Do intraoperative radiographs predict final lumbar sagittal alignment following single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion?

A Surgical Treatment Algorithm for Restoring Pelvic Balance and Health-related Quality of Life in High-grade Lumbosacral Spondylolisthesis: Prospective Multicenter Cohort of 61 Young Patients

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective multicenter cohort-study.

OBJECTIVE

We propose an evidence-based surgical algorithm for achieving normal pelvic balance while optimizing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in high-grade spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The principles of surgical treatment for young patients with high-grade L5-S1 spondylolisthesis remain unclear. There is a growing body of evidence supporting the central role of pelvic balance in the postural control and biomechanics of subjects with high-grade spondylolisthesis.

METHODS

This retrospective study assessed a multicenter cohort of 61 patients with high-grade L5-S1 spondylolisthesis. Classification and regression tree analysis was used to identify objective criteria associated with pelvic balance and HRQoL after surgery.

RESULTS

The most important predictor of a postoperative balanced pelvis was a postoperative L5 incidence ≤63.5 degrees. With postoperative L5 incidence ≤63.5 degrees,a residual slip percentage 9% and performing an L5-S1 posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF)/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) increased the likelihood of achieving a balanced pelvis postoperatively. When L5 incidence was 63.5 degrees,a balanced pelvis was most likely achieved with fusion limited to L5 proximally, residual slip percentage ≤40%, and residual lumbosacral angle 98 degrees. Predictors of postoperative HRQoL were the preoperative HRQoL score, L5 incidence and slip percentage.

CONCLUSIONS

A surgical algorithm is proposed to achieve normal pelvic balance, while optimizing HRQoL. The first step during surgery is to assess L5 incidence and if L5 incidence is <65 degrees, the next step depends on the pelvic balance. With a preoperative balanced pelvis, it is important not to reduce completely the slip percentage by leaving a slip percentage ≥10%. When the preoperative pelvis is unbalanced, a TLIF/PLIF at L5-S1 is recommended to facilitate correcting the angular deformity at L5-S1. If L5 incidence is ≥65 degrees,a TLIF/PLIF at L5-S1 should be performed to correct the angular deformity at L5-S1, and fusion should ideally end at L5 proximally, in addition to performing gradual reduction of the slip percentage. If fusion up to L4 is required, a lumbosacral angle ≥100 degrees is key.

Do On-Table Radiographs Predict Postoperative Sagittal Alignment after Posterior Lumbar Fusion?

OBJECTIVE

To determine if intraoperative on-table lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis correlate with postoperative lordosis following single-level posterolateral decompression and fusion (PLDF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

METHODS

Electronic medical records were reviewed for patients ≥18 years old who underwent PLDF or TLIF between 2012 and 2020. Lumbar lordosis and segmental lordosis were compared between pre-, intra-, and postoperative radiographs using paired t tests. Significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 200 patients met inclusion criteria. No significant differences in preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative measurements were found between groups. Patients who underwent PLDF experienced less disc height loss over 1 year postoperatively (PLDF: 0.45 ± 0.9 mm vs. TLIF: 1.2 ± 1.4 mm, P < 0.001). Lumbar lordosis significantly decreased between intraoperative to postoperative radiographs at 2-6 weeks for PLDF (Δ: -4.0°, P < 0.001) and TLIF (Δ: -5.6°, P < 0.001), but no change was identified between the intraoperative and >6 month postoperative radiographs for PLDF (Δ: -0.3°, P = 0.634) or TLIF (Δ: -1.6°, P = 0.087). Segmental lordosis significantly increased from the preoperative to post-instrumentation intraoperative radiographs for PLDF (Δ: 2.7°, P < 0.001) and TLIF (Δ: 1.8°, P < 0.001), but it subsequently decreased at the final follow up for PLDF (Δ: -1.9°, P < 0.001) and TLIF (Δ: -2.3°, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Subtle decreases in lumbar lordosis may be noticed in early postoperative radiographs compared with intraoperative images on Jackson operative tables. However, these changes are not present at 1-year follow-up as lumbar lordosis increases to a similar level as intraoperative fixation.

