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

The influence of osteoporosis on mechanical complications in lumbar fusion surgery: a systematic review

Background

Adults undergoing spine surgery often have underlying osteoporosis, which may be a risk factor for postoperative complications. Although these associations have been described, osteoporosis remains profoundly underdiagnosed and undertreated in the spine surgery population. A thorough, comprehensive systematic review summarizing the relationships between bone mineral density (BMD) and specific complications of lumbar fusion surgery could be a valuable resource for raising awareness and supporting clinical practice changes.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched for original clinical research articles reporting on BMD, or surrogate measure, as a predictor of complications in adults undergoing elective lumbar fusion for degenerative disease or deformity. Endpoints included cage subsidence, screw loosening, pseudarthrosis, vertebral fracture, junctional complications, and reoperation.

Results

A total of 71 studies comprising 12,278 patients were included. Overall, considerable heterogeneity in study populations, methods of bone health assessment, and definition and evaluation of clinical endpoints precluded meta-analysis. Nevertheless, low BMD was associated with higher rates of implant failures like cage subsidence and screw loosening, which were often diagnosed with concomitant pseudarthrosis. Osteoporosis was also a significant risk factor for proximal junctional kyphosis, particularly due to fracture. Many studies found surgical site-specific BMD to best predict focal complications. Functional outcomes were inconsistently addressed.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest osteoporosis is a significant risk factor for mechanical complications of lumbar fusion. These results emphasize the importance of preoperative osteoporosis screening, which allows for medical and surgical optimization of high-risk patients. This review also highlights current practical challenges facing bone health evaluation in patients undergoing elective surgery. Future prospective studies using standardized methods are necessary to strengthen existing evidence, identify optimal predictive thresholds, and establish specialty-specific practice guidelines. In the meantime, an awareness of the surgical implications of osteoporosis and utility of preoperative screening can provide for more informed, effective patient care.

Endplate weakening during cage bed preparation significantly reduces endplate load capacity

PURPOSE

To analyze the effect of endplate weakness prior to PLIF or TLIF cage implantation and compare it to the opposite intact endplate of the same vertebral body. In addition, the influence of bone quality on endplate resistance was investigated.

METHODS

Twenty-two human lumbar vertebrae were tested in a ramp-to-failure test. One endplate of each vertebral body was tested intact and the other after weakening with a rasp (over an area of 200 mm2). Either a TLIF or PLIF cage was then placed and the compression load was applied across the cage until failure of the endplate. Failure was defined as the first local maximum of the force measurement. Bone quality was assessed by determining the Hounsfield units (HU) on CT images.

RESULTS

With an intact endplate and a TLIF cage, the median force to failure was 1276.3N (693.1-1980.6N). Endplate weakening reduced axial endplate resistance to failure by 15% (0-23%). With an intact endplate and a PLIF cage, the median force to failure was 1057.2N (701.2-1735.5N). Endplate weakening reduced axial endplate resistance to failure by 36.6% (7-47.9%). Bone quality correlated linearly with the force at which endplate failure occurred. Intact and weakened endplates showed a strong positive correlation: intact-TLIF: r = 0.964, slope of the regression line (slope) = 11.8, p < 0.001; intact-PLIF: r = 0.909, slope = 11.2, p = 5.5E-05; weakened-TLIF: r = 0.973, slope = 12.5, p < 0.001; weakened-PLIF: r = 0.836, slope = 6, p = 0.003.

CONCLUSION

Weakening of the endplate during cage bed preparation significantly reduces the resistance of the endplate to subsidence to failure: endplate load capacity is reduced by 15% with TLIF and 37% with PLIF. Bone quality correlates with the force at which endplate failure occurs.

Load distribution on intervertebral cages with and without posterior instrumentation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF, TLIF) are well-established procedures for spinal fusion. However, little is known about load sharing between cage, dorsal construct, and biological tissue within the instrumented lumbar spine.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to quantify the forces acting on cages under axial compression force with and without posterior instrumentation.

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical cadaveric study.

