIF showing slightly better results. Regarding complications, the ALIF technique showed the highest complication rates. Lumbosacral fusion surgery is a treatment to provide good results either through an approach for various indications as causes of lower back pain. For each surgical approach, advantages can be depicted. However, perioperative complications and risk factors are numerous and vary with ALIF, PLIF, and TLIF procedures, as well as with fusion rates.

The physiopathogenesis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis remains unknown. However, a multifactorial pathogenesis is being assumed. Besides biomechanical, biochemical, and genetic factors, some studies have focused on congenital or acquired abnormalities in the vestibular organ with consecutive development of scoliosis. This study aims to analyze a possible correlation between any vestibular organ congenital or acquired pathologies and scoliosis based on the current literature. Therefore, we conducted a literature search in three databases, with search terms such as “scoliosis,” “organ of balance,” “idiopathic scoliosis,” “vestibular organ,” “spine,” and “balance.” Fifteen studies were selected and used for research. The relationship between scoliosis and vestibular organ abnormalities was recorded from all included works. Seven studies demonstrated a direct correlation between vestibular organ anatomical abnormalities and the form of the scoliotic spine. Another study confirmed the influence of the pathology of the vestibular organ on scoliosis but questioned whether it had an impact on the formation or the progression of the curvature. Others demonstrated a temporal overlap of the embryonic development of the vestibular organ and the beginning of pre-scoliotic characteristics, but their relationship remained questionable. In three studies, the correlation remained unclear, and any context has been denied. It seems unlikely that an isolated vestibular disorder can trigger structural scoliosis. However, the vestibular system pathologies may certainly occur in the multifactorial genesis of idiopathic scoliosis. Whether the correlation refers to the expression or the progression of scoliosis or may even have an influence on both remains unclear. New treatment options could be derived from these findings with a positive influence on the course of the deformity.

Methods: In this study, 64 patients who underwent EFJD were included. The main outcome of interest was patients’ Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score, which was recorded at 3-time points (i.e., before operation and 6 weeks and 12 months after surgery). Results: EFJD effectively reduced the VAS pain scores by 58% in the short term (6 weeks) and 38% in the long term (12 months). Patients with isolated facet joint osteoarthritis benefited more (p <0.001). Conclusions EFJD is a good treatment alternative for CLBP originating from the facet joints, particularly in patients with isolated facet joint osteoarthritis. Moreover, this method can address not only the dorsal medial ramus but also the surrounding tissue (e.g., facet joint capsule, facet joint effusion, and osteophytes) as the origin of CLBP.

Methods: Patients with superficial infections not involving the implant were excluded. All patients received surgical and antibiotic treatments according to our interdisciplinary osteomyelitis board protocol. An infection was considered healed if a patient showed no signs of infection 1 year after termination of treatment. The patients were divided into an implant retention group and implant removal group, and their clinical and microbiological data were compared. Results: Forty-six patients (27 women, 19 men) with an implant-associated infection of long-segment spinal instrumentation and mean age of 65.3±14.3 years (range, 22–89 years) were included. The mean length of the infected instrumentation was 6.5±2.4 segments (range, 4–13 segments). Implant retention was possible in 21 patients (45.7%); in the other 25 patients (54.3%), a part of or the entire implant required removal. Late infections were associated with implant removal, which correlated with longer hospitalization. Both groups showed high postoperative complication rates (50%) and high mortality rates (8.7%). In 39 patients (84.8%), infection was eradicated at a mean follow-up of 18.9±11.1 months (range, 12–60 months). Three patients (6.5%) were lost to follow-up. Conclusions Implant-associated infections of long-segment spinal instrumentations are associated with high complication and mortality rates. Late infections are associated with implant removal. Treatment should be interdisciplinary including orthopedic surgeons and clinical infectiologists.

Methods: Patients with superficial infections not involving the implant were excluded. All patients received surgical and antibiotic treatments according to our interdisciplinary osteomyelitis board protocol. An infection was considered healed if a patient showed no signs of infection 1 year after termination of treatment. The patients were divided into an implant retention group and implant removal group, and their clinical and microbiological data were compared. Results: Forty-six patients (27 women, 19 men) with an implant-associated infection of long-segment spinal instrumentation and mean age of 65.3±14.3 years (range, 22–89 years) were included. The mean length of the infected instrumentation was 6.5±2.4 segments (range, 4–13 segments). Implant retention was possible in 21 patients (45.7%); in the other 25 patients (54.3%), a part of or the entire implant required removal. Late infections were associated with implant removal, which correlated with longer hospitalization. Both groups showed high postoperative complication rates (50%) and high mortality rates (8.7%). In 39 patients (84.8%), infection was eradicated at a mean follow-up of 18.9±11.1 months (range, 12–60 months). Three patients (6.5%) were lost to follow-up. Conclusions Implant-associated infections of long-segment spinal instrumentations are associated with high complication and mortality rates. Late infections are associated with implant removal. Treatment should be interdisciplinary including orthopedic surgeons and clinical infectiologists.

