Factors Influencing Early Disc Height Loss Following Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

MRI-based endplate bone quality score predicts cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Cage subsidence is a common complication after lumbar interbody fusion surgery, with low bone mineral density (BMD) being a significant risk factor. ໿Endplate bone quality (EBQ) obtained from clinical MRI scans has been deemed reliable in determining regional BMD. However, the association between EBQ score and cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has not been clearly established.

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the relationship between EBQ score and cage subsidence in patients who underwent single-level OLIF.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A retrospective study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The study included adults with degenerative spinal conditions who underwent single-level OLIF at our institution.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Cage subsidence, disc height, EBQ score, fusion rate.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed data from patients who underwent single-level OLIF surgery at our institution between October 2017 and August 2022. Postoperative CT scans were used to measure cage subsidence, while the EBQ score was calculated using preoperative non-contrast T1-weighted MRI. To determine the predictive ability of the EBQ score, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was conducted. Additionally, univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In this study, a total of 88 patients were included and followed up for an average of 15.8 months. It was observed that 32.9% (n=29/88) of the patients experienced cage subsidence. The post-surgery disc height was significantly higher in patients who experienced subsidence compared to those who did not. The mean EBQ scores for patients with non-subsidence and subsidence were 2.31±0.6 and 3.48±1.2, respectively, and this difference was statistically significant. The ROC curve analysis showed that the AUC for the EBQ score was 0.811 (95% CI: 0.717-0.905). The most suitable threshold for the EBQ score was determined to be 2.318 (sensitivity: 93.1%, specificity: 55.9%). Additionally, the multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed a significant association between a higher EBQ score and an increased risk of subsidence (odds ratio [OR]=6.204, 95% CI=2.520-15.272, p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that higher preoperative EBQ scores are significantly linked to cage subsidence following single-level OLIF. Preoperative measurement of MRI can serve as a valuable tool in predicting cage subsidence.

Risk Factors of Cage Subsidence Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the risk factors for cage subsidence (CS) after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF).

METHODS

The cohort and case-control studies which reporting potential risk factors for CS following OLIF were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception to June 17, 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the literature according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RevMan5.3 software was used for Meta analysis. χ2 statistics and I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity, and the analysis results were represented by forest plots.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies with 280 cases of CS from 832 patients who underwent OLIF met the inclusion criteria. Elderly patients over 60 years old (odds ratio [OR] 2.44, 95% CI 1.38-4.31, P = 0.002), osteoporosis (OR 4.18, 95% CI 2.30-7.61, P = 0.002), end plate injury (OR 5.72, 95% CI 2.32-14.11, P = 0.0002), and overdistraction of intervertebral space (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.3 2-2.11, P < 0.0001) were potential risk factors, while Hounsfield units value of the vertebral body (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, P = 0.02) is a protective factor. The number of operative segments did not increase the risk of CS.

CONCLUSIONS

Older age, osteoporosis, endplate injury, and overdistraction of the intervertebral space may increase the risk of CS after OLIF. Although the incidence rate of CS is low, implementing effective preventions is a priority for clinicians based on these risk factors.

Factors associated with intervertebral cage subsidence in posterior lumbar fusion

BACKGROUND

The interbody fusion apparatus is a key component of the operation and plays a key role in the postoperative efficacy. Cage subsidence is one of the common complications after lumbar fusion and internal fixation. Clinical studies on the risk factors of cage subsidence are incomplete and inaccurate, especially paravertebral muscle atrophy and intervertebral bone fusion time.