METHODS

Ten lumbar spinal segments were tested under uniaxial compression using load cell instrumented intervertebral cages. The force was increased in 100N increments to 1000N or a force greater than 500N on one load cell. Each specimen was tested after unilateral PLIF (uPLIF), bilateral PLIF (bPLIF) and TLIF each with/without posterior instrumentation. Dorsal instrumentation was performed with 55N of compression per side.

RESULTS

Cage insertion resulted in median cage preloads of 16N, 29N and 35N for uPLIF, bPLIF, and TLIF. The addition of compressed dorsal instrumentation increased the median preload to 224N, 328N, and 317N, respectively. With posterior instrumentation, the percentage of the external load acting on the intervertebral cage was less than 25% at 100N (uPLIF: 14.2%; bPLIF: 16%; TLIF: 11%), less than 45% at 500N (uPLIF: 31.8%; bPLIF: 41.1%; TLIF: 37.9%) and less than 50% at 1000N (uPLIF: 40.3%; bPLIF: 49.7%; TLIF: 43.4%). Without posterior instrumentation, the percentage of external load on the cages was significantly higher with values above 50% at 100N (uPLIF: 55.6%; bPLIF: 75.5%; TLIF: 66.8%), 500N (uPLIF: 71.7%; bPLIF: 79.2%; TLIF: 65.4%), and 1000N external load (uPLIF: 73%; bPLIF: 80.5%; TLIF: 66.1%). For absolute loads, preloads and external loads must be added together.

CONCLUSIONS

Without posterior instrumentation, the intervertebral cages absorb more than 50% of the axial load and the load distribution is largely independent of the loading amplitude. With posterior instrumentation, the external load acting on the cages is significantly lower and the load distribution becomes load amplitude dependent, with a higher proportion of the load transferred by the cages at high loads. The bPLIF cages tend to absorb more force than the other two cage configurations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Cage instrumentation allows some of the compression force to be transmitted through the cage to the screws below, better distributing and reducing the overall force on the pedicle screws at the end of the construct and on the rods.

Efficacy of PE-PLIF with a novel ULBD approach for lumbar degeneration diseases: a large-channel endoscopic retrospective study

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of Percutaneous Endoscopic Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (PE-PLIF) combined with a novel Unilateral Laminotomy for Bilateral Decompression (ULBD) approach using a large-channel endoscope in treating Lumbar Degenerative Diseases (LDD).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis evaluates 41 LDD patients treated with PE-PLIF and ULBD from January 2021 to June 2023. A novel ULBD approach, called 'Non-touch Over-Top' technique, was utilized in this study. We compared preoperative and postoperative metrics such as demographic data, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, surgical details, and radiographic changes.

RESULTS

The average follow-up duration was 14.41 ± 2.86 months. Notable improvements were observed postoperatively in VAS scores for back and leg pain (from 5.56 ± 0.20 and 6.95 ± 0.24 to 0.20 ± 0.06 and 0.12 ± 0.05), ODI (from 58.68 ± 0.80% to 8.10 ± 0.49%), and JOA scores (from 9.37 ± 0.37 to 25.07 ± 0.38). Radiographic measurements showed significant improvements in lumbar and segmental lordosis angles, disc height, and spinal canal area. A high fusion rate (97.56% at 6 months, 100% at 12 months) and a low cage subsidence rate (2.44%) were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

PE-PLIF combined with the novel ULBD technique via a large-channel endoscope offers significant short-term benefits for LDD management. The procedure effectively expands spinal canal volume, decompresses nerve structures, improves lumbar alignment, and stabilizes the spine. Notably, it improves patients' quality of life and minimizes complications, highlighting its potential as a promising LDD treatment option.

A Comparison of 2 Cage Sizes in Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the fusion and subsidence rate and clinical outcomes when using different-sized static PEEK cages in BE-TLIF.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Biportal endoscopic techniques for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) have been shown to have similar clinical and fusion outcomes with faster clinical recovery in comparison to tubular surgery. Subsidence of the interbody, however, could be a complication.

