Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine - Tập 19 Số 1 - Trang 110-118 - 2013
Luís Marchi1,2, Nitamar Abdala1, Leonardo Oliveira2, Rodrigo Amaral2, Etevaldo Coutinho2, Luiz Pimenta3,2
1Department of Imaging Diagnosis, Universidade Federal de São Paulo;
2Department of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Instituto de Patologia da Coluna, São Paulo, Brazil; and
33Department of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Diego, California

Tóm tắt

Object Indirect decompression of the neural structures through interbody distraction and fusion in the lumbar spine is feasible, but cage subsidence may limit maintenance of the initial decompression. The influence of interbody cage size on subsidence and symptoms in minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion is heretofore unreported. The authors report the rate of cage subsidence after lateral interbody fusion, examine the clinical effects, and present a subsidence classification scale. Methods The study was performed as an institutional review board–approved prospective, nonrandomized, comparative, single-center radiographic and clinical evaluation. Stand-alone short-segment (1- or 2-level) lateral lumbar interbody fusion was investigated with 12 months of postoperative follow-up. Two groups were compared. Forty-six patients underwent treatment at 61 lumbar levels with standard interbody cages (18 mm anterior/posterior dimension), and 28 patients underwent treatment at 37 lumbar levels with wide cages (22 mm). Standing lateral radiographs were used to measure segmental lumbar lordosis, disc height, and rate of subsidence. Subsidence was classified using the following scale: Grade 0, 0%–24% loss of postoperative disc height; Grade I, 25%–49%; Grade II, 50%–74%; and Grade III, 75%–100%. Fusion status was assessed on CT scanning, and pain and disability were assessed using the visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index. Complications and reoperations were recorded. Results Pain and disability improved similarly in both groups. While significant gains in segmental lumbar lordosis and disc height were observed overall, the standard group experienced less improvement due to the higher rate of interbody graft subsidence. A difference in the rate of subsidence between the groups was evident at 6 weeks (p = 0.027), 3 months (p = 0.042), and 12 months (p = 0.047). At 12 months, 70% in the standard group and 89% in the wide group had Grade 0 or I subsidence, and 30% in the standard group and 11% in wide group had Grade II or III subsidence. Subsidence was detected early (6 weeks), at which point it was correlated with transient clinical worsening, although progression of subsidence was not observed after the 6-week time point. Moreover, subsidence occurred predominantly (68%) in the inferior endplate. Fusion rate was not affected by cage dimension (p > 0.999) or by incidence of subsidence (p = 0.383). Conclusions Wider cages avoid subsidence and better restore segmental lordosis in stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. Cage subsidence is identified early in follow-up and can be accessed using the proposed classification scale.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Acaroglu, 1995, Degeneration and aging affect the tensile behavior of human lumbar anulus fibrosus, 20, 2690, 10.1097/00007632-199512150-00010

Barsa, 2007, Factors affecting sagittal malalignment due to cage subsidence in standalone cage assisted anterior cervical fusion, 16, 1395, 10.1007/s00586-006-0284-8

Billinghurst, 2009, Extreme lateral interbody fusion—XLIF, 20, 238, 10.1097/BCO.0b013e3181a32ead

Blumenthal, 1988, The role of anterior lumbar fusion for internal disc disruption, 13, 566, 10.1097/00007632-198805000-00023

Bridwell, 1995, Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects?, 20, 1410, 10.1097/00007632-199506020-00014

Burkus, 2002, Anterior lumbar interbody fusion using rhBMP-2 with tapered interbody cages, 15, 337, 10.1097/00024720-200210000-00001

Cappuccino, 2010, Biomechanical analysis and review of lateral lumbar fusion constructs, 35, S361, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318202308b

Cheung, 2003, Reduction of disc space distraction after anterior lumbar interbody fusion with autologous iliac crest graft, 28, 1385, 10.1097/01.BRS.0000067093.47584.CA

Choi, 2006, Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages, 15, 16, 10.1007/s00586-004-0817-y

Closkey, 1993, Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area, 18, 1011, 10.1097/00007632-199306150-00010

Cloward, 1953, The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care, 10, 154, 10.3171/jns.1953.10.2.0154

Daffner, 2010, Migrated XLIF cage: case report and discussion of surgical technique, 33, 518

Dua, 2010, Vertebral body fracture after anterolateral instrumentation and interbody fusion in two osteoporotic patients, 10, e11, 10.1016/j.spinee.2010.07.007

Eck, 2000, Analysis of titanium mesh cages in adults with minimum two-year follow-up, 25, 2407, 10.1097/00007632-200009150-00023

Ferguson, 2003, Biomechanics of the aging spine, 12, S97, 10.1007/s00586-003-0621-0

Fujiwara, 1999, The relationship between facet joint osteoarthritis and disc degeneration of the lumbar spine: an MRI study, 8, 396, 10.1007/s005860050193

Fukuta, 2011, Kidney-type intervertebral spacers should be located anteriorly in cantilever transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analyses of risk factors for spacer subsidence for a minimum of 2 years, 24, 189, 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181e9f249