METHODS

Among the patients who underwent PLIF surgery in our hospital from January 2016 to January 2019, 30 patients with cage subsidence and 30 patients without cage subsidence were randomly selected to be included in this study. The differences between the two groups were compared, and the relevant factors of cage subsidence were explored by single factor comparison and multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Bone mineral density (T) of the subsidence group [(- 1.84 ± 1.81) g/cm2 vs (- 0.87 ± 1.63) g/cm2, P = 0.018] was significantly lower than that of the normal group. There were 4 patients with end plate injury in the subsidence group (P = 0.038). Preoperative end plate Modic changes [I/II/III, (7/2/2) vs (2/5/8), P = 0.043] were significantly different between the two groups. In the subsidence group, preoperative rCSA of psoas major muscle [(1.43 ± 0.40) vs (1.64 ± 0.41), P = 0.043], CSA of paravertebral muscle [(4530.25 ± 776.55) mm2 vs (4964.75 ± 888.48) mm2, P = 0.047], paravertebral muscle rCSA [(3.03 ± 0.72) vs (3.84 ± 0.73), P < 0.001] and paravertebral muscle rFCSA [(2.29 ± 0.60) vs (2.89 ± 0.66), P < 0.001] were significantly lower than those in normal group. In the subsidence group, the vertebral body area [(1547.81 ± 309.89) mm2 vs (1326.48 ± 297.21) mm2, P = 0.004], the height of the immediately corrected vertebral space [(2.86 ± 1.10) mm vs (1.65 ± 1.02) mm, P = 0.020], immediately SL corrective Angle [(5.81 + 4.71)° vs (3.24 + 3.57) °, P = 0.009), postoperative PI-LL [(11.69 + 6.99)° vs (6.66 + 9.62) °, P = 0.029] and intervertebral fusion time [(5.38 ± 1.85) months vs (4.30 ± 1.49) months, P = 0.023] were significantly higher than those in the normal group. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the time of intervertebral fusion (OR = 1.158, P = 0.045), the height of immediate intervertebral space correction (OR = 1.438, P = 0.038), and the Angle of immediate SL correction (OR = 1.101, P = 0.019) were the risk factors for cage subsidence. Bone mineral density (OR = 0.544, P = 0.016) and preoperative paravertebral muscle rFCSA (OR = 0.525, P = 0.048) were protective factors.

CONCLUSION

Intervertebral fusion time, correctable height of intervertebral space, excessive Angle of immediate SL correction, bone mineral density and preoperative paravertebral muscle rFCSA are risk factors for cage subsidence after PLIF.

Subsidence of Interbody Cage Following Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: An Analysis and Potential Risk Factors

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to report the incidence and potential risk factors of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage subsidence following oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for lumbar degenerative diseases. We proposed also an algorithm to minimize subsidence following OLIF surgery.

METHODS

The study included a retrospective cohort of 107 consecutive patients (48 men and 59 women; mean age, 67.4 years) who had received either single- or multi-level OLIF between 2012 and 2019. Patients were classified into subsidence and non-subsidence groups. PEEK cage subsidence was defined as any violation of either endplate from the computed tomography scan in both sagittal and coronal views. Preoperative variables such as age, sex, body mass index, bone mineral density (BMD) measured by preoperative dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, smoking status, corticosteroid use, diagnosis, operative level, multifidus muscle cross-sectional area, and multifidus muscle fatty degeneration were collected. Age-related variables (height and length) were also documented. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the risk factors of subsidence.

RESULTS

Of the 107 patients (137 levels), 50 (46.7%) met the subsidence criteria. Higher PEEK cage height had the strongest association with subsidence (OR = 9.59, P < .001). Other factors significantly associated with cage subsistence included age >60 years (OR = 3.15, P = .018), BMD <-2.5 (OR = 2.78, P = .006), and severe multifidus muscle fatty degeneration (OR = 1.97, P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

Risk factors for subsidence in OLIF were age >60 years, BMD < -2.5, higher cage height, and severe multifidus muscle fatty degeneration. Patients who had subsidence had worse early (3 months) postoperative back and leg pain.

Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) compared with unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a 2-year follow-up study

BACKGROUND

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be an effective method of indirect decompression for the treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis (DLS). However, its superiority over Unilateral biportal endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ULIF) has not been reported yet. The current study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of OLIF and ULIF in patients with DLS.

METHODS

A total of 107 patients were included in this study, divided into two groups according to the surgical methods with 45 patients treated by OLIF combined with anterolateral single screwrod fixation, and 62 patients treated by ULIF. To compare the perioperative parameters (blood loss, operation time, and postop hospitalization) and clinical (the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores of the low back pain and leg pain and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)) and radiological (disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal) results of the two surgical approaches to evaluate their efficacy.

RESULTS

Compared with the ULIF group, the blood loss and operation time in the OLIF-AF group were significantly reduced, and the Postop hospitalization was comparable. The VAS scores in both groups were significantly improved compared to preop; however, the VAS score of low back pain in the OLIF-AF group was superior to that in ULIF group throughout the follow-up period (P < 0.05). The improvements in DH, LL, and Segmental angle were significantly lower in the ULIF group, and the expansion rate of CSA in the OLIF-AF group was superior to that in the ULIF group, but the difference was not statistically significant. The fusion rate in OLIF-AF group was significantly higher than that in ULIF group within 6 mo postop, and there was no significant difference at the last follow-up. The incidence of complications was comparable between the two groups, and there was no statistical difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Both OLIF-AF and ULIF achieved good short-term results in the treatment of DLS, and both surgical approaches are desirable. However, OLIF-AF has advantages over ULIF in terms of postoperative restoration of lumbar sagittal parameters and earlier intervertebral fusion. Long-term follow-up and larger clinical studies are needed to confirm this result.