METHODS

Patients who underwent 1 or 2 level BE-TLIF for degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis between January 2019 and January 2022 were included. A 32×10 mm cage (group A) and a 40×15 mm cage (group B) were compared. The visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg symptoms, and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were collected. Plain radiographs and computed tomography assessed fusion and subsidence at a minimum of 12 months.

RESULTS

Of the 69 enrolled patients, 39 group A patients (51 levels) and 30 group B patients (32 levels) were compared. The operation time per level was 123 ± 15.8 and 138 ± 10.5 minutes per fusion level in groups A and B, respectively (P < 0.05). ODI improved from 64.8 ± 6.2 to 15.7 ± 7.1 in group A and from 65.3 ± 5.6 to 15.1 ± 6.3 in group B at the final follow-up (P < 0.05). VAS leg and back score improvement between the groups did not differ; however, the 3-month postoperative VAS back improvement was significantly higher in group B. The final fusion rate at the final follow-up did not significantly differ; however, the fusion ratio at 1 year was higher in group B (P < 0.05). Subsidence occurred in 5 cases (9.8%) in group A and none in group B (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

BE-TLIF using a larger cage can be performed safely with similar patient-reported outcome measures with a faster fusion rate with less subsidence risk.

LEVEL OF STUDY

III.

Influence of Placement of Lumbar Interbody Cage on Subsidence Risk: Biomechanical Study

OBJECTIVE

Lumbar spinal fusion is a common surgical procedure that can be done with a variety of different instrumentation and techniques. Despite numerous research studies investigating subsidence risk factors, the impact of cage placement on subsidence is not fully elucidated. This study aims to determine whether placement of an expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage at the center end plate or at the anterior apophyseal ring affects cage subsidence.

METHODS

A transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage was placed centrally or peripherally between 2 synthetic vertebral models of L3 and L4. A compression plate attached to a 10 KN load cell was used to uniaxially compress the assembly. The ultimate force required for the assembly to fail and subsidence stiffness were analyzed. Computed tomography scans of each L3 and L4 were obtained, and maximum end plate subsidence was measured in the frontal plane.

RESULTS

Anterior apophyseal cage placement resulted in higher stiffness of the vertebrae-cage assembly (Ks, 962.89 N/mm) and a higher subsidence stiffness (Kb,987.21 N/mm) compared with central placement (P < 0.05). Ultimate compressive load of the vertebrae-cage assembly did not increase. Moreover, the maximum subsidence depth did not significantly vary between placements.

CONCLUSIONS

The subsidence stiffness increased with anterior apophyseal cage placement. Periphery end plate cortical bone architecture may play a role in resisting the impact of cage subsidence. To fully understand the effect of cage placement on cage subsidence, future studies should investigate its implications on native and diseased spine.

Biomechanical evaluation of Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical analysis

In order to analyze and evaluate the stability of lumbar spine and the risk of cage subsidence after different minimally invasive fusion operations, two finite element models Percutaneous endoscopic posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PE-PLIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody Fusion (MIS-TLIF) were established. The results showed that compared with MIS-TLIF, PE-PLIF had better segmental stability, lower pedicle screw rod system stress, and lower risk of cage subsidence. The results suggest that the cage with appropriate height should be selected to ensure the segmental stability and avoid the risk of the subsidence caused by the cage with large height.

Reverse Lumbar Pedicle Screw in Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Novel Concept to Restrict Cage Subsidence

OBJECTIVE

Cage subsidence is a common morbidity after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF), with risk of compromising clinical and radiographic outcomes. The study aims to describe an innovative reverse lumbar pedicle screw (RLPS) technique in OLIF and compare its effect on restricting cage subsidence with classical lateral fixation (LF) in radiological and clinical evaluation.

METHOD

Consecutive patients having undergone single-level OLIF-LF/RLPS from 2018 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. In OLIF-RLPS, the upper entry point was determined at the intersection between one horizontal line (1 cm above inferior endplate) and one vertical line (dissecting anterior and middle thirds of the vertebra) while the inferior entry point between one horizontal line (5 mm below superior endplate) and the same vertical line. Trajectories were from vertebrae reverse into contralateral pedicle. Radiological evaluation included disc height (DH) and segmental lordosis (SL); cage subsidence was evaluated by DH loss. Clinical assessment included visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI). Student t or Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variation according to normality analysis while Chi-square test for category variation.

