Risk factors for cage migration and cage retropulsion following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Influence of the geometric and material properties of lumbar endplate on lumbar interbody fusion failure: a systematic review

Background

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an established surgical intervention for patients with leg and back pain secondary to disc herniation or degeneration. Interbody fusion involves removal of the herniated or degenerated disc and insertion of interbody devices with bone grafts into the remaining cavity. Extensive research has been conducted on operative complications such as a failure of fusion or non-union of the vertebral bodies. Multiple factors including surgical, implant, and patient factors influencing the rate of complications have been identified. Patient factors include age, sex, osteoporosis, and patient anatomy. Complications can also be influenced by the interbody cage design. The geometry of the bony endplates as well as their corresponding material properties guides the design of interbody cages, which vary considerably across patients with spinal disorders. However, studies on the effects of such variations on the rate of complications are limited. Therefore, this study aimed to perform a systematic review of lumbar endplate geometry and material property factors in LIF failure.

Methods

Search keywords included ‘factor/cause for spinal fusion failure/cage subsidence/cage migration/non-union’, ‘lumbar’, and ‘interbody’ in electronic databases PubMed and Scopus with no limits on year of publication.

Results

In total, 1341 articles were reviewed, and 29 articles were deemed suitable for inclusion. Adverse events after LIF, such as cage subsidence, cage migration, and non-union, resulted in fusion failure; hence, risk factors for adverse events after LIF, notably those associated with lumbar endplate geometry and material properties, were also associated with fusion failure. Those risk factors were associated with shape, concavity, bone mineral density and stiffness of endplate, segmental disc angle, and intervertebral disc height.

Conclusions

This review demonstrated that decreased contact areas between the cage and endplate, thin and weak bony endplate as well as spinal diseases such as spondylolisthesis and osteoporosis are important causes of adverse events after LIF. These findings will facilitate the selection and design of LIF cages, including customised implants based on patient endplate properties.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-022-03091-8.

Clinical and radiological evaluation of cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral fixation

Background

Cage subsidence (CS) was previously reported as one of the most common complications following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). We aimed to assess the impacts of CS on surgical results following OLIF combined with anterolateral fixation, and determine its radiological characteristics as well as related risk factors.

Methods

Two hundred and forty-two patients who underwent OLIF at L4-5 and with a minimum 12 months follow-up were reviewed. Patients were divided into three groups according to the extent of disk height (DH) decrease during follow-up: no CS (DH decrease ≤ 2 mm), mild CS (2 mm < DH decrease ≤ 4 mm) and severe CS (DH decrease > 4 mm). The clinical and radiological results were compared between groups to evaluate radiological features, clinical effects and risk factors of CS.

Results

CS was identified in 79 (32.6%) patients, including 48 (19.8%) with mild CS and 31 (11.8%) with severe CS. CS was mainly identified within 1 month postoperatively, it did not progress after 3 months postoperatively, and more noted in the caudal endplate (44, 55.7%). In terms of clinical results, patients in the mild CS group were significantly worse than those in the no CS group, and patients in the severe CS group were significantly worse than those in the mild CS group. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between no CS (92.6%, 151/163) and mild CS (83.3%, 40/48) groups. However, significant lower fusion rate was observed in severe CS group (64.5%, 20/31) compared to no CS group. CS related risk factors included osteoporosis (OR = 5.976), DH overdistraction (OR = 1.175), flat disk space (OR = 3.309) and endplate injury (OR = 6.135).

Conclusion

CS following OLIF was an early postoperative complication. Higher magnitudes of CS were associated with worse clinical improvements and lower intervertebral fusion. Osteoporosis and endplate injury were significant risk factors for CS. Additionally, flat disk space and DH over-distraction were also correlated with an increased probability of CS.

CT Hounsfield Units as a predictor of reoperation and graft subsidence following standalone and multi-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion

INTRODUCTION

Standalone single and multi-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) are increasingly being applied to treat degenerative spinal conditions in a less invasive fashion. Graft subsidence following LLIF is a known complication and has been associated with poor bone mineral density (BMD). Previous research has demonstrated the utility of CT Hounsfield Units (HU) as a surrogate for BMD. This study aims to investigate the relationship between CT HU and subsidence and reoperation after standalone and multi-level LLIF.