Correlation Between Cage Positioning and Lumbar Lordosis in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF)

Objective  The present study evaluates radiographic outcomes and the lumbar lordosis achieved with a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) arthrodesis technique according to the positioning of an interbody device (cage) in the disc space. Methods  This is a retrospective radiographic analysis of single-level surgical patients with degenerative lumbar disease submitted to a TLIF procedure and posterior pedicle instrumentation. We divided patients into two groups according to cage positioning. For the TLIF-A group, the cages were anterior to the disc space; for the TLIF-P group, cages were posterior to the disc space. Considering the superior vertebral plateau of the lower vertebra included in the instrumentation, cages occupying a surface equal to the anterior 50% of the midline were placed in the TLIF-A group, and those in a posterior position were placed in the TLIF-P group. We assessed pre- and postoperative orthostatic lateral radiographs to obtain the following measures: lumbar lordosis (LL) (angle L1-S1), segmental lordosis (LS) (L4-S1), and segmental lordosis of the cage (SLC). Results  The present study included 100 patients from 2011 to 2018; 44 were males, and 46 were females. Their mean age was 50.5 years old (range, 27 to 76 years old). In total, 43 cages were "anterior" (TLIF-A) and 57 were "posterior" (TLIF-P). After surgery, the mean findings for the TLIF-A group were the following: LL, 50.7°, SL 34.9°, and SLC 21.6°; in comparison, the findings for the TLIF-P group were the following: LL, 42.3° ( p  < 0.01), SL 30.7° ( p  < 0.05), and SLC 18.8° ( p  > 0.05). Conclusion  Cage positioning anterior to the disc space improved lumbar and segmental lordosis on radiographs compared with a posterior placement.

Spinal stability analysis of lumbar interbody fusion according to pelvic type and cage angle based on simplified spinal model with various pelvic indices

Recently, the objectives of lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) have been extended to include the correction of broader/relative indications in addition to spinal fixation. Accordingly, LIF must be optimized for sagittal alignment while simultaneously achieving decompression. Therefore, a representative model classified into three pelvic types, i.e., neutral pelvis (NP), anterior pelvis (AP), and retroverted pelvis (RP), was selected according to the pelvic index, and LIF was performed on each representative model to analyze Lumbar lordosis (LL) and the corresponding equivalent stress. The finite element (FE) model was based on a sagittal 2D X-ray image. The calculation efficiency and convergence were improved by simplifying the modeling of the vertebral body in general and its posterior portion in particular. Based on the position of the pelvis, according to the pelvic shape, images of patients were classified into three types: AP, RP, and NP. Subsequently, representative images were selected for each type. The fixation device used in the fusion model was a pedicle screw and a spinal rod of a general type. PEEK was used as the cage material, and the cage shape was varied by using three different cage angles: 0°, 4°, and 8°. Spinal mobility: The pelvic type with the highest range of motion (ROM) for the spine was the NP type; the AP type had the highest LL. Under a combination load, the NP type exhibited the highest lumbar flexibility (LF), which was 2.46° lower on average compared to the case where a pure moment was applied. Equivalent stress on the spinal fixation device: The equivalent stress acting on the vertebrae was lowest when cage 0 was used for the NP and AP type. For the RP type, the lowest equivalent stress on the vertebrae was observed when cage 4 was used. Finally, for the L5 upper endplate, the stress did not vary significantly for a given type of cage. In conclusion, there was no significant difference in ROM according to cage angle, and the highest ROM, LL and LF were shown in the pelvic shape of NP type. However, when comparing the results with other pelvic types, it was not possible to confirm that LF is completely dependent on LL and ROM.