RESULTS

A total of 29 patients had been enrolled in the study including 14 cases in the RLPS group and 15 cases in the LF group. The DH in the OLIF-RLPS group had increased from the preoperative 9.07 ± 1.73 mm to 13.73 ± 1.83 mm postoperatively, without significant difference compared with the OLIF-LF group during the perioperative, but decreased to 12.53 ± 1.74 mm in 3 months and maintained at 12.00 ± 1.45 mm in 12 months, significantly higher than the OLIF-LF group (p < 0.05). At the last follow-up, 7.1% (1/14) cases in the OLIF-RLPS group had shown subsidence of grade I, significantly less than 46.7% (7/15) cases in the OLIF-LF group. Pain and disability had improved similarly in two groups, without significant difference detected between two groups at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

RLPS technique with modified entry points and prolonged trajectory could effectively restrict cage subsidence in OLIF postoperatively compared with traditional lateral fixation.

Cortical Endplate Bone Density Measured by Novel Phantomless Quantitative Computed Tomography May Predict Cage Subsidence more Conveniently and Accurately

OBJECTIVE

Previous studies have shown that bone mineral density (BMD) is a predictor of cage subsidence. Phantom-less quantitative computed tomography (PL-QCT) can measure volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD) of lumbar trabecular and cortical bone. The study of endplate vBMD (EP-vBMD) is important in predicting cage settlement after extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF). This study aimed to determine the risk factors for postoperative cage subsidence after XLIF, particularly focusing on the relationship between vBMD measured by automatic PL-QCT and cage subsidence.

METHODS

Patients who underwent XLIF surgery from January 2018 to October 2020 with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up were retrospectively included. Cage subsidence was defined as >2 mm cage sinking on the adjacent endplate in follow-up imaging evaluation. Outcome measures were localized vBMDs included EP-vBMDs with different region of interest (ROI) heights measured by PL-QCT based on a customized muscle-fat algorithm. Shapiro-Wilk test, one-way ANOVA, Mann-Whitney test, Fisher exact test, univariable and multivariable logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were executed in this study.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirteen levels of 78 patients were included in the analysis. The mean age was 65 ± 7.9 years for 11 males and 67 females. Cage subsidence occurred on 45 (39.8%) surgical levels. There was no significant difference in demographics, fused levels, or preoperative radiographic parameters. 1.25-mm EP-vBMD (0.991 [0.985,0.997], p = 0.004) and P-TB-vBMD (cage-positioned trabecular volumetric bone mineral density) (0.988 [0.977-0.999], p = 0.026) were cage-subsidence relevant according to univariate analysis. Low 1.25-mm EP-vBMD (0.992 [0.985, 0.999], p = 0.029) was an independent risk factor according to multifactorial analysis.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative low EP-vBMD was an independent risk factor for postoperative cage subsidence after XLIF. EP-vBMD measured by most cortex-occupied ROI may be the optimal vBMD parameter for cage subsidence prediction.

An Analysis of a Decade of Lumbar Interbody Cage Failures in the United States: A MAUDE Database Study

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the rates of lumbar interbody cage failures based on their material and manufacturer.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Perioperative lumbar interbody cage malfunctions are underreported events in the spine literature and may result in complications. Although the Food and Drug Administration ensures the safety of these devices under physiological conditions after implantation, these devices may experience nonphysiological conditions during implantation, which may be overlooked.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The MAUDE database was examined for reports of lumbar cage device malfunctions from 2012 to 2021. Each report was categorized based on failure type and implant design. A market analysis was performed by dividing the total number of failures per year for each manufacturer by their approximate yearly revenue from spinal implants in the United States. Outlier analysis was performed to generate a threshold value above which failure rates were defined as greater than the normal index.