METHODS

A prospectively-maintained single-institution database was retrospectively reviewed for LLIF patients from 2017-2020 including single and multi-level standalone cases with or without supplemental posterior fixation. Data on demographics, graft parameters, BMD on DEXA, preoperative mean segmental CT HU, and postoperative subsidence and reoperation, were collected. Three-foot standing radiographs were used to measure preoperative global sagittal alignment and disc height, and subsidence at last follow-up. Subsidence was classified using the Marchi grading system corresponding to disc height loss: Grade 0: 0-24%; I: 25-49%; II: 50-74%; III: 75-100%.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine LLIF patients met study criteria, with mean follow-up 19.9 ± 13.9 months. Among the 54 patients who underwent single-level LLIF, mean segmental HU was 152.0 ± 8.7 in 39 patients with Grade 0 subsidence, 136.7 ± 10.4 in nine with Grade I subsidence, 133.9 ± 23.1 in three with Grade II subsidence, and 119.9 ± 30.9 in three with Grade III subsidence (p=0.032). In the 96 instrumented levels in 35 patients who underwent multi-level LLIF, 85 had Grade 0 subsidence, 9 Grade I, 1 Grade II, and 1 Grade III, with no differences in HU. In multivariate logistic regression, increased CT HU was independently associated with a decreased risk of reoperation in both single-level and multi-level LLIF (OR:0.98, 95%CI:0.97-0.99, p=0.044; and OR:0.97, 95%CI: 0.94-0.99, p=0.017, respectively). Overall BMD on DEXA was not associated with graft subsidence nor reoperation. Using a receiver-operating-characteristic curve to establish separation between patients requiring reoperation and those that did not, the determined threshold HU for single-level LLIF was 131.4 (sensitivity 0.62, specificity 0.65), and for multi-level was 131.0 (sensitivity 0.67, specificity 0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower CT HU are independently associated with an increased risk of graft subsidence following single-level LLIF. In addition, lower CT HU significantly increased the risk of reoperation in both single and multi-level LLIF with a critical threshold of 131 HU. Preoperative CT HU may provide a more robust gauge of local bone quality and the likelihood of graft subsidence requiring reoperation following LLIF, than overall BMD.

Cortical Trajectory Fixation Versus Traditional Pedicle-Screw Fixation in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Patients with Osteoporosis: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Study Design

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial Registration Number

Date of Registration

Prevalence and risk factors for cage subsidence after lumbar interbody fusion: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an effective treatment for lumbar degenerative diseases. Cage subsidence (CS) contitutes one of the most common postoperative complications. Many risk factors for CS after LIF have been reported in some studies. However, controversies still exist. The objective of this study will be to summarize data on the prevalence and risk factors of CS after LIF.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Our study present a protocol that conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and risk factors for CS after LIF. Two reviewers retrieved the relevant articles using the 5 databases (PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) from inception to May 31st, 2021. Primary outcome will be the prevalence of CS after LIF. Second outcomes include the risk factors associated with postoperative CS and clinical outcomes associated with postoperative CS. Three reviewers will screen citation titles and abstracts and evaluated full-text of each potentially relevant citation, and then extracted the data using a data extraction form. Any discrepancies in decisions between reviewers will be resolved through discussion. We assessed the methodological quality and risk of bias of the included studies based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). The aim of the extra analysis is to explore the explanations of the heterogeneity (age, gender, race, year of publication, type of study and surgical procedure). Publication bias will be assessed by Begg test, Egger test and funnel plots.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No primary data will be collected and individual patient information and endangering participant rights, thus ethics approval is not required. Findings will be reported through publication and media.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42021257981 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#joinuppage).

Bone Metabolism in the Healing Process of Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Temporal Changes of Bone Turnover Markers

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate temporal changes of bone turnover markers (BTMs) after lumbar spinal fusion in patients without osteoporosis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Radiological studies are the standard method to monitor bony fusion, but they do not allow a timely assessment of bone healing. BTMs react rapidly to changes in bone metabolism during fusion process and could be an additional tool to monitor this process.

METHODS

A total of 78 nonosteoporosis patients who had undergone one- or two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion were included. Fusion status was assessed using computed tomography sagittal and coronal images. Serum levels of bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP), procollagen type 1 amino-terminal propeptide (P1NP), and osteocalcin (OC) were measured to assess bone formation, and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b) was measured to assess bone resorption. Serum samples were obtained before surgery and at 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, 26, 39, and 52 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

A solid fusion was achieved in 71 of 78 patients (91%), and seven patients resulted in pseudarthrosis. In the fusion group, the level of all BTMs once decreased at 1 postoperative week. Then, BAP and P1NP reached a peak at 4 weeks after surgery, and TRACP-5b and OC peaked at 8 weeks. Thereafter, the level of P1NP and TRACP-5b gradually got closer to the baseline over a year, and BAP kept high until 52 postoperative weeks. In the pseudarthrosis group, peak level of BTMs was significantly higher and the increased level of BAP and P1NP was kept until 52 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated dynamics of BTMs after lumbar spinal fusion in patients without osteoporosis. These normal population data contribute as a baseline to evaluate the effect of osteogenic agents on bone metabolism after spinal fusion.Level of Evidence: 2.

Incidence and risk factors of lateral cage migration occurred after the first-stage lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery

BACKGROUND

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a novel, minimally invasive technique for the surgical treatment of lumbar diseases. The aim of this study was to identify the incidence and risk factors of lateral cage migration (LCM) occurred after the first-stage LLIF.

HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis was that LCM occurred after the first-stage LLIF was associated with some demographic characteristics, surgical variables and radiographic parameters.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between June 2016 and August 2020, 335 patients (901 levels) underwent staged LLIF were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were classified into LCM and non-LCM group based on the experience of LCM before the second-stage posterior instrumentation. 100 patients in non-LCM were randomly sampled as a control group. Incidence of LCM was determined; demographic characteristics, surgical variables and radiographic parameters associated with LCM were compared between the LCM and control group. Univariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression analysis were used to identify the risk factors.

RESULTS

LCM occurred after the first-stage LLIF was found in 19 (5.7%) patients. Bony endplate injury (OR, 106.255; 95% CI, 1.265-8924.765; p=0.039) and greater preoperative range of motion (ROM) (OR, 2.083, 95% CI, 1.068-4.066, p=0.031) were high risk factors for LCM. LCM occurred mainly 3 days later after the first-stage LLIF, while 4 cases experienced severe neural symptoms, intolerable low back pain and finally underwent reoperation.

DISCUSSION

LCM occurred after the first-stage LLIF was significantly associated with bony endplate injury and greater preoperative ROM. Second-stage posterior fixation should be performed as soon as possible or a supplement lateral fixation/self-locking cage should be used in high-risk patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Prevalence and location of endplate fracture and subsidence after oblique lumbar interbody fusion for adult spinal deformity

BACKGROUND

Recently, Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) is commonly indicated to correct the sagittal and coronal alignment in adult spinal deformity (ASD). Endplate fracture during surgery is a major complication of OLIF, but the detailed location of fracture in vertebral endplate in ASD has not yet been determined. We sought to determine the incidence and location of endplate fracture and subsidence of the OLIF cage in ASD surgery, and its association with fusion status and alignment.

METHODS

We analyzed 75 levels in 27 patients were analyzed using multiplanar CT to detect the endplate fracture immediately after surgery and subsidence at 1 year postoperatively. The prevalence was compared between anterior and posterior, approach and non-approach sides, and concave and convex side. Their association with fusion status, local and global alignment, and complication was also investigated.

RESULTS

Endplate fracture was observed in 64 levels (85.3%) in all 27 patients, and the incidence was significantly higher in the posterior area compared with the anterior area (85.3 vs. 68.0%, p=0.02) of affected vertebra in the sagittal plane. In the coronal plane, there was no significant difference in incidence between left (approach) and right (non-approach) sides (77.3 and 81.3%, respectively), or concave and convex sides (69.4 and 79.6%) of wedged vertebra. By contrast, cage subsidence at 1 year postoperatively was noted in 14/75 levels (18.7%), but was not associated with endplate fracture. Fusion status, local and global alignment, and complications were not associated with endplate fracture or subsidence.

CONCLUSION

Endplate fracture during OLIF procedure in ASD cases is barely avoidable, possibly induced by the corrective maneuver with ideal rod counter and cantilever force, but is less associated with subsequent cage subsidence, fusion status, and sustainment of corrected alignment in long fusion surgery performed even for elderly patients.

Risk factors for polyetheretherketone cage subsidence following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

Interbody cage subsidence is a postoperative complication leading to poor outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). This study aimed to identify risk factors of cage subsidence in lumbar spinal diseases after MIS-TLIF using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, plain radiographs and three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) performed 12 months after MIS-TLIF were evaluated, and the risk of cage subsidence was calculated with odds ratio (OR), confidence interval (CI), and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 114 patients (mean age, 65 years) and 135 levels were included in this study: 80 (59.3%) with and 55 (40.7%) without cage subsidence. Multifidus atrophy showed the strongest association with PEEK cage subsidence (p < 0.001). Compared to those with normal mass, the odds of PEEK cage subsidence were 76.0 (95% CI: 3.9-1472.9) for severe atrophy. The factors significantly associated with cage subsistence were posterior cage position (OR = 4.2; p = 0.005), cage height ≥ 12 mm (OR = 7.6; p = 0.008), use of an autograft mixed with demineralized bone matrix (DBM) (OR = 5.8; p = 0.002), body mass index (BMI) > 27.5 kg/m² (OR = 4.2; p = 0.03), and titanium-coated PEEK (Ti-PEEK) cage-type (OR = 38.4, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In MIS-TLIF with a PEEK cage, the factors associated with an increased risk of cage subsidence were higher BMI, increased severity of multifidus muscle atrophy, Ti-coated PEEK cage-type, cage height ≥ 12 mm, use of DBM mixed autograft, and posterior cage position.

Risk factors for cage subsidence and clinical outcomes after transforaminal and posterior lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND

Cage subsidence is a very common complication after lumbar interbody fusion. It may compromise vertebral interbody fusion through progressive spinal deformity and consequently cause compression of neural elements. Clinical relevance remains, however, unclear, with few studies on this subject and even less information regarding its correlation with clinical findings. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for cage subsidence and clinical evaluation after transforaminal (TLIF) and posterior (PLIF) lumbar interbody fusion.

