![]()
|
|||
|
|||
|
Following the introduction, in 1989, of the intervertebral titanium cage as a means of spinal stabilization strident debate has raged regarding the safety and efficacy of these devices. While there are surgeons who have achieved remarkably good success with cage use, there are also surgeons who have experienced many serious complications and have left behind them a trail of disappointed patients. This is also true for the use of instrumented flexible and rigid pedicle screw systems as well as other implanted biomechanical devices such as the artificial disc. The following discussion is presented as a means of bringing some clarity to this controversy: |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
As the controversy regarding the use of implantable cages continues to swirl through clinical circles, an important area of disagreement is whether an anterior or posterior surgical approach should be performed. Once again, there should be no mystery regarding this issue. |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
PLIF is said to be a more dangerous procedure because the dura and nerves are directly in the surgeon's path. It must be pointed out that in the ALIF the great blood vessels (aorta, common iliac arteries and veins), ureters, lymph channels and some important nerves are also directly in the surgeon's path. A good "carpenter" learns how to avoid these pitfalls. National organizations dedicated to certifying spine surgeons such as the American Board of Spine Surgery have been created to promote better "carpenters." |
|||
|
|||
|
|