ISSN 0972-978X 

  About COAA








Manish Chug *,ROBERT KURU ,Mitchelle,Hansen

Address for Correspondence

Address for Correspondence:   


Mobile: +61 412 410 223



Study Design Clinical case series, a prospective study


The aim of this study is to demonstrate that Anterior Lumbar Interbody fusion is effective in treating L5 radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis. Summary of background data Radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis as a result of loss of disc height may not respond to traditional foraminotomy/neurolysis due to inability to improve cranio-caudal stenosis. Interbody techniques have been advocated to increase disc space height and hence relieve root compression.


Prospectively collected outcomes data for 27 consecutive patients undergoing single or double ALIF to treat L5 radiculopathy due to foraminal stensosis was reviewed. VAS, Oswestry and Roland Morris scores pre-operatively, at 3 and 6 months were complete for 24 of 27 patients (17 degenerative disc disease, 7 spondylolisthesis). A statistical package ( STATA) was used to calculate descriptive data and The Wilcoxin Signed Rank Test used to determine statistical significance.


There was significant improvement noted in all the measured parameters including VAS which improved from a mean pre-op of 6.5 ( 95 % CI 5.9 - 7.1) to 1.3 ( 95% CI 0.8 - 1.8) at 3 months and 0.9 ( 95%CI 0.5 - 1.3) at six months ( p< 0.0000)


In conclusion our study has shown that ALIF is an excellent option for the treatment of L5 radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis as results are consistent with a significant improvement in disability and pain.

J.Orthopaedics 2012;9(2)e3


Anterior lumbar interbody fusion; Foraminal stenosis; Degenerative disc; Spondylolisthesis

Whilst most spinal surgeons are happy to perform anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for upper limb radiculopathy due to foraminal discompromise, traditionally most have viewed ALIF as a procedure for treatment of back pain. We present a small case series of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion using an implant packed with autogenous bone graft for the treatment of L5 radiculopathy caused by foraminal stenosis. We believe this is an excellent option to treat leg pain as a result of foraminal stenosis caused by disc degeneration and spondylolisthesis.

Pathoanatomy :

The anatomy of the lateral lumbar spinal canal and nerve roots has been described in several studies (5,6,7) The normal and pathological anatomy as described by Crock (5), the lumbar nerves emerge at their respective intervertebral foramina lying inferior to the lumbar pedicle. The intervertebral foramen is bounded above and below by the vertebral pedicles. Its floor from above downwards is formed by the postero-inferior margin of the superior vertebral body, the intervertebral disc and the posterosuperior margin of the inferior vertebral body. The roof is formed by the ligamentum flavum, terminating at its outer free edge, and posteriorly lies the pars interarticularis and the apophysial joint, formed between the adjacent inferior and superior vertebral facets. The vertical height of the foramen is determined by the vertical height of the corresponding intervertebral disc space. The development of foraminal stenosis is related to the process of lumbar spondylosis. The loss of intervertebral disc height secondary to desiccation and degeneration allows the superior articular process of the inferior vertebra to subluxate anteriorly and superiorly, diminishing the area of the foramen (Fig.1).

An additional etiology of foraminal stenosis is craniocaudal compression (“vertical stenosis”). Posterolateral osteophytes from the vertebral endplates protrude into the foramen along with a laterally bulging annulus fibrosis or herniated disc, compressing the nerve root against the superior pedicle (8)


Prospectively collected outcomes data for 27 consecutive patients undergoing single or double ALIF to treat L5 radiculopathy due to foraminal stensosis was reviewed. All cases were selected and operated on by one surgeon. VAS for pain assessment is a simple assessment tool consisting of a 10 cm line with 0 on one end, representing no pain, and 10 on the other, representing the worst pain experienced, which a patient marks to indicate the severity of his or her pain (9) The Oswestry Disability Index and Roland-Morris Questionnaire (RMQ) were used to assess functional disability. Radiological assessment was performed using erect plain x-ray and MRI scan preoperatively.



The number of patients in the study was 27, with 17 men and 14 women.
Unfortunately 3 patients were lost to follow up. The average age was 54.4 years and
the age ranged from 30 years to 76 years. Average follow-up period was 6 months.
Out of 24 patients available for a follow up 20 patients underwent single level ALIF
and 4 patients underwent two level ALIF 

Types Of cases


Sample size

Degenerative Disc




Single Level


Double level



Operating time for single level was from 100 – 195 minutes, the average time was 138.16 minutes. Length of stay in hospital for a single level ALIF varied from 2 to 6 days, with an average of 3.3 days. For a two level ALIF hospital stay varied from 4 to 5 days, with an average of 4.3 days.

