Purpose:

This paper compares anterior lumbar intercorporeal fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar intercorporeal fusion (LLIF). LLIF is an approach through the lateral retroperitoneal corridor, transpsoas. ALIF is a described alternative to interbody fusion with approach variations described as retroperitoneal, transperitoneal, open, and laparoscopic. Our objective is to compare complications can occur in both approaches the ALIF and the LLIF, to see what the advantages and disadvantages are during the perioperative and postoperative.

Method:

This is a literature review article. A MEDLINE search was conducted through PubMed, google scholar, science direct, and Cochrane to identify articles that reported the differences between ALIF, LLIF and other lumbar interbody fusion approaches focusing the complications, cost and length of surgery, length of hospitalization, narcotic use, sagittal balance and surgical technique.

Result:

There was no overall significant difference in the postoperative narcotic use, fusion rate, and disc height. However, ALIF was seen to have better postoperative sagittal balance. Although long-term complication rates between ALIF and LLIF are not statistically even though the procedures have procedure-specific complications. Intraoperative blood loss and operative time were relatively higher in ALIF than in LLIF. The risk of injury to the lumbar plexus and iliac vessels is relatively higher than ALIF.

Conclusion:

ALIF and LLIF they are considered safe, effective and non-invasive. Both procedures present their pearls and pitfalls, but LLIF is associated with more complications than ALIF, although they do not present great differences of clinical outcomes. There is a need more extensive research to determine the best approach.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Inglés     · Inglés ( pdf )