RESULTS

Overall, 1875 lumbar cage malfunctions were identified. Of these, 1230 (65.6%) were cage breakages, 257 (13.7%) were instrument malfunctions, 177 (9.4%) were cage migrations, 143 (7.6%) were assembly failures, 70 (4.5%) were screw-related failures, and 21 (1.1%) were cage collapses. Of the breakages, 923 (74.9%) occurred during insertion or impaction and 97 entries detailed a medical complication or a retained foreign body. Of the migrations, 155 (88.6%) were identified postoperatively, of which 73 (47.1%) detailed complications and 52 (33.5%) required a revision procedure. Market analysis demonstrated that Medtronic, Zimmer Biomet, Stryker, Seaspine, and K2M exceeded the calculated threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Lumbar cages with polyether ether ketone core material failed more frequently by breakage, whereas titanium surface cages failed more frequently by migration. Failure rates varied depending on the manufacturer. Most cage breakages identified in the present study occurred intraoperatively during implantation. These findings call for a more detailed Food and Drug Administration evaluation of these intraoperative malfunctions before commercial approval.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

Is Age a Risk Factor for Early Postoperative Cage Subsidence After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Retrospective Study in 170 Patients

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to evaluate whether age is a risk factor for cage subsidence, and whether other patient characteristics, preoperative radiological or imaging parameters are associated with cage subsidence and the need for revision surgery in patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

METHODS

Patient demographics and surgery-related information were extracted. Cage subsidence was evaluated using upright standing sagittal plane X-rays and defined as more than 2 mm migration of the cage into the adjacent vertebral body. Patients who received revision surgery within 1 year for any reason were recorded. Radiographic parameters were measured. Univariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the risk factors for cage subsidence and need for revision surgery.

RESULTS

At 3-month and 1-year follow-up, cage subsidence was observed in 28 patients (16.5%) and 58 patients (34.1%), respectively. Twenty-seven patients received revision surgery within the first year after TLIF. Age (odds ratio (OR): 1.07 per year) and male sex (OR: 2.76) had a significantly increased odds ratio for cage subsidence 3 months after TLIF. Male sex (OR: 2.55) but not age was a significant risk factor for cage subsidence 1 year after TLIF. Of all assessed risk factors, only BMI (OR: 1.11 per kg/m2) had a significantly increased risk for the need of revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Age was associated with cage subsidence 3 months but not 1 year after TLIF suggesting that age is only a risk factor for early cage subsidence and not in a longer follow-up.

Comparison of efficacy between unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and prognosis of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion (ULIF) and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar fusion (MIS-TLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases.

METHODS

Chinese and English databases were retrieved for the period from database creation to December 31, 2022. Case-control studies on unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar fusion were collected. The observation indexes consisted of operation times, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, postoperative MacNab excellent and good rate, imaging fusion rate at the last follow-up, and complications. The NO rating table was employed to assess the quality of the included literature, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Revman5.4.1 and Stata17.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 738 surgical patients were considered, including 347 patients in the ULIF group and 391 in the MIS-TLIF group. This Meta-analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in mean operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, length of hospital stay, and early postoperative (1-2W) visual analogue scale/score (VAS) scores for back pain. No significant differences were observed in the final follow-up postoperative VAS scores for back pain, postoperative leg VAS score, postoperative oswestry disability index score, excellent and good rate of postoperative modified MacNab, imaging fusion rate, and complications.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the MIS-TLIF group, the ULIF group had longer operation time, lower intraoperative blood loss and postoperative drainage volume, lower lumbar VAS score in the early postoperative period, and shorter hospital stay. ULIF is less invasive than traditional MIS-TLIF, making it a trustworthy surgical option for lumbar degenerative diseases with comparable fusion efficiency, superior MacNab rate, and complication rate.

Biomechanical Analysis of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages With Various Elastic Moduli in Osteoporotic and Non-osteoporotic Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Finite element analysis (FEA).

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the effects of cage elastic modulus (Cage-E) on the endplate stress in different bone conditions: osteoporosis (OP) and non-osteoporosis (non-OP). We also explored the correlation between endplate thickness and endplate stress.

