scholarly journals Comparison of Short-Term Radiographical and Clinical Outcomes After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a 3D Porous Titanium Alloy Cage and a Titanium-Coated PEEK Cage

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822097233
Author(s):  
Takahiro Makino ◽  
Shota Takenaka ◽  
Yusuke Sakai ◽  
Hideki Yoshikawa ◽  
Takashi Kaito
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Cyst Formation ◽  
Porous Titanium ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Vertebral Endplate ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Cage Subsidence ◽  
Cage Group

Study Design: Clinical case series. Objectives: To compare the short-term (≤1 year) radiographical and clinical outcomes between posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with a titanium-coated poly-ether-ether-ketone (TCP) cage and PLIF with a three-dimensional porous titanium alloy (PTA) cage. Methods: Overall, 63 patients who had undergone 1- or 2-level PLIF since March 2015 were enrolled (median age, 71 years). The first 34 patients underwent PLIF with TCP cages (until June 2017) and the next 29 patients with PTA cages. Fusion status, vertebral endplate cyst formation (cyst sign: grade 0, none; grade 1, focal; and grade 2, diffuse), cage subsidence (grade 0, <1 mm; grade 1, 1–3 mm; and grade 2, >3 mm), and patient-reported quality of life (QOL) outcomes based on the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) were compared at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively between the 2 cage groups. Results: Cyst sign and cage subsidence grades were significantly lower in the PTA cage group than in the TCP cage group at 6 months postoperatively (cyst sign, p = 0.044; cage subsidence, p = 0.043). In contrast, the fusion rate and surgery effectiveness based on JOABPEQ at both 6 months and 1 year postoperatively were not different between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Patient-reported QOL outcomes were similar between the TCP and PTA cage groups until 1 year postoperatively. However, a higher incidence and severity of postoperative vertebral endplate cyst formation in patients with the TCP cage was a noteworthy radiographical finding.

Risk Factors for Poor Patient-Reported Quality of Life Outcomes After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Spine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (19) ◽  
pp. 1502-1510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Makino ◽  
Takashi Kaito ◽  
Hiroyasu Fujiwara ◽  
Hirotsugu Honda ◽  
Yusuke Sakai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Life Outcomes ◽  
Poor Patient ◽  
Quality Of Life Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported

Impact of sufficient contact between the autograft and endplate soon after surgery to prevent nonunion at 12 months following posterior lumbar interbody fusion

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 796-805
Author(s):  
Hiroki Ushirozako ◽  
Tomohiko Hasegawa ◽  
Shigeto Ebata ◽  
Tetsuro Ohba ◽  
Hiroki Oba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Complete Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Occupancy Rate ◽  
Screw Loosening ◽  
Translucent Zone ◽  
Cage Subsidence ◽  
The Mean

OBJECTIVENonunion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) is associated with poor long-term outcomes in terms of health-related quality of life. Biomechanical factors in the fusion segment may influence spinal fusion rates. There are no reports on the relationship between intervertebral union and the absorption of autografts or vertebral endplates. Therefore, the purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the risk factors of nonunion after PLIF and identify preventive measures.METHODSThe authors analyzed 138 patients who underwent 1-level PLIF between 2016 and 2018 (75 males, 63 females; mean age 67 years; minimum follow-up period 12 months). Lumbar CT images obtained soon after the surgery and at 6 and 12 months of follow-up were examined for the mean total occupancy rate of the autograft, presence of a translucent zone between the autograft and endplate (more than 50% of vertebral diameter), cage subsidence, and screw loosening. Complete intervertebral union was defined as the presence of both upper and lower complete fusion in the center cage regions on coronal and sagittal CT slices at 12 months postoperatively. Patients were classified into either union or nonunion groups.RESULTSComplete union after PLIF was observed in 62 patients (45%), while nonunion was observed in 76 patients (55%). The mean total occupancy rate of the autograft immediately after the surgery was higher in the union group than in the nonunion group (59% vs 53%; p = 0.046). At 12 months postoperatively, the total occupancy rate of the autograft had decreased by 5.4% in the union group and by 11.9% in the nonunion group (p = 0.020). A translucent zone between the autograft and endplate immediately after the surgery was observed in 14 and 38 patients (23% and 50%) in the union and nonunion groups, respectively (p = 0.001). The nonunion group had a significantly higher proportion of cases with cage subsidence and screw loosening at 12 months postoperatively in comparison to the union group (p = 0.010 and p = 0.009, respectively).CONCLUSIONSA lower occupancy rate of the autograft and the presence of a translucent zone between the autograft and endplate immediately after the surgery were associated with nonunion at 12 months after PLIF. It may be important to achieve sufficient contact between the autograft and endplate intraoperatively for osseous union enhancement and to avoid excessive absorption of the autograft. The achievement of complete intervertebral union may decrease the incidence of cage subsidence or screw loosening.