METHODS

A retrospective study in patients submitted to TLIF and PLIF between 2008 and 2017 was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 165 patients were included (123 TLIF and 42 PLIF). Univariate analysis showed an increased risk of cage subsidence in spondylolisthesis comparing with degenerative disk disease (p = 0.007). A higher preoperative lumbar lordosis angle (p = 0.014) and cage placement in L2-L3 (p = 0.012) were associated with higher risk of subsidence. The posterior cage positioning on vertebral endplate was associated with a higher risk of subsidence (p = 0.028) and significant subsidence (p = 0.005), defined as cage migration > 50% of cage height. PLIF presented a higher risk when comparing with TLIF (p = 0.024). Hounsfield unit (HU) values < 135 (OR6; 95% CI [1.95-34]) and posterior positioning (OR7; 95% CI [1.7-27.3]) were independent risk factors for cage subsidence and significant subsidence, respectively, in multivariate analysis. There was a tendency for significant subsidence in degrees ≥ 2 of Meyerding spondylolisthesis (OR4; 95% CI [0.85-21.5]). Significant cage subsidence was not associated with worse clinical results. Other analyzed factors, such as age (p = 0.008), low bone mineral density (BMD) (p = 0.029) and type of surgery (TLIF) (p = 0.004), were associated with worse results.

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that lower BMD and posterior cage positioning are relevant risk factors for lumbar cage subsidence. Low BMD is also a predictor of poor clinical results, so it must be properly evaluated and considered, through HU values measurement in CT scan, a feasible and reliable tool in perioperative planning.

[Advances in research on Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion]

Objective

To summarize the advances in research on Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion, and provide reference for its prevention.

Methods

The definition, development, clinical significance, and related risk factors of Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion were throughout reviewed by referring to relevant domestic and doreign literature in recent years.

Results

At present, there is no consensus on the definition of Cage subsidence, and mostly accepted as the disk height reduction greater than 2 mm. Cage subsidence mainly occurs in the early postoperative stage, which weakens the radiological surgical outcome, and may further damage the effectiveness or even lead to surgical failure. Cage subsidence is closely related to the Cage size and its placement location, intraoperative endplate preparation, morphological matching of disk space to Cage, bone mineral density, body mass index, and so on.

Conclusion

The appropriate size and shape of the Cage usage, the posterolateral Cage placed, the gentle endplate operation to prevent injury, the active perioperative anti-osteoporosis treatment, and the education of patients to control body weight may help to prevent Cage subsidence and ensure good surgical results.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of hybrid graft in patients with Modic changes undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Background

This retrospective study aimed to analyze the influence of Modic changes (MCs) on the clinical and radiographic outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with hybrid graft.

Methods

Clinical data of 89 patients with Modic changes who underwent single-segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion between January 2015 and January 2019 at our institution were analyzed. Patients were divided into three groups: the MCs-0 group (no endplate changes; used as the control group), the MCs-1 group, and the MCs-2 group. Clinical and radiological parameters were compared between the three groups.

Results

There were no significant between-group differences in age (P = 0.216), sex (P = 0.903), body mass index (P = 0.805), smoking (P = 0.722), diagnosis (P = 0.758), surgical level (P = 0.760), blood loss (P = 0.172), operative time (P = 0.236), or follow-up (P = 0.372). Serum C-reactive protein level and erythrocyte sedimentation rate in the MCs-1 and MCs-2 groups were significantly higher than those in the MCs-0 group on the third and seventh days (P < 0.05). Postoperative radiographic parameters were significantly higher than preoperative parameters in all 3 groups (P < 0.05). Visual analog scale scores for low back pain in the MCs-0 and MCs-2 groups were significantly different from those in the MCs-1 group (P < 0.05). However, there were no significant between-group differences with respect to Oswestry Disability Index scores or visual analog scale scores for leg pain.

Conclusion

In this study, Modic changes had no impact on fusion rates and clinical outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with hybrid graft (autologous local bone graft plus allogeneic freeze-dried bone graft). However, MCs-1 increased the risk of cage subsidence and showed superior outcomes in terms of visual analog scale scores for low back pain.

The radiological outcome in lumbar interbody fusion among rheumatoid arthritis patients: a 20-year retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcomes amongst Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients have shown satisfactory results being reported after lumbar surgery. The increased adoption of the interbody fusion technique has been due to a high fusion rate and less invasive procedures. However, the radiographic outcome for RA patients after receiving interbody fusion has scarcely been addressed in the available literature.

METHODS

Patients receiving interbody fusion including ALIF, OLIF, and TLIF were examined for implant cage motion and fusion status at two-year follow-up. Parameters for the index correction level including ADH, PDH, WI, SL, FW, and FH were measured and compared at pre-OP, post-OP, and two-year follow-up.

RESULTS

We enrolled 64 RA patients at 104 levels (mean 64.0 years old, 85.9% female) received lumbar interbody fusion. There were substantial improvement in ADH, PDH, WI, SL, FW, and FH after surgery, with both ADH and PDH having significantly dropped at two-year follow up. The OLIF group suffered from a higher subsidence rate with no significant difference in fusion rate when compared to TLIF. The fusion rate and subsidence rate for all RA patients was 90.4 and 28.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We revealed the radiographic outcomes of lumbar interbody fusions towards symptomatic lumbar disease in RA patients with good fusion outcome despite the relative high subsidence rate amongst the OLIF group. Those responsible for intra-operative endplate management should be more cautious to avoid post-OP cage subsidence.