METHOD

The FEA models of L4-L5 with lumbar interbody fusion were designed to access the effects of Cage-E on the endplate stress in different bone conditions. Two groups of the Young's moduli of bony structure were assigned to simulate the conditions of OP and non-OP, and the bony endplates were analyzed in 2 kinds of thicknesses: .5 mm and 1.0 mm, with the insertion of cages with different Young's moduli including .5, 1.5, 3, 5, 10, and 20 GPa. After model validation, an axial compressive load of 400 N and a flexion/extension moment of 7.5Nm was performed on the superior surface of L4 vertebral body in order to analyze the distribution of stress.

RESULT

The maximum Von Mises stress in the endplates increased by up to 100% in the OP model compared with non-OP model under the same condition of cage-E and endplate thickness. In both OP and non-OP models, the maximum endplate stress decreased as the cage-E decreased, but the maximum stress in the lumbar posterior fixation increased as the cage-E decreased. Thinner endplate thickness was associated with increased endplate stress.

CONCLUSION

The endplate stress is higher in osteoporotic bone than non-osteoporotic bone, which explains part of the mechanism of OP-related cage subsidence. It is reasonable to reduce the endplate stress by reducing the cage-E, but we should balance the risk of fixation failure. Endplate thickness is also important when evaluating the cage subsidence risk.

Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Double Cages: Surgical Techniques and Treatment Outcomes

Objective: To describe the surgical techniques and the treatment outcomes of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BETLIF) using double cages.Methods: This study included 89 patients with 114 fusion segments between July 2019 and May 2021. One pure polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage and 1 composite titanium-PEEK cage were used for interbody fusion. Clinical outcomes measures included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for lower back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores. Computed tomography (CT) of the lumbar spine 1 year postoperatively was used to evaluate the Bridwell interbody fusion grades.Results: There were significant improvement in VAS for lower back pain from 5.2 ± 3.1 to 1.7 ± 2.1, VAS for leg pain from 6.3 ± 2.5 to 1.7 ± 2.0, ODI from 46.7 ± 17.0 to 12.7 ± 16.1, and JOA score from 15.6 ± 6.3 to 26.4 ± 3.2. The p-values were all < 0.001. The average hospital stay was 5.7 ± 1.1 days. The CT studies available for 60 fusion segments showed successful fusion (Bridwell grade I or grade II) in 56 segments (93.3%). Significant cage subsidence of more than 2 mm was only noted in 3 segments (5.0%). Complications included 1 dural tear, 2 pedicle screws malposition, and 2 epidural hematomas, in which 2 patients required reoperations.Conclusion: BETLIF with double cages provided good neural decompression and a sound environment for interbody fusion with a big cage footprint, a large amount of bone graft, endplate preservation, and segmental stability.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Double Banana Cages: Clinical Evaluations and Finite Element Model Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical and basic study.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using 2 banana-shaped cages leads to good clinical outcomes.

METHODS

First, we conducted a clinical study to compare outcomes among patients who underwent TLIF using different types or numbers of cages. Propensity matched patients in each group were reviewed. Thirty-four patients who underwent surgery with 2 bullet-shaped cages (group A), 34 with a banana-shaped cage (group B), and 34 with 2 banana-shaped cages (group C) were compared. Twelve months after the surgery, bony fusion and cage subsidence were evaluated.

RESULTS

The mean amount of cage subsidence was 14.9% in group A, 19.9% in group B, and 11.8% in group C. Subsidence in group B was significantly greater than that in group C (P < .01). Radiological bony fusion was not achieved in 2 cases in group B. Second, we performed a finite element model (FEM) analysis to determine the biomechanical stress of the vertebral endplate by comparing the single-banana cage construct with a double banana-shaped cage construct. FEM analysis showed that the maximum stress of the endplate in the single-cage model was 1.72-times greater than the maximum stress in the double-cage model. Furthermore, the maximal stress in the single-cage model was significantly higher than in the double-cage model during lumbar extension and side bending.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that TLIF with double banana-shaped cages led to good clinical outcomes with less cage subsidence, probably because of decreased mechanical stress on the vertebral endplate.