scholarly journals A comparative study between local bone graft with or without cages in unilateral posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a retrospective study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Jiang He ◽  
Jun-fei Feng ◽  
Qian Chen ◽  
Yang Yang ◽  
Qing-song Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Bone Graft ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Local Bone ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cage Group

Abstract Objective A retrospective study of the clinical and radiological results between local bone graft with a cage and without cage in patients treated with unilateral fixation and posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Methods A total of 52 patients who underwent PLIF in our institution were evaluated from January 2015 to January 2018. 30 of these patients received PLIF with local bone graft combined with using one cage, and 22 patients received PLIF with local bone graft without using cage. The clinical data and perioperative complications of the two groups were recorded. X-ray were taken before, after operation and at the end of follow-up to calculate the height of intervertebral disc and the fusion rate. SUK's criteria were used to evaluate the quality of spinal fusion at the follow-up time. The results between the cage and non- cage group were compared. Results There was no statistical difference in baseline data between the two groups, and The mean follow-up time was 18.43 months in cage group and 17.50 months in non- cage group (P = 0.553). In additions, the significant difference was not found in the comparison of perioperative evaluation data between the two groups, such as operation time (P = 0.299), blood loss (P = 0.342) and incidence of complications (P = 1.000). Furthermore, the significant difference of VAS score cannot be found in preoperation (Pleg=0.731, Plowback=0.786), postoperation (Pleg=0.534, Plowback=0.725) and the final follow-up (Pleg=0.654, Plowback=0.362) between the two groups. The same results were also obtained in the comparison of ODI index (Ppre=0.682, Pfinal=0.712) and intervertebral height (Ppost=0.363, Pfinal=0.094). The final fusion rates were 96.7% (cage group) and 86.4% (non- cage group) respectively, and there was no statistical difference (P = 0.553). Conclusion Local bone graft has the same advantages as a cage in unilateral PLIF. Comparing with local bone graft using cage, we believe that the local bone graft is a more ideal way in unilateral PLIF, and decrease operation cost.

scholarly journals Assessment and classification of subsidence after lateral interbody fusion using serial computed tomography

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 589-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory M. Malham ◽  
Rhiannon M. Parker ◽  
Carl M. Blecher ◽  
Kevin A. Seex
Keyword(s):  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Ct Images ◽  
Ct Scans ◽  
Vertebral Endplate ◽  
Lateral Interbody Fusion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Cage Subsidence ◽  
Lateral Interbody

OBJECT Intervertebral cage settling during bone remodeling after lumbar lateral interbody fusion (LIF) is a common occurrence during the normal healing process. Progression of this settling with endplate collapse is defined as subsidence. The purposes of this study were to 1) assess the rate of subsidence after minimally invasive (MIS) LIF by CT, 2) distinguish between early cage subsidence (ECS) and delayed cage subsidence (DCS), 3) propose a descriptive method for classifying the types of subsidence, and 4) discuss techniques for mitigating the risk of subsidence after MIS LIF. METHODS A total of 128 consecutive patients (with 178 treated levels in total) underwent MIS LIF performed by a single surgeon. The subsidence was deemed to be ECS if it was evident on postoperative Day 2 CT images and was therefore the result of an intraoperative vertebral endplate injury and deemed DCS if it was detected on subsequent CT scans (≥ 6 months postoperatively). Endplate breaches were categorized as caudal (superior endplate) and/or cranial (inferior endplate), and as ipsilateral, contralateral, or bilateral with respect to the side of cage insertion. Subsidence seen in CT images (radiographic subsidence) was measured from the vertebral endplate to the caudal or cranial margin of the cage (in millimeters). Patient-reported outcome measures included visual analog scale, Oswestry Disability Index, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental component summary scores. RESULTS Four patients had ECS in a total of 4 levels. The radiographic subsidence (DCS) rates were 10% (13 of 128 patients) and 8% (14 of 178 levels), with 3% of patients (4 of 128) exhibiting clinical subsidence. In the DCS levels, 3 types of subsidence were evident on coronal and sagittal CT scans: Type 1, caudal contralateral, in 14% (2 of 14), Type 2, caudal bilateral with anterior cage tilt, in 64% (9 of 14), and Type 3, both endplates bilaterally, in 21% (3 of 14). The mean subsidence in the DCS levels was 3.2 mm. There was no significant difference between the numbers of patients in the subsidence (DCS) and no-subsidence groups who received clinical benefit from the surgical procedure, based on the minimum clinically important difference (p > 0.05). There was a significant difference between the fusion rates at 6 months (p = 0.0195); however, by 12 months, the difference was not significant (p = 0.2049). CONCLUSIONS The authors distinguished between ECS and DCS. Radiographic subsidence (DCS) was categorized using descriptors for the location and severity of the subsidence. Neither interbody fusion rates nor clinical outcomes were affected by radiographic subsidence. To protect patients from subsidence after MIS LIF, the surgeon needs to take care with the caudal endplate during cage insertion. If a caudal bilateral (Type 2) endplate breach is detected, supplemental posterior fixation to arrest progression and facilitate fusion is recommended.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document