Comparing hyperlordotic and standard lordotic cages for achieving segmental lumbar lordosis during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in adult spinal deformity surgery

Background

Few studies directly compare the effect of interbody cages with different degrees of lordosis in producing segmental lumbar lordosis (SLL) in the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure. Thus, we aimed to investigate changes in SLL in hyperlordotic cages compared to standard lordotic cages in open TLIF procedures.

Methods

Thirty-eight consecutive patients who received open TLIF procedures performed by a single surgeon between 2017 and 2018 were reviewed. Twenty patients had "hyperlordotic cages" (20° lordosis), while 18 patients had "standard lordotic cages" (6° lordosis). Twenty-three patients had one-level TLIF procedures and 15 had two-level TLIF. Standard radiographic measurements, including SLL were assessed preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 1-year follow-up. SLL was measured from the superior endplate of the cephalad vertebra to the inferior endplate of the caudal vertebra. Changes in SLL were compared using Student's and paired t-tests.

Results

In one- and two-level open TLIF, both hyperlordotic and standard lordotic cages produced significant improvement in SLL. Among those receiving a one-level TLIF, SLL increased 7.8° (P=0.024) in those with standard lordotic cages; it increased 8.2° (P=0.020) in those with hyperlordotic cages. Among those receiving a two-level TLIF, SLL increased 13.9° (P=0.032) in those with standard lordotic cages; it increased 8.8° (P=0.023) in those with hyperlordotic cages. However, the improvement in SLL was not significantly different between the two cage types in either one or two-level TLIF procedures (P=0.917, P=0.389). At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant change in SLL, among standard lordotic and hyperlordotic cages (P=0.501, P=0.781).

Conclusions

Although it is theorized that hyperlordotic cages would increase SLL during open TLIF procedures more than standard lordotic cages, our data failed to demonstrate that. As our study examined cases performed by a single surgeon immediately before and after adoption of these lordotic cages, it is likely that surgical technique is of equal or greater importance in improving SLL than the amount of lordosis designed into interbody cages.

Does interbody cage lordosis impact actual segmental lordosis achieved in minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion?

OBJECTIVE

In an effort to prevent loss of segmental lordosis (SL) with minimally invasive interbody fusions, manufacturers have increased the amount of lordosis that is built into interbody cages. However, the relationship between cage lordotic angle and actual SL achieved intraoperatively remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if the lordotic angle manufactured into an interbody cage impacts the change in SL during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) done for degenerative pathology.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective review of a single-surgeon database of adult patients who underwent primary LIF between April 2017 and December 2018. Procedures were performed for 1-2-level lumbar degenerative disease using contemporary MIS techniques, including transforaminal LIF (TLIF), lateral LIF (LLIF), and anterior LIF (ALIF). Surgical levels were classified on lateral radiographs based on the cage lordotic angle (6°-8°, 10°-12°, and 15°-20°) and the position of the cage in the disc space (anterior vs posterior). Change in SL was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analyses of the cage lordotic angle within each surgical approach were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 116 surgical levels in 98 patients were included. Surgical approaches included TLIF (56.1%), LLIF (32.7%), and ALIF (11.2%). There were no differences in SL gained by cage lordotic angle (2.7° SL gain with 6°-8° cages, 1.6° with 10°-12° cages, and 3.4° with 15°-20° cages, p = 0.581). Subgroup analysis of LLIF showed increased SL with 15° cages only (p = 0.002). The change in SL was highest after ALIF (average increase 9.8° in SL vs 1.8° in TLIF vs 1.8° in LLIF, p < 0.001). Anterior position of the cage in the disc space was also associated with a significantly greater gain in SL (4.2° vs -0.3°, p = 0.001), and was the only factor independently correlated with SL gain (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with cage lordotic angle, cage position and approach play larger roles in the generation of SL in 1-2-level MIS for lumbar degenerative disease.