Methods: The insertion angles of 87 pedicle screws inserted using CT-based navigation in the subaxial cervical spine were measured in the postoperative CT. The screw positioning was determined according to the modified Gertzbein and Robbins classification. Results: Total 89.3% (n=78) of the pedicle screws inserted using CT-based navigation showed good placement. The mean insertion angle of the pedicle screws that showed good positioning was 29.9°±9.9°. The pedicle screws showing bad positioning had a mean insertion angle of 26.8°±10.5° (p=0.157). The interobserver reliability showed a reliable measurement intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.994 (95% confidence interval, 0.992–0.996). Conclusions The present results show that the insertion angle of the pedicle screws in the subaxial cervical spine was smaller than the actual pedicle transverse angle, as per the literature. One reason for this discrepancy could be that the navigation systems allow the insertion of cervical pedicle screws with a lower convergence.

Methods: Ten lumbar spines from body donors were examined. Bisegmental dorsal spinal lumbar interbody fusion of the L3–L5 segments was performed using a pedicle screw–rod system (ROCCIA Multi-LIF Cage; Silony Medical, Germany). In group 1, the titanium rod was inserted without tension, whereas in group 2, the rod was attached to the pedicle screws at the L4 and L5 levels, creating a 5-mm gap. To attach the rod, the RP was used to press the rod into the pedicle screw. The rod was left in place for 30 minutes and then removed. Results: The rod reduction technique significantly increased the mechanical load on the overall construct measured by strain gauges (p<0.05) and resulted in outright implant failure with pedicle screw pullout in 88.9%. Conclusions In cases where the spondylodesis material is not fully attached within the pedicle screw, an RP can be used with extreme caution, particularly in osteoporotic bones, to avoid pedicle screw avulsion and screw anchor failure.

Methods: Ten lumbar spines from body donors were examined. Bisegmental dorsal spinal lumbar interbody fusion of the L3–L5 segments was performed using a pedicle screw–rod system (ROCCIA Multi-LIF Cage; Silony Medical, Germany). In group 1, the titanium rod was inserted without tension, whereas in group 2, the rod was attached to the pedicle screws at the L4 and L5 levels, creating a 5-mm gap. To attach the rod, the RP was used to press the rod into the pedicle screw. The rod was left in place for 30 minutes and then removed. Results: The rod reduction technique significantly increased the mechanical load on the overall construct measured by strain gauges (p<0.05) and resulted in outright implant failure with pedicle screw pullout in 88.9%. Conclusions In cases where the spondylodesis material is not fully attached within the pedicle screw, an RP can be used with extreme caution, particularly in osteoporotic bones, to avoid pedicle screw avulsion and screw anchor failure.

Methods: Ten lumbar spines from body donors were examined. Bisegmental dorsal spinal lumbar interbody fusion of the L3–L5 segments was performed using a pedicle screw–rod system (ROCCIA Multi-LIF Cage; Silony Medical, Germany). In group 1, the titanium rod was inserted without tension, whereas in group 2, the rod was attached to the pedicle screws at the L4 and L5 levels, creating a 5-mm gap. To attach the rod, the RP was used to press the rod into the pedicle screw. The rod was left in place for 30 minutes and then removed. Results: The rod reduction technique significantly increased the mechanical load on the overall construct measured by strain gauges (p<0.05) and resulted in outright implant failure with pedicle screw pullout in 88.9%. Conclusions In cases where the spondylodesis material is not fully attached within the pedicle screw, an RP can be used with extreme caution, particularly in osteoporotic bones, to avoid pedicle screw avulsion and screw anchor failure.

Methods: Ten lumbar spines from body donors were examined. Bisegmental dorsal spinal lumbar interbody fusion of the L3–L5 segments was performed using a pedicle screw–rod system (ROCCIA Multi-LIF Cage; Silony Medical, Germany). In group 1, the titanium rod was inserted without tension, whereas in group 2, the rod was attached to the pedicle screws at the L4 and L5 levels, creating a 5-mm gap. To attach the rod, the RP was used to press the rod into the pedicle screw. The rod was left in place for 30 minutes and then removed. Results: The rod reduction technique significantly increased the mechanical load on the overall construct measured by strain gauges (p<0.05) and resulted in outright implant failure with pedicle screw pullout in 88.9%. Conclusions In cases where the spondylodesis material is not fully attached within the pedicle screw, an RP can be used with extreme caution, particularly in osteoporotic bones, to avoid pedicle screw avulsion and screw anchor failure.