Subsidence Rates Associated With Porous 3D-Printed Versus Solid Titanium Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether 3D-printed porous titanium (3DPT) interbody cages offer any clinical or radiographic advantage over standard solid titanium (ST) interbody cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF).

METHODS

A consecutive series of adult patients undergoing one- or two-level TLIF with either 3DPT or ST "banana" cages were analyzed for patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographic complications, and clinical complications. Exclusion criteria included clinical or radiographic follow-up less than 1 year.

RESULTS

The final cohort included 90 ST interbody levels from 74 patients, and 73 3DPT interbody levels from 50 patients for a total of 124 patients. Baseline demographic variables and comorbidity rates were similar between groups (P > .05). Subsidence of any grade occurred more frequently in the ST group compared with the 3DPT group (24.4% vs 5.5%, respectively, P = .001). Further, the ST group was more likely to have higher grades of subsidence than the 3DPT group (P = .009). All PROMs improved similarly after surgery and revision rates did not differ between groups (both P > .05). On multivariate analysis, significant positive correlators with increasing subsidence grade included greater age (P = .015), greater body mass index (P = .043), osteoporosis/osteopenia (P < .027), and ST cage type (P = .019).

CONCLUSIONS

When considering interbody material for TLIF, both ST and 3DPT cages performed well; however, 3DPT cages were associated with lower rates of subsidence. The clinical relevance of these findings deserves further randomized, prospective investigation.

CT Hounsfield unit is a reliable parameter for screws loosening or cages subsidence in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Retrospective cohort study. To validate computed tomography (CT) radiodensity in Hounsfield units (HU) as a prognostic marker for pedicle screw loosening or cage subsidence in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). The retrospective study involved 198 patients treated with MI-TLIF. Screw loosening (SL), cage subsidence (CS), and fusion status were assessed by plain radiographs. The risk factors of SL and CS were identified using logistic regression. A total of 258 levels and 930 screws were analyzed. During a 2-year follow-up, 16.2% and 24.7% of patients had CS and SL respectively. The cut-off value of L1 HU for predicting SL or CS was 117. The L1 HU < 117 and BMI ≥ 25 were two independent risk factors. The risk of SL or CS was 4.1 fold in patients L1 HU < 117 and 2.6 fold in patients with BMI ≥ 25. For patients concurrently having BMI ≥ 25 and pre-op L1 HU < 117, the risk was 4.3 fold. Fusion rate and clinical outcome were comparable in patients with SL or CS. L1 HU < 117 and BMI > 25 were two independent risk factors that can be screened preoperatively for preventing SL or CS and lead to better management of patients undergoing MI-TLIF.

Biomechanical analysis of customized cage conforming to the endplate morphology in anterior cervical discectomy fusion: A finite element analysis

In anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), an interbody fusion device is an essential implant. An unsuitable interbody fusion device can cause postoperative complications, including subsidence and nonunion. We designed a customized intervertebral fusion device to reduce postoperative complications and validated it by finite element analysis. Herein, we built a non-homogeneous model of the C3-7 cervical spine. Three implant models (customized cage, commercial cage, and bone graft cage) were constructed and placed in the C45 cervical segment after ACDF surgery. The simulated range of motion (ROM), stress at the cage-bone interface, and stress on the cage and implants were compared under different conditions. The commercial cage showed maximum stress peaks at 40.3 MPa and 43.2 MPa in the inferior endplate of C4 and superior endplate of C5 under rotational conditions, higher compared to 29.7 MPa and 26.4 MPa, respectively, in the customized cage. The ROM was not significantly different between the three cages placed after ACDF. The stresses on the commercial cage were higher compared to the other two cages under all conditions. The bone graft in the customized cage was subject to higher stress than the commercial cage under all conditions, particularly lateral bending, wherein the maximum stress was 5.5 MPa. These results showed that a customized cage that better conformed to the vertebral anatomy was promising for reducing the risk of stress shielding and the occurrence of subsidence.

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.