Intraoperative versus postoperative radiographic coronal balance for adult spinal deformity surgery

BACKGROUND

Coronal malalignment in adult spinal deformity (ASD) has a close relationship with patient clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between intra- and postoperative coronal radiographic parameters. A novel parameter, the central sacral pelvic line (CSPL), and its relation to the central sacral vertical line (CSVL) is explored. CSPL is a measure of spinal alignment referenced to the patient's pelvis as an intraoperative proxy for CSVL. CSVL is difficult to measure intraoperatively, because a C7-plumb line (referenced to gravity) cannot be drawn in the supine position.

METHODS

47 subjects ≥ 18 years old undergoing a spinal fusion of ≥ 6 levels from 2015 to 2017 were enrolled. The CSPL is defined as the perpendicular line bisecting the midpoint of the line that connects the superior aspects of the acetabuli. Two metrics describing coronal alignment were derived from each radiograph: (1) horizontal distance between the C7-plumb line and the CSPL at C7 (C7-CSPL) and (2) horizontal distance between the C7-plumb line and CSVL (C7-CSVL). Pearson's correlation and linear regression analysis was used to study the relationship between the intraoperative C7-CSPL and the postoperative C7-CSVL.

RESULTS

On average, the intraoperative C7-CSPL distance was 32.1 mm, postoperative C7-CSPL 20.8 mm, and postoperative C7-CSVL 18.9 mm. 15/47 (32%) had intraoperative C7-CSPL measurements > 4 cm, requiring intraoperative correction. Of those 15, 10 patients (67%) still had a postoperative C7-CSVL < 4 cm. Linear regression modeling indicates that when intraoperative CSPL is < 7.7 cm on average, the postoperative C7-CSVL will < 4 cm-our threshold for adequate coronal alignment. Patients with intraoperative C7-CSPL > 5 cm had a 50% chance of having a postoperative C7-CSVL > 4 cm; patients with intraoperative C7-CSPL < 5 cm had a 3% chance of having coronal malalignment. There is a strong positive relationship between postoperative C7-CSPL and C7-CSVL (r = 0.80 and 0.85, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In adult spinal surgery, the intraoperative coronal alignment measured using the novel C7-CSPL distance correlates well with postoperative C7-CSVL distance. This gives the surgeon an objective measurement of the correction they need after assessing initial intraoperative imaging. Our findings suggest an intraoperative C7-CSPL distance < 5 cm as a threshold value to predict postoperative C7-CSVL < 4 cm in 97% of patients tested.

Intraoperative Radiographs in Single-level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Can Predict Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Follow-up 2 Years After Surgery

MINI

Some of the improvements in DH, FH, and SLL achieved intraoperatively during lateral lumbar interbody fusion surgery were lost by the postoperative 1-week follow-up. An intraoperative radiograph can predict radiographic and clinical outcomes of the 2-year follow-up. The difference between preoperative DH and intraoperative DH should be >4.18 mm.

Effect of Cage Type on Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

BACKGROUND

The effect of expandable versus static cage type on radiographic outcomes in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has not been well studied in the literature. We studied the effect of 3 cage types on change in foraminal height (FH), disk height (DH), subsidence, and segmental lordosis (SL).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent TLIF in a single institution from 2014 to 2019. The following 3 cage types were identified: banana cage, bullet, and expandable cage. Computed tomography (CT) scans of the lumbar spine or lumbar radiographs (when CT scan was not available) with 6-week follow-up time were used for radiographic assessment.

RESULTS

One hundred patients with 133 fused segments were identified. The average age was 60.9 years, and 40% were men. A banana cage was used in 19 segments (14.3%), a bullet cage was used in 47 (35.4%), and an expandable cage was used in 67 segments (50.4%). There were no significant differences in FH (average increase, 0.7 mm; P = 0.771), subsidence (average, 2.3 mm; P = 0.554), DH (average decrease, 1.0 mm; P = 0.769), or clinically significant subsidence (>4 mm; P = 0.174). Expandable cages demonstrated a positive 1.2° gain in SL, whereas both other cages demonstrated a decrease in SL on average (P = 0.05). This result held up on multivariate analysis (P = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

The average increase in the foraminal height in TLIF is small (0.7 mm) and is not different between the cage types; therefore, direct decompression is crucially important in this procedure. Although TLIF is often considered to be a kyphotic procedure, an expandable cage demonstrated superiority in terms of segmental lordosis improvement.