Effects of the cage height and positioning on clinical and radiographic outcome of lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The proper cage positioning and height in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). This study evaluated their effects on clinical and radiographic outcome measures in patients undergoing LLIF.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study analyzed the characteristics and perioperative data of patients who underwent LLIF between January 2019 and December 2020. Radiographic (lumbar lordosis [LL], foraminal height, disc height [DH], segmental angle [SA], cross-sectional area [CSA] of thecal sac) and clinical (Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale) outcomes were assessed preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the last follow-up. The effects of cage height and positioning on these parameters were also investigated.

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up of 12.8 months, 47 patients with 70 operated level were analyzed. Data demonstrated that postsurgical clinical and radiographic outcome measures were significantly better than before surgery(P < 0.05). Cage height and positioning showed no significant difference with regarding to clinical outcome(P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis of the cage positioning showed that DH and SA were better restored by the final follow-up in patients with anteriorly placed cages than those with posteriorly placed cages (P < 0.05). Cages of posterior position showed significantly upgrading cage subsidence (P = 0.047). Cage height subgroup analysis showed that the preoperative forminal height, DH, and SA in the 11-mm cage group were significantly lower than in the 13-mm cage group; however, these parameters were comparable in the two groups postoperatively and at the final follow-up (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the postoperative and final follow-up degrees of DH, SA, and LL have improved in the 11-mm cage group more than the 13-mm cage group. The preoperative, postoperative, and final follow-up LL values in the 11-mm cage group were lower than in the 13-mm cage group(P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Cage height and positioning did not affect the clinical outcomes in the present study. Cages in anterior position showed better restoration in DH, SA and decreased the incidence of cage subsidence. A comparable radiographic outcome can be achieved by inserting an appropriate cage height based on preoperative radiography.

Comparing the medium-term outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion via transforaminal and oblique approach in treating lumbar degenerative disc diseases

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be effective in treating lumbar degenerative disorders (LDDs) via indirect decompression. However, its superiority over transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains questionable, especially in terms of medium-term follow-up.

PURPOSE

To compare the medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes of TLIF and OLIF in treating patients with LDDs.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective comparative study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Fifty-two patients treated by TLIF and forty-six patients treated by OLIF.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical records including the visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back and leg and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiological records including disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, and fusion rate. Surgical-related information and complications were also recorded.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients who were surgically managed for LDDs at L4-5 between 2015 and 2017 and completed at least 4 years of follow-up. A total of 98 patients were analyzed, with 46 patients treated by OLIF combined with anterolateral single screw-rod fixation (OLIF-AF group), and 52 patients treated by TLIF (TLIF group). Parameters including postoperative outcomes and perioperative complications were compared with evaluate the efficacy of the two approaches.

RESULTS

There was significantly less bleeding, surgical duration, and hospitalization in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group. Significant improvements in the clinical score were achieved in both groups. However, the VAS score of the lower back was significantly higher in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group throughout the whole follow-up period. Significantly higher expansion of the CSA was found in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group. However, the improvements in DH, LL, and SL were significantly lower in the TLIF group. The fusion rate was significantly higher in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group within 6 months postoperatively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups at the final record. No significant difference was found in the rate of overall complications between the two groups (25.0% vs. 23.9%, p=.545). The intraoperative complication rate in the TLIF group (13.5%) was slightly higher than that in the OLIF-AF group (6.5%) (p=.257). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adjacent segment disorder (ASD) between the two groups (7.7% vs. 10.9%, p=.422). Cage subsidence was slightly lower in the TLIF group (5.8%) than in the OLIF-AF group (13.0%) (p=.298).

CONCLUSIONS

Both the TLIF and OLIF-AF approaches demonstrated good medium-term outcomes in treating LDDs. Compared with TLIF, OLIF-AF showed advantages in postoperative recovery, improvement of intervertebral space and lumbar sagittal balance, and early intervertebral fusion but was associated with inferior spinal canal decompression efficacy. The two approaches shared comparable overall complication rates. However, OLIF-AF tended to have fewer intraoperative complications, and a higher incidence of subsidence.

