Background:

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) techniques have seen impressive innovation in recent years, leading to an expansion of the LIF lexicon.

Objective:

This study systematically analyzes LIF nomenclature in contemporary literature and proposes a standardized classification system for reporting LIF terminology.

Methods:

A search query was conducted through the PubMed database using “lumbar fusion OR lumbar interbody fusion”. A total of 1,455 articles were identified, and 605 references to LIF were recorded. Following a systematic review of the terminology, we developed a LIF reporting guidelines that capture the existing LIF nomenclature while avoiding redundant or ambiguous terminology.

Results:

The most referenced anatomical approaches were transforaminal (43.0%), followed by posterior (25.0%), lateral (19.7%), and anterior (10.9%). Overall, there were 72 unique ways to describe LIF. Unique prefixes were recorded by approach (posterior: 26; lateral: 13; anterior: 3). 40 unique prefixes/suffixes overlapped in their usage. ‘MI’ (14.4%), ‘MIS’ (38.1%), and ‘MISS’ (0.6%) all referenced a minimally invasive approach. ‘O’ (12.5%), ‘CO’ (1.3%), and ‘TO’ (1.3%) all described open techniques. ‘Endo’ (0.6%), ‘Endoscopic-assisted’ (1.3%), and ‘PE’ (1.9%) all referenced endoscopic-assisted procedures.

Conclusion:

The current lumbar interbody fusion nomenclature contains many unique LIF terms that were found to be inconsistently defined, redundant, or ambiguous. We propose the standardization of a 4-part naming system which highlights the crucial parts of lumbar interbody fusion: (1) intra-operative repositioning, (2) patient position, (3) anatomical approach, and (4) orientation of the surgical corridor to the psoas muscles.