Technical Consideration for TLIF Cage Retrieval and Deformity Correction With Anterior Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Revision Surgeries

INTRODUCTION

Symptomatic pseudoarthrosis after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) could result in sagittal malalignment. Revision posterior surgery with TLIF cage removal poses a challenge intraoperatively. The authors have proposed salvage anterior approach for cage removal and have discussed unique experience with the correction in their deformity patients.

METHODS

All patients with symptoms of clinical deformity or symptomatic pseudoarthrosis operated from January of 2012 to February of 2018 were included in the study. TLIF cage removal followed by anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) surgery was performed in all patients. Radiographic sagittal parameters including thoracic kyphosis (TK; T4-T12), sagittal vertical axis (SVA), T1 pelvic angle (TPA), lumbar lordosis (LL), the mismatch between pelvic incidence (PI) and LL (PI-LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), and PI were analyzed.

RESULTS

6 patients (mean age of 57 years, 83% female) underwent TLIF retrieval through anterior approach and ALIF with hyperlordotic cages (HLCs), followed by posterior spinal fusion surgery. Described technique entails use of tailored instruments with sequential gentle distraction of end plates with TLIF spreader could facilitate in the cage removal. Mean number of interbody levels fused pre as well as post were 1.5. The radiographic sagittal parameters from preoperative versus postoperative standing were as follows: T4-T12 TK, 16° vs. 37.6°; LL, -25° vs. -47.6°; PT, 36° vs. 26°; PI-LL, 35° vs. 12.4°; SVA, 12° vs. 5.6°; and TPA, 44° vs. 25°, with p<.001. Mean number of instrumented level fused were 8.1. Using linear regression analysis, change from pre-to postoperative standing in LL predicted pre-to postoperative change in SVA and TPA for global correction (R= -0.30 and -0.80, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Anterior approach is a suitable technique for TLIF cage removal while preserving the end plates for subsequent optimal interbody fusion at the index level in symptomatic pseudoarthrosis patients or those with clinical deformity. ALIF with HLCs with or without Ponte osteotomy can restore segmental and overall sagittal alignment.

[Safety and efficacy of an electron beam melting technique-manufactured titanium mesh cage for lumbar interbody fusion]

BACKGROUND

Electron beam melting (EBM) technique enables cage design changes such as the integration of guide rails on the cage surface or a 3D matrix for osseointegration. A change in manufacturing technique or design can lead to a decreased fusion rate or impaired applicability.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate cage handling, lordosis reconstruction capability, and fusion rate 1 year after surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, 50 patients who had undergone minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or open posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) using an EBM-manufactured cage were retrospectively included. Fusion evaluation was based on routinely performed CTs and flexion-extension radiographs 12 months postoperatively. Lumbar and segmental lordosis were compared between pre-, post, and 1‑year follow-up. Postoperative cage position was used for evaluation of cage handling.

RESULTS

The radiological fusion rate was 97% at the 1‑year follow-up. Two cages were placed into the endplates during surgery without an effect on fusion. In 31% of the cages, placement at the anterior third of the disk space was possible. Lumbar lordosis was improved by a mean of 5° and segmental lordosis by a mean of 4°. At final follow-up, 1° was lost in both parameters. No implant-associated complications were registered.

CONCLUSION

The implant is safe and leads to a very high fusion rate. A learning curve results from the fact that the cage follows a defined radius dictated by the guide rails. Addressing this, exact placement at the anterior endplate can be achieved.