Evaluation of Spinal Fusion in Thoracic and Thoracolumbar Spine on Standard X-Rays: A New Grading System for Spinal Interbody Fusion

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusions Using a Titanium Cage with a Biomimetic Surface

BACKGROUND

 We analyzed clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusions (ALIFs) using a new biomimetic titanium fusion cage (Titan nanoLOCK interbody, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States). This specialized cage employs precise nanotechnology to stimulate inherent biochemical and cellular osteogenic reactions to the implant, aiming to amplify the rate of fusion. To our knowledge, this is the only study to assess early clinical and radiographic results in ALIFs.

METHODS

 We conducted a retrospective review of data for patients who underwent single or multilevel ALIF using this implant between October 2016 and April 2021. Indications for treatment were spondylolisthesis, postlaminectomy syndrome, or spinal deformity. Clinical and radiographic outcome data for these patients were collected and assessed.

RESULTS

 A total of 84 patients were included. The mean clinical follow-up was 36.6 ± 14 months. At 6 months, solid fusion was seen in 97.6% of patients. At 12 months, solid fusion was seen in 98.8% of patients. Significant improvements were seen in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index) at 6 and 12 months compared with the preoperative scores (p < 0.001). One patient required reoperation for broken pedicle screws 2 days after the ALIF. None of the patients required readmission within 90 days of surgery. No patients experienced an infection.

CONCLUSIONS

 ALIF using a new titanium interbody fusion implant with a biomimetic surface technology demonstrated high fusion rates (97.6%) as early as 6 months. There was significant improvement in PROMs at 6 and 12 months.

Clinical, Radiographic and Fusion Comparison of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) stand-alone and OLIF with posterior pedicle screw fixation in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes and characteristics of oblique lumbar interbody fusion stand-alone (OLIF-SA) and OLIF with posterior pedicle screw fixation (OLIF-PPS) in the treatment of Grade I or Grade II degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2019 and May 2022, 139 patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis were treated with OLIF-SA (n = 85) or OLIF-PPS (n = 54). The clinical and radiographic records were reviewed.

RESULTS

The clinical and radiographic outcomes were similar in both groups. The operative time and intraoperative blood loss in the OLIF-SA group were lower than those in the OLIF-PPS group (P < 0.05). However, the OLIF-PPS group had significantly better disc height (DH) and postoperative forward spondylolisthesis distance (FSD) improvement at 6 months (P < 0.05). The OLIF-PPS group had a significantly lower cage subsidence value than the OLIF-SA group (P < 0.05). Improvement of the lumbar lordotic angle (LA) and fusion segmental lordotic angle (FSA) in the OLIF-PPS group was significantly better than that in the OLIF-SA group (P < 0.05). In terms of fusion types, the OLIF-SA group tended to undergo fusion from the edge of the vertebral body. Fusion in the OLIF-PPS group began more often in the bone graft area of the central cage of the vertebral body. The fusion speed of the OLIF-SA group was faster than that of the OLIF-PPS group.

CONCLUSION

OLIF-SA has the advantages of a short operative time, less intraoperative blood loss, and reduced financial burden, while PPS has incomparable advantages in the reduction of spondylolisthesis, restoration of lumbar physiological curvature, and long-term maintenance of intervertebral DH. In addition, the SA group had a unique vertebral edge fusion method and faster fusion speed.

Successful fusion versus pseudarthrosis after spinal instrumentation: a comprehensive imaging review

PURPOSE

Following spinal instrumentation and fusion, differentiating between successful arthrodesis and pseudoarthrosis on imaging can be challenging. Interpretation of such examinations requires understanding both the expected evolution of postoperative findings and the subtle indicators of pseudoarthrosis across multiple imaging modalities. Due to this level of intricacy, many clinicians lack familiarity with the subject beyond the more rudimentary concepts.

METHODS

This review provides an in-depth overview of the imaging of the post-operative spine, with particular emphasis on differentiating between pseudoarthrosis and arthrodesis.

RESULTS

A comprehensive overview of imaging of the post-operative spine is given, including the most common imaging modalities utilized, the expected post-operative findings, imaging findings in pseudoarthrosis, and imaging definitions of fusion.

CONCLUSION

Differentiating between pseudoarthrosis and arthrodesis in the postoperative spine is complex, and requires a robust understanding of various findings across many different modalities.