ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2025
Axial Lumber Interbody Fusion as an Alternative "Salvage" Approach to Lumbosacral Fixation: A Case Series.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar interbody fusion is commonly performed to improve spinal stability in the context of degenerative, traumatic, and deformity-related pathologies. The axial lumbar interbody fusion (AxiaLIF) technique, also known as presacral interbody arthrodesis, is the only presacral interbody fusion technique approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. It is a rarely utilized approach to interbody fusion that aims to achieve fusion across L4 to L5 and/or L5 to S1 levels, which are the most susceptible to pseudoarthrosis and hardware failure. This case series describes the utility of the AxiaLIF procedure as a salvage approach when traditional interbody fusion techniques pose significant risks or are not feasible due to rare patient-specific factors.
methodsAll identifiable cases of the AxiaLIF procedure performed at a single, academic medical center were reviewed. Operative data were collected and each case presentation is described in detail.
resultsSix patients underwent AxiaLIF between July 2010 and May 2022. Indications for AxiaLIF as a salvage approach included hardware failure with a significant risk of recurrence with traditional revision techniques; a lack of segmental fixation at the distal end of the spinal construct; avoiding extensive tissue disruption in the setting of staged realignment surgery or previously compromised tissue; and comorbidities such as muscular dystrophy, abdominal hernias, and severe obesity. Two patients were fused solely across the L5 to S1 level, and 4 patients were fused from L4 to S1. The mean operative time, estimated blood loss, time under fluoroscopy, complications, and follow-up were noted.
conclusionThis case series introduces the utility of AxiaLIF as a salvage approach. We believe the AxiaLIF procedure may be a valuable alternative to traditional lumbar interbody fusion in salvage situations when traditional techniques are not feasible or pose significant risk to the patient. In such situations, surgeon awareness of this approach has the potential to improve patient outcomes and safety. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: AxiaLIF, as a salvage approach, has the potential to improve patient outcomes safely when other surgical options pose significant risk or are not feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.