Is the Cage an Additional Hardware in Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Low Grade Spondylolisthesis? A Prospective Study

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.

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.