Risk Factors for Increased Surgical Drain Output After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk factors for increased surgical drain output after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

METHODS

Patients who underwent TLIF in a single center from June 2017 to January 2020 were included in this study. They were divided into the increased surgical drain output group and no increased surgical drain output group according to the boundary of the median drain output. Patients' demographic and clinical parameters were compared between the 2 groups. Risk factors for increased surgical drain output were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 368 patients who underwent TLIF. Among them, 187 patients had increased surgical drain output (drain output ≥50th percentile or 480 mL). Univariate analysis showed that age (P < 0.001), smoking status (P = 0.002), number of fused levels (P < 0.001), intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001), intraoperative end plate injury (P < 0.001), administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) (P = 0.002), and surgical duration (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with increased surgical drain output. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that older age (P = 0.001), smoking (P = 0.005), more fused levels (P < 0.001), and intraoperative end plate injury (P = 0.017) were the independent risk factors, while administration of TXA (P = 0.012) was a protective factor.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that older age, smoking, more fused levels, and intraoperative end plate injury were the independent risk factors, while administration of TXA was a protective factor for increased surgical drain output after TLIF.

Do the positioning variables of the cage contribute to adjacent facet joint degeneration? Radiological and clinical analysis following intervertebral fusion

Background

Compared to other risk factors, adjacent facet joint degeneration (AFD) is the main contributor to adjacent segment disease (ASD). The interbody cage may be a potential indirect risk of AFD. This study investigated the correlations among the lumbar sagittal balance parameters, the inter-body cage's intraoperative positioning variables, and adjacent facet joint degeneration following the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) technique.

Methods

Patients who accepted single-level TLIF for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease and were followed up for at least six months were enrolled in this study. According to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, 93 patients were included (44 males and 49 females). X-ray and computed tomography (CT) images were obtained before and six months after surgery. The vertebral contour and the center of the marker mass in the cage were calculated using a geometric algorithm. Orthopedic surgeons measured the disc height, lordosis angle, and facet joint degeneration. Patient-reported outcomes, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the visual analog scale (VAS), were used to assess the clinical outcomes. The Student’s t-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Chi-square test were used for the statistical analyses.

Results

The average age was 53.7 years old (range, 27–84 years). The average functional disability outcome assessed by the ODI was 61.2, and the average back and leg pain assessed by the VAS was 6.2 and 6.9, respectively. The patients were categorized into a normal group and an abnormal (AFD) group according to whether the facet joint degeneration was aggravated. The abnormal group had a higher back pain VAS score (P=0.031) and lower sagittal vertical position (P=0.027). The other parameters were similar at baseline (P>0.05). The cage’s sagittal vertical position decreased significantly with AFD aggravation (OR, 0.737; 95% CI, 0.561–0.969).

Conclusions

In patients with AFD aggravation, the preoperative VAS and postoperative ODI scores were significantly higher. The cage position parameters were related to AFD. A lower cage center was associated with a greater incidence of AFD.

Mechanical properties and fluid permeability of gyroid and diamond lattice structures for intervertebral devices: functional requirements and comparative analysis

Current intervertebral fusion devices present multiple complication risks such as a lack of fixation, device migration and subsidence. An emerging solution to these problems is the use of additively manufactured lattice structures that are mechanically compliant and permeable to fluids, thus promoting osseointegration and reducing complication risks. Strut-based diamond and sheet-based gyroid lattice configurations having a pore diameter of 750 µm and levels of porosity of 60, 70 and 80% are designed and manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V alloy using laser powder bed fusion. The resulting structures are CT-scanned, compression tested and subjected to fluid permeability evaluation. The stiffness of both structures (1.9-4.8 GPa) is comparable to that of bone, while their mechanical resistance (52-160 MPa) is greater than that of vertebrae (3-6 MPa), thus decreasing the risks of wither bone or implant failure. The fluid permeability (5-57 × 10^-9 m²) and surface-to-volume ratios (~3) of both lattice structures are close to those of vertebrae. This study shows that both types of lattice structures can be produced to suit the application specifications within certain limits imposed by physical and equipment-related constraints, providing potential solutions for reducing the complication rate of spinal devices by offering a better fixation through osseointegration.

Risk Factors and Scoring System of Cage Retropulsion after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Observational Study

Objective

To investigate risk factors of cage retropulsion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in China and to establish a scoring system of cage retropulsion.

