Radiologic Assessment of Interbody Fusion
A Systematic Review on the Use, Reliability, and Accuracy of Current Fusion Criteria
Anneli A.A. Duits ( University Medical Centre Utrecht, Diakonessehuis Utrecht)
Paul R. Van Urk ( University Medical Centre Utrecht)
A. Mechteld Lehr ( University Medical Centre Utrecht)
Don Nutzinger ( University Medical Centre Utrecht)
Maarten R.L. Reijnders ( University Medical Centre Utrecht)
Harrie Weinans (TU Delft - Biomaterials & Tissue Biomechanics, University Medical Centre Utrecht)
Wouter Foppen ( University Medical Centre Utrecht)
F. Cuhmur Oner ( University Medical Centre Utrecht)
Steven M. Van Gaalen (Acibadem International Medical Center, University Medical Centre Utrecht)
Moyo C. Kruyt ( University Medical Centre Utrecht, University of Twente)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
Background: Lumbar interbody fusion (IF) is a common procedure to fuse the anterior spine. However, a lack of consensus on image-based fusion assessment limits the validity and comparison of IF studies. This systematic review aims to (1) report on IF assessment strategies and definitions and (2) summarize available literature on the diagnostic reliability and accuracy of these assessments. Methods: Two searches were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Search 1 identified studies on adult lumbar IF that provided a detailed description of image-based fusion assessment. Search 2 analyzed studies on the reliability of specific fusion criteria/classifications and the accuracy assessed with surgical exploration. Results: A total of 442 studies were included for search 1 and 8 studies for search 2. Fusion assessment throughout the literature was highly variable. Eighteen definitions and more than 250 unique fusion assessment methods were identified. The criteria that showed most consistent use were continuity of bony bridging, radiolucency around the cage, and angular motion <5°. However, reliability and accuracy studies were scarce. Conclusion: This review highlights the challenges in reaching consensus on IF assessment. The variability in IF assessment is very high, which limits the translatability of studies. Accuracy studies are needed to guide innovations of assessment. Future IF assessment strategies should focus on the standardization of computed tomography-based continuity of bony bridging. Knowledge from preclinical and imaging studies can add valuable information to this ongoing discussion.
help_outline