Surgical Technique

In all the cases a retroperitoneal approach to the anterior lumbar spine was performed after harvesting autogenous graft from the right iliac crest. Following clearance of the disc space a laminar spreader was introduced and a ronguer was used to clear the disc annulus and osteophytes from the foramen. If the posterior annulus was solidly calcified, a burr was used to achieve foraminal decompression. An interbody device

packed with the harvested graft was then secured by four screws in the intervertebral space to restore disc height

Early in the series the operating surgeon was concerned about the presence of the significant L4 disc degeneration and undertook 2 level surgery in such cases. With subsequent procedures, the operating surgeon became less concerned about adjacent level degenerative disc and was happy to perform single level procedure.



Complete data was available for 24 out of the 27 patients. Of the 3 lost to follow up one had a bad outcome despite undergoing a technically successful procedure. He withdrew from the study. A 2nd patient had an excellent clinical result from the surgery based on post procedure follow-up. However, due to inadequate pre procedure data the patient was excluded. The 3rd patient has been lost to follow up and did not attend post procedure follow-up. A statistical package (STATA) and the Wilcoxin Signed Rank Test were applied to interpret the data. Of the 24 patients with complete data there was clinically and statistically significant improvements in all measured parameters at 3 and 6 months for both degenerative disc and spondylolisthesis cases (Table 2, 3&4). The VAS

(Graph 1)

improved from a mean pre-op of 6.5 ( 95 % CI 5.9 - 7.1) to 1.3 ( 95% CI 0.8 - 1.8) at 3 months and 0.9 ( 95%CI 0.5 - 1.3) at six months ( p< 0.0000). Oswestry scores

improved from a mean pre-op of 36.8 (95% CI 31.5 - 42.1) to 12.1 (95% CI 6.8 - 17.4) at 3 months and 8.8 ( 95%CI 4.4 - 13.2) at six months ( p< 0.0000). Roland Morris scores


improved from a mean pre-op of 11.0 (95% CI 9.1 - 12.9) to 1.9 (95% CI 0.8 - 3.0) at 3 months and 1.6 (95%CI 0.7 - 2.5) at six months (p< 0.0000). Hospital stay, overall cost and complication rates are favorable when compared to current available alternative surgical procedures.



Loss of disc height results in the displacement of facets and an overall reduction in size of intervertebral foramen (4) in a cadaveric study Hasegawa et al demonstrated that a significant nerve root compression is associated with a foraminal height of less than 15 mm and posterior disc height of 4 mm (14). A loss of disc height by 4 mm, which is 35-50% of its normal height results in a reduction in the diameter of the neuroforamen (15). Previous studies have shown a total increase in AP diameter after anterior fusion appears to be directly related to the clinical outcome (16). A study by Chan and Fay showed an increase in the volume of the neuroforamen by 22.9% for L4-5 and 21.5% for L5-S1, the posterior disc height increased by 37.1 % at L4-5 and 45.1% at L5-S, following BAK instrumentation(4).

Anterior procedures that restore the height of the disc space can indirectly enlarge a stenosed neuroforamen. Anterior interbody fusion also corrects mal-alignment of the lumbar spine and reduces anterior slippage. The several advantages of anterior interbody fusion(12) are direct observation of the anteriorly displaced vertebral body, avoidance of damage to the posterior supporting ligaments, dura mater and nerve root; reduced need for blood transfusion, early postoperative ambulation and a reduction hospital stays, eradication of postoperative back pain and/or radiating pain; and a high fusion rate (17,26)

Various previous studies have shown satisfactory clinical results for back pain with anterior lumbar interbody fusion. (2,18,19,20,21,22) Kim and Lee (18) reported no significant difference in clinical outcomes and fusion rates between anterior interbody fusion and posterolateral fusion with transpedicular fixation for isthmic spondylolisthesis in Adults.

Greenough et al (24) demonstrated posterior instrumental fusion higher fusion rates (82%) compared (25) to anterior fusion (76%) but with better clinical results in the latter procedure. Pradhan’s (26) study showed the anterior approach to single-level lumbar fusion is associated with less morbidity than the postero-lateral approach with no significant difference in need for transitional facility care, complication rates, and given followup period in radiographic fusion rate and clinical outcome. Above mentioned studies have previously shown advantages of ALIF over other procedures in terms of avoidance of damage to the posterior musculature, ligaments, neural structures,

reduced need for blood transfusion, early postoperative ambulation and reduced hospital stay. In conclusion our study has shown that ALIF is an excellent option for the treatment of L5 radiculopathy due to foraminal stenosis as results are consistent with a significant improvement in disability, faster postoperative recovery, earlier return to employment, reduced operating time and is more cost effective compared to other available treatment options.