Methods

The retrospective analysis was based on two hospital databases. The medical data records of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cage retropulsion were selected from August 2009 to August 2019. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were set in advance. Risk factors including patients' baseline demographics (age, gender, operation diagnosis time difference), preoperative neurological symptoms, whether the fusion involves single or double segments, screw type, intraoperative compression, preoperative bone mineral density, whether there are neurological symptoms before surgery, whether there is urine dysfunction before surgery, disease type, complete removal of the endplate, and patient's education level. The research endpoint was the retropulsion of fusion cages. The Kaplan–Meier (K‐M) method was used to analyze potential risk factors, and multivariate Cox regression was used to identify independent risk factors (P < 0.05). The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 22.0; SPSS, IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) software was used for statistical analysis, and univariate analysis was used to screen out the factors related to cage retropulsion. All independent risk factors were included to predict the survival time of the retropulsion of cage.

Results

This study included a total of 32 patients with PLIF between 2009 to 2019. All patients were residents of China. Univariate analysis showed that there were 13 patients over 60 years old and 19 patients under 60 years old. There were 20 male patients and 12 female patients. The surgical diagnosis time was seven patients within 1 month, 17 patients within 1 to 3 months, and eight patients over 3 months. The disease type was 18 cases of lumbar disc herniation, 10 cases of lumbar spinal stenosis, four cases of lumbar spondylolisthesis. The fusion segment was 18 cases of single segment, 14 cases of double segment. The intraoperative compression was seven cases of compression, 25 cases of no compression. The preoperative bone mineral density was 10 cases of low density, 18 cases of normal, four cases of osteoporosis. The screw type was 27 cases of universal screw, five cases of one‐way screw. Preoperative neurological symptoms were found in 25 cases and not in seven cases. Preoperative urination dysfunction occurred in 8 cases, whereas 24 cases did not have this dysfunction. The endplate was completely removed in 10 cases and not in 22 cases. Education level was nine cases of primary school education, 10 cases of secondary school, 13 cases of university level. Cox regression analysis showed that intraoperative pressure (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.604, P = 0.015) and complete removal of the endplate (HR = 0.205, P = 0.027) are associated with the time of cage retropulsion. According to the HR of each factor, the scoring rules were formulated, and the patients were divided into the low‐risk group, moderate‐risk group, and high‐risk group according to the final score. The three median survival times of the three groups were 66 days in the low‐risk group, 55 days in the moderate‐risk group, and 45 days in the high‐risk group, with statistical significance (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Intraoperative pressure and complete removal of the intraoperative endplate can be helpful to evaluating the expected time of cage retropulsion in patients with PLIF, and this clinical model guided the selection of postoperative prevention and follow‐up treatment.

Endplate injury as a risk factor for cage retropulsion following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: An analysis of 1052 cases

Although transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a widely accepted procedure, major complications such as cage retropulsion (CR) can cause poor clinical outcomes. Endplate injury (EI) was recently identified as a risk factor for CR, present in most levels developing CR. However, most EIs occurred in non-CR levels, and the features of EIs in CR levels remain unknown.The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for CR following TLIF; in particular, to investigate the relationship between EIs and CR, and to explore the features of EIs in CR.Between October 2010 and December 2016, 1052 patients with various degenerative lumbar spinal diseases underwent bilateral instrumented TLIF. Their medical records, radiological factors, and surgical factors were reviewed and factors affecting the incidence of CR were analyzed.Twenty-one patients developed CR. Nine had back pain or leg pain, of which six required revision surgery. A pear-shaped disc, posterior cage positioning and EI were significantly correlated with CR (P < .001, P = .001, and P < .001, respectively). Computed tomography (CT) scans revealed the characteristics of EIs in levels with and without CR. The majority of CR levels with EIs exhibited apparent compression damage in the posterior part of cranial endplate on the decompressed side (17/18), accompanied by caudal EIs isolated in the central portion. However, in the control group, the cranial EIs involving the posterior part was only found in four of the total 148 levels (P < .001). Most of the injuries were confined to the central portion of the cranial or caudal endplate or both endplates (35 in 148 levels, 23.6%). Additionally, beyond cage breaching into the cortical endplate on lateral radiographs, a characteristic appearance of coronal cage misalignment was found on AP radiographs in CR levels with EIs.A pear-shaped disc, posterior cage positioning and EI were identified as risk factors for CR. EI involving the posterior epiphyseal rim had influence on the development of CR. Targeted protection of the posterior margin of adjacent endplates, careful evaluation of intraoperative radiographs, and timely remedial measures may help to reduce the risks of CR.

Instrumented Posterolateral fusion versus instrumented Interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases in uremic patients under hemodialysis

Background

Advances in hemodialysis have facilitated longer lifespan and better quality of life for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). Symptomatic degenerative lumbar diseases (DLD) becomes more common in patients with ESRD. Posterior instrumented fusion remains popular for spinal stenosis combining instability. Only a few sporadic studies mentioned about surgical outcomes in patients with ESRD underwent spine surgeries, but no one discussed about which fusion method was optimal for this kind of patients. In this study, we compared the differences between lumbar posterolateral fusion (PLF) and lumbar interbody fusion (IBF) in uremic patients underwent instrumented lumbar surgeries.

Methods

Between January 2005 and December 2017, ESRD patients under maintenance hemodialysis underwent posterior instrumented fusion for DLD were reviewed. A PLF group and an IBF group were identified. The demographic data was collected using their medical records. Clinical outcomes were evaluated by Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the visual analogue scale (VAS); radiographic results were assessed using final fusion rates. Any surgical or implant-related complication was documented.

