Anterior 1-2 Level Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion for Degenerative Cervical Disease: A Retrospective Study With Lordotic Porous Tantalum Cages. Long-Term Changes in Sagittal Alignment and Their Clinical and Radiological Implications After Cage Subsidence

Innovative Developments in Lumbar Interbody Cage Materials and Design: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

This review comprehensively examines the evolution and current state of interbody cage technology for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF). This review highlights the biomechanical and clinical implications of the transition from traditional static cage designs to advanced expandable variants for spinal surgery. The review begins by exploring the early developments in cage materials, highlighting the roles of titanium and polyetheretherketone in the advancement of LIF techniques. This review also discusses the strengths and limitations of these materials, leading to innovations in surface modifications and the introduction of novel materials, such as tantalum, as alternative materials. Advancements in three-dimensional printing and surface modification technologies form a significant part of this review, emphasizing the role of these technologies in enhancing the biomechanical compatibility and osseointegration of interbody cages. In addition, this review explores the increase in biodegradable and composite materials such as polylactic acid and polycaprolactone, addressing their potential to mitigate long-term implant-related complications. A critical evaluation of static and expandable cages is presented, including their respective clinical and radiological outcomes. While static cages have been a mainstay of LIF, expandable cages are noted for their adaptability to the patient's anatomy, reducing complications such as cage subsidence. However, this review highlights the ongoing debate and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the superiority of either cage type in terms of clinical outcomes. Finally, this review proposes future directions for cage technology, focusing on the integration of bioactive substances and multifunctional coatings and the development of patient-specific implants. These advancements aim to further enhance the efficacy, safety, and personalized approach of spinal fusion surgeries. Moreover, this review offers a nuanced understanding of the evolving landscape of cage technology in LIF and provides insights into current practices and future possibilities in spinal surgery.

Management Considerations for Cervical Corpectomy: Updated Indications and Future Directions

Together, lower back and neck pain are among the leading causes of acquired disability worldwide and have experienced a marked increase over the past 25 years. Paralleled with the increasing aging population and the rise in chronic disease, this trend is only predicted to contribute to the growing global burden. In the context of cervical neck pain, this symptom is most often a manifestation of cervical degenerative disc disease (DDD). Traditionally, multilevel neck pain related to DDD that is recalcitrant to both physical and medical therapy can be treated with a procedure known as cervical corpectomy. Presently, there are many flavors of cervical corpectomy; however, the overarching goal is the removal of the pain-generating disc via the employment of the modern anterior approach. In this review, we will briefly detail the pathophysiological mechanism behind DDD, overview the development of the anterior approach, and discuss the current state of treatment options for said pathology. Furthermore, this review will also add to the current body of literature surrounding updated indications, surgical techniques, and patient outcomes related to cervical corpectomy. Finally, our discussion ends with highlighting the future direction of cervical corpectomy through the introduction of the "skip corpectomy" and distractable mesh cages.

Comparison of Lumbar Interbody Fusion with 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage in Treating Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and radiological effectiveness of lumbar interbody fusion with a 3D-printed porous titanium (3D-PPT) cage versus a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023461511). We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for related studies from inception to September 3, 2023. Review Manager 5.3 was used to conduct this meta-analysis. The reoperation rate, complication rate, fusion rate, and subsidence rate were assessed using relative risk and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Ten articles reporting 9 studies comparing lumbar interbody fusion with 3D-PPT cages versus PEEK cages for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease were included. The subsidence rate at the 1-year follow-up in the 3D-PPT cage was significantly lower than that in the PEEK cage. The fusion rate in the 3D-PPT cage was significantly higher than that in the PEEK cage at the 6-month follow-up. No significant difference was identified between the 2 groups at the 12-month follow-up. No significant difference was identified between the 2 groups in terms of the complication rate and reoperation rate. There was a trend toward a lower complication rate and reoperation rate with the 3D-PPT cage.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the PEEK cage, the 3D-PPT cage may be a safer implant. The 3D-PPT cage was associated with a higher fusion rate and lower subsidence rate. The 3D-PPT cage may accelerate the intervertebral fusion process, improve the quality of fusion and prevent the occurrence of subsidence.

Modic Changes Increase the Cage Subsidence Rate in Spinal Interbody Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of different Modic changes (MC) grades on the cage subsidence rate after spinal interbody fusion surgery.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to August 13, 2023, for relevant randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA13.0 were used to conduct this meta-analysis. The subsidence rate was assessed using relative risk and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Six studies with a total of 716 segments were allocated to four groups according to the type of MC. The subsidence rate in the non-Modic changes (NMC) was significantly lower than that in the MC. The subsidence rate in the NMC was significantly lower than that in the MC in the subgroup of cages with extra instrumentation. No significant difference was identified between the 2 groups in the oblique lumbar interbody fusion subgroup. The subsidence rate in the NMC was significantly lower than that in the MC in the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion subgroup. The subsidence rate in the NMC was significantly lower than that in the MC1 and MC2. We found no significant difference between NMC and MC3, MC1 and MC2, MC1 and MC3, or MC2 and MC3.

CONCLUSIONS

MC may be associated with a higher cage subsidence rate. With the increase in MC grades, the incidence of subsidence decreased gradually, but it was always higher than that in the NMC. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion may be a better choice for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease with MC.

Fundamentals of Mechanobiology and Potential Applications in Spinal Fusion

BACKGROUND

Mechanobiology can help optimize spinal fusion by providing insights into the mechanical environment required for bone healing and fusion. This includes understanding the optimal loading conditions, the mechanical properties of implanted materials, and the effects of mechanical stimuli on the cells involved in bone formation. The present article reviews the evidence for surface technologies and implant modification of spinal cages in enhancing spinal fusion.

METHODS

Databases used included Embase, MEDLINE, Springer, and Cochrane Library. Relevant articles were identified using specific keywords and search fields. Only systematic reviews, meta-analyses, review articles, and original research articles in English were included. Two researchers independently performed the search and selection process. A flowchart of the search strategy and study selection method is provided in the article.

RESULTS

The studies indicate that surface modification can significantly enhance osseointegration and interbody fusion by promoting cellular adhesion, proliferation, differentiation, and mineralization. Various surface modification techniques such as coating, etching, nanotopography, and functionalization achieve this. Similarly, implant material modification can improve implant stability, biocompatibility, and bioactivity, leading to better fusion outcomes. Mechanobiology plays a vital role in this process by influencing the cellular response to mechanical cues and promoting bone formation.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies reviewed indicate that surface technologies and implant material modification are promising approaches for improving the success of spinal cage fusion. Mechanobiology is critical in this process by influencing the cellular response to mechanical signals and promoting bone growth.