The presacral retroperitoneal approach for axial lumbar interbody fusion (presacral ALIF) is not widely reported, particularly with regard to the mid-term outcome. This prospective study describes the clinical outcomes, complications and rates of fusion at a follow-up of two years for 26 patients who underwent this minimally invasive technique along with further stabilisation using pedicle screws. The fusion was single-level at the L5-S1 spinal segment in 17 patients and two-level at L4–5 and L5-S1 in the other nine. The visual analogue scale for pain and Oswestry Disability Index scores were recorded pre-operatively and during the 24-month study period. The evaluation of fusion was by thin-cut CT scans at six and 12 months, and flexion-extension plain radiographs at six, 12 and 24 months. Significant reductions in pain and disability occurred as early as three weeks postoperatively and were maintained. Fusion was achieved in 22 of 24 patients (92%) at 12 months and in 23 patients (96%) at 24 months. One patient (4%) with a pseudarthrosis underwent successful revision by augmentation of the posterolateral fusion mass through a standard open midline approach.

There were no severe adverse events associated with presacral ALIF, which in this series demonstrated clinical outcomes and fusion rates comparable with those of reports of other methods of interbody fusion.

Between March 2000 and February 2006, we carried out a prospective study of 100 patients with a low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis (Meyerding grade II or below), who were randomised to receive a single-level and instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion with either one or two cages. The minimum follow-up was for two years. At this stage 91 patients were available for review. A total of 47 patients received one cage (group 1) and 44 two cages (group 2). The clinical and radiological outcomes of the two groups were compared.

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of post-operative pain, Oswestry Disability Score, clinical results, complication rate, percentage of post-operative slip, anterior fusion rate or posterior fusion rate. On the other hand, the mean operating time was 144 minutes (100 to 240) for patients in group 1 and 167 minutes (110 to 270) for those in group 2 (p = 0.0002). The mean blood loss up to the end of the first post-operative day was 756 ml (510 to 1440) in group 1 and 817 ml (620 to 1730) in group 2 (p < 0.0001).

Our results suggest that an instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion performed with either one or two cages in addition to a bone graft around the cage has a low rate of complications and a high fusion rate. The clinical outcomes were good in most cases, regardless of whether one or two cages had been used.

There are few reports on the treatment of pyogenic lumbar spondylodiscitis through the posterior approach using a single incision. Between October 1999 and March 2003 we operated on 18 patients with pyogenic lumbar spondylodiscitis. All underwent posterior lumbar interbody fusion using an autogenous bone graft from the iliac crest and pedicle screws via a posterior approach. The clinical outcome was assessed using the Frankel neurological classification and the criteria of Kirkaldy-Willis. Under the Frankel classification, two patients improved by two grades (C to E), 11 by one grade, and five showed no change. The Kirkaldy-Willis functional outcome was excellent in five patients, good in ten and fair in three. Bony union was confirmed six months after surgery in 17 patients, but in one patient this was not achieved until two years after operation. The mean lordotic angle before operation was 20° (−2° to 42°) and the mean lordotic angle at the final follow-up was 32.5° (17° to 44°). Two patients had a superficial wound infection and two a transient root injury. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with an autogenous iliac crest bone graft and pedicle screw fixation via a posterior approach can provide satisfactory results in pyogenic spondylodiscitis.