Results

A total of 34 patients (22 women and 12 men, mean age of 65.4 years) in PLF group and 45 patients (26 women and 19 men, mean age of 65.1 years) in IBF group were enrolled. Both groups had similar surgical levels. The operation time was longer (200.9 vs 178.3 min, p = 0.029) and the amount of blood loss was higher (780.0 vs 428.4 ml, p = 0.001) in the IBF group. The radiographic fusion rate was better in the PLF group but without significant difference (65.2% vs 58.8%, p = 0.356). Seven in the PLF group and ten in the IBF group developed surgical complications (20.5% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.788); three patients in the PLF group (8.8%) and five patients in the IBF group (11.1%) received revision surgeries because of implant-related or wound complications. Comparing to preoperative ODI and VAS, postoperative ODI and VAS obtained significant improvement in both groups.

Conclusions

Successful fusion rates and clinical improvement (VAS, ODI) were similar in IBF and PLF group. Uremic patients underwent IBF for DLD had longer length of operation and higher operative blood loss than underwent PLF.

Risk factors for cage retropulsion after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in older patients

Background

To investigate the incidence of cage retropulsion (CR) following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and the associated risk factors in older patients with lumbar disorders.

Methods

Between January 2015 and December 2017, 1,880 older patients (aged >60 years) who underwent open TLIF were preliminarily enrolled in this retrospective study. The patients' medical records were reviewed, and the risk factors potentially associated with CR were analyzed.

Results

A total of 1,662 patients (692 males and 970 females, with an average age of 68.7±5.2 years) who met the eligibility criteria were finally enrolled in this study. Following TLIF, 29 older patients (1.74%) developed CR including 12 patients with spinal stenosis, 7 patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis, 5 patients had degenerative disc diseases, 3 patients had surgical history, and 2 patients suffered isthmic spondylolisthesis. Of the 29 patients, 21 patients suffered lower back pain and/or sciatica (72.4%), while 8 patients were asymptomatic (27.6%). In multivariate analysis, screw loosening [odds ratio (OR) =7.315; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.4-15.7] and endplate injury (OR =4.947; 95% CI: 2.3-10.6) were found to be independently associated with CR in older patients after TLIF.

Conclusions

The incidence of CR following TLIF in older patients is 1.74%. Screw loosening and endplate injury are risk factors for CR in older patients with TLIF.

Safety and Tolerability of Stromal Vascular Fraction Combined with β-Tricalcium Phosphate in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Phase I Clinical Trial

The rates of pseudarthrosis remain high despite recent advances in bone graft substitutes for spinal fusion surgery. The aim of this single center, non-randomized, open-label clinical trial was to determine the feasibility of combined use of stromal vascular fraction (SVF) and β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) for patients who require posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) and pedicle screw fixation. Two polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages were inserted into the intervertebral space following complete removal of the intervertebral disc. The PEEK cage (SVF group) on the right side of the patient was filled with β-TCP in combination with SVF, and the cage on the left side (control group) was filled with β-TCP alone. Fusion rate and cage subsidence were assessed by lumbar spine X-ray and CT at 6 and 12 months postoperatively. At the 6-month follow-up, 54.5% of the SVF group (right-sided cages) and 18.2% of the control group (left-sided cages) had radiologic evidence of bone fusion (p = 0.151). The 12-month fusion rate of the right-sided cages was 100%, while that of the left-sided cages was 91.6% (p = 0.755). Cage subsidence was not observed. Perioperative combined use of SVF with β-TCP is feasible and safe in patients who require spinal fusion surgery, and it has the potential to increase the early bone fusion rate following spinal fusion surgery.

Risk Factors of Cage Subsidence in Patients Received Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the risk factors of cage subsidence in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and its correlation with patient-reported outcomes.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Cage subsidence is among the cage-related complications after TLIF and may lead to poor outcomes. Few studies have addressed the incidence of cage subsidence in MI-TLIF.

METHODS

This retrospective study of a prospectively collected database was conducted from October 2015 to October 2017. All patients received MI-TLIF with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. All levels were separated into the cage subsidence (CS group) and no cage subsidence (non-CS group) groups. Cage subsidence was evaluated using lateral radiographs and defined as more than 2 mm migration of the cage into the endplate of adjacent vertebral body. Patient demographics, perioperative details, and radiographic parameters were recorded. Cage-related parameters were cage height, cage insertion level, and cage position. Cage position was recorded using central point ration (CPR). Patient-reported outcome was analyzed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients (126 levels) were included. Mean age was 66.5 years with an average follow-up of 36.9 months. Overall incidence of cage subsidence was 34.1%. The CS group had significantly higher body mass index, less bone mineral density (BMD), shorter disc height, and higher CPR than the non-CS group. BMD, disc height, and CPR were significantly negatively correlated with depth of cage subsidence. ODI improvement was significantly lesser in the CS group than in the non-CS group. Fusion rate and complications were unrelated to cage subsidence.