Comparative Study of Cage Subsidence in Single-Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

We investigated the incidence and clinical features of cage subsidence after single-level lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). We studied a retrospective cohort of 59 patients (34 males, 25 females; mean age, 68.9 years) who received single-level LLIF. Patients were classified into subsidence and no-subsidence groups. Cage subsidence was defined as any violation of either endplate, classified using radiographs and computed tomography (CT) images. After one year, we compared patient characteristics, surgical parameters, radiological findings, pain scores, and fusion status. We also compared the Hounsfield unit (HU) endplate value obtained on CT preoperatively. Twenty patients (33.9%) had radiographic evidence of interbody cage subsidence. There were significant differences between the subsidence and no-subsidence groups in sex, cage height, fusion rate, and average HU value of both endplates (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in age, height, weight, or body mass index. Moreover, there were no significant differences in global alignment and Numerical Rating Scale change in low back pain, leg pain, and numbness. Despite suggestions that patients with lower HU values might develop cage subsidence, our results showed that cage subsidence after single-level LLIF was not associated with low back pain, leg pain, or numbness one year post-operation.

Early Postoperative Loss of Disc Height Following Transforaminal and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Radiographic Analysis

Study Design

Retrospective comparative radiological study.

Purpose

To analyze the difference in early disc height loss following transforaminal and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF and LLIF).

Overview of Literature

Minimal disc height loss facilitated by the polyaxial screw heads can occur naturally due to mechanical loading following lumbar fusion procedures. This loss does not usually cause any significant foraminal narrowing. However, when there is concomitant cage subsidence, symptomatic foraminal compromise could occur, especially when posterior decompression is not performed. It is not known whether the type of procedure, TLIF or LLIF, could influence this phenomenon.

Methods

Retrospectively, patients who underwent TLIF and LLIF for various degenerative conditions were shortlisted. Each of their fused levels with the cage in situ was analyzed independently, and the preoperative, postoperative, and follow-up disc height measurements were compared between the groups. In addition, the total disc height loss since surgery was calculated at final follow-up and was compared between the groups.

Results

Forty-six patients (age, 64.1±8.9 years) with 70 cage levels, 35 in each group, were selected. Age, sex, construct length, preoperative disc height, cage height, and immediate postoperative disc height were similar between the groups. By 3 months, disc height of the TLIF group was significantly less and continued to decrease over time, unlike in the LLIF group. By 1 year, the TLIF group demonstrated greater disc height loss (2.30±1.3 mm) than the LLIF group (0.89±1.1 mm). However, none of the patients in either group had any symptomatic complications throughout follow-up.

Conclusions

Although our study highlights the biomechanical advantage of LLIF over TLIF in maintaining disc height, none of the patients in our cohort had symptomatic complications or implant-related failures. Hence, TLIF, as it incorporates posterior decompression, remains a safe and reliable technique despite the potential for greater disc height loss.

Usefulness of anterior column release for segmental lordosis restoration in degenerative lumbar kyphosis

OBJECTIVE

Three-column osteotomies (3COs) for surgical correction of lumbar kyphosis show a strong correction capacity, but this procedure carries high morbidity rates. The anterior column release (ACR) technique was developed as a less invasive procedure. In this study the authors aimed to evaluate sagittal alignment restoration using ACR and to determine factors that affect the degree of correction.

METHODS

This study included 36 patients (68 cases) who underwent ACR of more than one level for adult spinal deformity. Parameters for regional sagittal alignment included segmental lordosis (SL). The parameters for global sagittal alignment included pelvic incidence, lumbar lordosis, sacral slope, pelvic tilt, and sagittal vertical axis (SVA). In addition, the interdiscal height (IDH) and difference of interdiscal angle (DIDA) were measured to evaluate the stiffness of the vertebra segment. The changes in SL were evaluated after ACR and the change of global sagittal alignment was also determined. Factors such as the location of the ACR level, IDH, DIDA, cage height, and additional posterior column osteotomy (PCO) were analyzed for correlation with the degree of SL correction.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients were included in this study. A total of 68 levels were operated with the ACR (8 levels at L2-3, 27 levels at L3-4, and 33 levels at L4-5). ACR was performed for 1 level in 10 patients, 2 levels in 20, and 3 levels in 6 patients (mean 1.9 ± 0.7 levels per patient). Mean follow-up duration was 27.1 ± 4.2 months. The mean SL of the total segment was 0.4° ± 7.2° preoperatively and increased by 15.3° ± 5.5° at the last follow-up (p < 0.001); thus, the mean increase of SL was 14.9° ± 8.1° per one ACR. Global sagittal alignment was also improved following SL restoration with SVA from 101.9 mm to 31.4 mm. The degree of SL correction was correlated with the location of ACR level (p = 0.041) and was not correlated with IDH, DIDA, cage height and additional PCO.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the mean correction angle of SL was 14.9 per one ACR. The degree of disc space collapse and stiffness of segment did not affect the degree of correction by ACR.

[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.