  • Sidney Sacks, Anterior interbody fusion of the Lumbar spine: Vol. 47B JBJS 1965 A.Loguidice, R. Johnson, Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Spine Vol. 13 (3) 1988
  • Stephen D. Cook, PhD,* Laura P. Patron, Comparison of Methods for Determining the Presence and Extent of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: SPINE Volume 29, Number 10, pp 1118–1123
  • D. Chan, L. Fay, Increasing Neuroforaminal Volume by Anerior Interbody Distraction in Degenerative Lumbar Spine: Spine Vol.20(1) 1995
  • Crock H. Normal, pathologic anatomy of the lumbar spinal nerve root canals. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1981;63:487–90.
  • Hasegawa T, An H, Haughton V. Imaging anatomy of the lateral lumbar spinal canal. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI 1993;14:404–13
  • Bose K, Balasubramaniam P. Nerve root canals of the lumbar spine. Spine 1984;9:16–18. Louis G. Jenis, Howard S. Spine Update Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis: SPINE Volume 25, Number 3, pp 389–394, 2000
  • Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB, "The Oswestry Disability Index." Spine 2000; 25(22):2940-2952
  • Fairbank JCT, Couper J, Davies JB. "The Oswestry low Back Pain Questionnaire." Physiotherapy 1980; 66: 271-273
  • Roland M, Morris R. A study of the natural history of low back pain. Part 1: Development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 1983;8:141–4.
  • Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Indications for its Use and Notes on Surgical Technique H. V. CROCK, M.D., M.S., F.R.C.S., F.R.A.C.S. Clinical Orthopaedics Related Research,185 May. I982
  • Hasegawa T, An H, Haughton V, Nowicki B. Lumbar foraminal stenosis: Critical heights of the intervertebral discs and foramina. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1995;77:32–8.
  • Mayoux-Benhamou M, Revel M. A morhogenic study of the lumbar foramen – influence of flexion-extension movements and isolated disc collapse. Surg Radiology Anat 1989:11:97-102
  • Kim NH, Kim HK, Suh JS. A computed tomographic analysis of changes in the spinal canal after anterior lumbar fusion. Clin Orthop 1993;286:180–191.
  • *References (cited in order of appearance) Harmon PH. Anterior excision and vertebral body fusion operation for intervertebral disk syndromes for the lower lumbar spine. Clin Orthop 1963;26:107–
  • Nam Hyun Kim, MD, and Jin Woo Lee, MD. Anterior Interbody Fusion Versus Posterolateral Fusion With Transpedicular Fixation for Isthmic Spondylolisthesis in Adults; SPINE Volume 24, Number 8, pp 812–817
  • Crock HV. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion: Indications for its use and notes on surgical technique. Clin Orthop 1982;165:157–63. 20)
  • Flynn JC, Hoque NA. Anterior fusion of the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1979;61:111–43.
  • Inoue S, Watanabe T, Goto S, Tanahashi K, Takata K, Sho E. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: Pathophysiology and results of anterior interbody fusion. Clin Orthop 1988;227:90–8.
  • Sacks S. Anterior interbody fusion of the lumbar spine. Indication and results in 200 patients. Clin Orthop 1966;44:163–70
  • A Fujimaki, MD., H. V. Crock, M.D., M.S., F.R.C.S., F.R.A.C.S., SIRG Eorgem . Bedbrookm, M.S., F.R.C.S., F.R.A.C.S. The Results of 150 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Operations Performed by Two Surgeons in Australia Clinical Orthopaedii and Related Research : Number 165 May. 1982 (164-167)
  • Greenough, Charles G. MD; Peterson, Mark D. MD†; Hadlow, Simon FRACS; Fraser, Robert D. MD Instrumented Posterolateral Lumbar Fusion: Results and Comparison With Anterior Interbody Fusion Spine 1998 Feb 15;23(4):479-86 .
  • Greenough CG, Taylor LJ, Fraser RD. Anterior lumbar fusion: Results, assessment techniques and prognostic factors. Eur Spine J 1994;3:225-30 .
  • Pradhan, Ben B.; Nassar, John A.; Delamarter, Rick B.; Wang, Jeffrey C.Single- Level Lumbar Spine Fusion: A Comparison of Anterior and Posterior Approaches Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques: October 2002 - Volume 15 - Issue 5 - pp 355-361



  • This is a peer reviewed paper 


    J.Orthopaedics 2012;9(2)e3




    Arthrocon 2011

    Refresher Course in Hip Arthroplasty

    13th March,  2011

    At Malabar Palace,
    Calicut, Kerala, India

    Download Registration Form

    For Details
    Dr Anwar Marthya,
    Ph:+91 9961303044



    Powered by


    © Copyright of articles belongs to the respective authors unless otherwise specified.Verbatim copying, redistribution and storage of this article permitted provided no restrictions are imposed on the access and a hyperlink to the original article in Journal of Orthopaedics maintained. All opinion stated are exclusively that of the author(s).
    Journal of Orthopaedics upholds the policy of Open Access to Scientific literature.