CONCLUSION

The BMD, disc height, and cage position were the most significant risk factors that were negatively correlated with depth of cage subsidence. Placing a TLIF cage anteriorly if possible may reduce the risk of cage subsidence.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

The association between lower Hounsfield units on computed tomography and cage subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion

OBJECTIVE

One vexing problem after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) surgery is cage subsidence. Low bone mineral density (BMD) may contribute to subsidence, and BMD is correlated with Hounsfield units (HUs) on CT. The authors investigated if lower HU values correlated with subsidence after LLIF.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients undergoing single-level LLIF with pedicle screw fixation for degenerative conditions at the University of California, San Francisco, by 6 spine surgeons was performed. Data on demographics, cage parameters, preoperative HUs on CT, and postoperative subsidence were collected. Thirty-six–inch standing radiographs were used to measure segmental lordosis, disc space height, and subsidence; data were collected immediately postoperatively and at 1 year. Subsidence was graded using a published grade of disc height loss: grade 0, 0%–24%; grade I, 25%–49%; grade II, 50%–74%; and grade III, 75%–100%. HU values were measured on preoperative CT from L1 to L5, and each lumbar vertebral body HU was measured 4 separate times.

RESULTS

After identifying 138 patients who underwent LLIF, 68 met the study inclusion criteria. All patients had single-level LLIF with pedicle screw fixation. The mean follow-up duration was 25.3 ± 10.4 months. There were 40 patients who had grade 0 subsidence, 15 grade I, 9 grade II, and 4 grade III. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, or smoking. There were no significant differences in cage sizes, cage lordosis, and preoperative disc height. The mean segmental HU (the average HU value of the two vertebrae above and below the LLIF) was 169.5 ± 45 for grade 0, 130.3 ± 56.2 for grade I, 100.7 ± 30.2 for grade II, and 119.9 ± 52.9 for grade III (p < 0.001). After using a receiver operating characteristic curve to establish separation criteria between mild and severe subsidence, the most appropriate threshold of HU value was 135.02 between mild and severe subsidence (sensitivity 60%, specificity 92.3%). After univariate and multivariate analysis, preoperative segmental HU value was an independent risk factor for severe cage subsidence (p = 0.017, OR 15.694, 95% CI 1.621–151.961).

CONCLUSIONS

Lower HU values on preoperative CT are associated with cage subsidence after LLIF. Measurement of preoperative HU values on CT may be useful when planning LLIF surgery.

[Comparison of the effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery]

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical and radiological effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery.

METHODS

The clinical data of 40 patients who underwent revision surgery due to Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery betweem April 2013 and March 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 18 patients underwent OLIF (OLIF group) and 22 patients underwent PLIF (PLIF group) for revision. There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, body mass index, intervals between primary surgery and revision surgery, number of primary fused levels, disc spaces of Cage dislodgement, and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), the segmental lordosis (SL) and disc height (DH) of the disc space of Cage dislodgement, and the lumbar lordosis (LL) before revision ( P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and complications of the two groups were recorded and compared. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain were evaluated at 3 days, 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, and the ODI scores were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation. The SL and DH of the disc space of Cage dislodgement and LL were measured at 12 months after operation and compared with those before operation. CT examination was performed at 12 months after operation, and the fusion of the disc space implanted with new Cage was judged by Bridwell grading standard.

RESULTS

The intraoperative blood loss in the OLIF group was significantly less than that in the PLIF group ( t=-12.425, P=0.000); there was no significant difference between the two groups in the operation time and hospital stay ( P>0.05). Both groups were followed up 12-30 months, with an average of 18 months. In the OLIF group, 2 patients (11.1%) had thigh numbness and 1 patient (5.6%) had hip flexor weakness after operation; 2 patients (9.1%) in the PLIF group had intraoperative dural sac tear. The other patients' incisions healed by first intention without early postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups ( χ 2=0.519, P=0.642). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, and the ODI score of the two groups at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with those before operation ( P<0.05); there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation ( P>0.05). At 12 months after operation, SL, LL, and DH in the two groups were significantly increased when compared with preoperative ones ( P<0.05); SL and DH in the OLIF group were significantly improved when compared with those in the PLIF group ( P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in LL between the two groups ( P>0.05). CT examination at 12 months after operation showed that all the operated disc spaces achieved bony fusion. According to the Bridwell grading standard, 12 cases were grade Ⅰ and 6 cases were grade Ⅱ in the OLIF group, and 13 cases were grade Ⅰ and 9 cases were grade Ⅱ in the PLIF group; there was no significant difference between the two groups ( Z=-0.486, P=0.627). During follow-up, neither re-displacement or sinking of Cage, nor loosening or fracture of internal fixation occurred.

CONCLUSION

OLIF and PLIF can achieve similar effectiveness in the treatment of Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery. OLIF can further reduce intraoperative blood loss and restore the SL and DH of the disc space of Cage dislodgement better.