Gercek, 2003, Subsidence of standalone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning, 12, 513, 10.1007/s00586-003-0539-6

Gilbert, 1993, Relation of vertebral bone screw axial pullout strength to quantitative computed tomographic trabecular bone mineral content, 6, 513, 10.1097/00002517-199306060-00007

Glassman, 2008, RhBMP-2 versus iliac crest bone graft for lumbar spine fusion: a randomized, controlled trial in patients over sixty years of age, 33, 2843, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318190705d

Gödde, 2003, Influence of cage geometry on sagittal alignment in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion, 28, 1693, 10.1097/01.BRS.0000083167.78853.D5

Goh, 2000, Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbar spine stability, 25, 35, 10.1097/00007632-200001010-00008

Grant, 2001, Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates, 26, 889, 10.1097/00007632-200104150-00012

Ha, 2008, Radiologic assessment of subsidence in stand-alone cervical polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage, 44, 370, 10.3340/jkns.2008.44.6.370

Harms, 1998, The unilateral, transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion, 6, 88

Hou, 2009, A study on the structural properties of the lumbar endplate: histological structure, the effect of bone density, and spinal level, 34, E427, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181a2ea0a

Jackson, 1994, Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment and balance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age, sex, and size. A prospective controlled clinical study, 19, 1611, 10.1097/00007632-199407001-00010

Jost, 1998, Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density, 7, 132, 10.1007/s005860050043

Karikari, 2011, Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion in patients older than 70 years of age: analysis of peri- and postoperative complications, 68, 897, 10.1227/NEU.0b013e3182098bfa

Kim, 2009, Radiographic results of single level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disease: focusing on changes of segmental lordosis in fusion segment, 1, 207, 10.4055/cios.2009.1.4.207

Knox, 2011, Osteolysis in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bone morphogenetic protein-2, 36, 672, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181e030e0

Kumar, 1993, Interspace distraction and graft subsidence after anterior lumbar fusion with femoral strut allograft, 18, 2393, 10.1097/00007632-199312000-00005

Kumar, 2001, Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion, 10, 314, 10.1007/s005860000239

Kuslich, 1998, The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion. History, techniques, and 2-year follow-up results of a United States prospective, multicenter trial, 23, 1267, 10.1097/00007632-199806010-00019

Le, 2012, Subsidence of polyetheretherketone intervertebral cages in minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion, 37, 1268, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182458b2f

Marchi, 2012, Stand-alone lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis, 2012, 456346

McAfee, 2003, Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement, 16, 384, 10.1097/00024720-200308000-00010

Meyerding, 1932, Spondylolisthesis, 54, 371

Mroz, 2010, Complications related to osteobiologics use in spine surgery: a systematic review, 35, S86, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d81ef2

Oliveira, 2010, The use of rh-BMP2 in standalone eXtreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF®): clinical and radiological results after 24 months follow-up, 1, 19

Oliveira, 2010, A radiographic assessment of the ability of the extreme lateral interbody fusion procedure to indirectly decompress the neural elements, 35, S331, 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182022db0

Oliveira, 2010, The subsidence rate in XLIF osteoporotic patients in standalone procedures, S51

Ozgur, 2006, Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion, 6, 435, 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.08.012

Park, 2009, Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous translaminar facet screw fixation in elderly patients. Clinical article, 10, 610, 10.3171/2009.2.SPINE08360

Pimenta, 2012, Biomechanics of lateral interbody spacers: going wider for going stiffer, 2012, 381814

Roberts, 1997, Does the thickness of the vertebral subchondral bone reflect the composition of the intervertebral disc?, 6, 385, 10.1007/BF01834064

Rodgers, 2010, Early complications of extreme lateral interbody fusion in the obese, 23, 393, 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181b31729

Sandhu, 1996, Distractive properties of a threaded interbody fusion device. An in vivo model, 21, 1201, 10.1097/00007632-199605150-00013

Schiffman, 2003, Bilateral implantation of low-profile interbody fusion cages: subsidence, lordosis, and fusion analysis, 3, 377, 10.1016/S1529-9430(03)00145-1

Skaggs, 1994, Regional variation in tensile properties and biochemical composition of the human lumbar anulus fibrosus, 19, 1310, 10.1097/00007632-199406000-00002

Sohn, 2006, Biomechanical evaluation of the ventral and lateral surface shear strain distributions in central compared with dorsolateral placement of cages for lumbar interbody fusion, 4, 219, 10.3171/spi.2006.4.3.219

Southern, 2000, Disc degeneration: a human cadaveric study correlating magnetic resonance imaging and quantitative discomanometry, 25, 2171, 10.1097/00007632-200009010-00005

Steffen, 2000, Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs, 25, 1077, 10.1097/00007632-200005010-00007

Tokuhashi, 2009, Subsidence of metal interbody cage after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation, 32, pii

Tormenti, 2010, Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation, 28, E7, 10.3171/2010.1.FOCUS09263

Weiner, 1998, Spine update lumbar interbody cages, 23, 634, 10.1097/00007632-199803010-00020

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine

Tập 19 Số 1

110-118

Thông tin tác giả