Tag: Cage

Posted on

Cage migration in multilevel stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: incidence and clinical correlations

J Neurosurg Spine 44:426–435, 2026

This clinical case series compares the incidence and outcomes of lateral interbody cage migration (LCM) following multilevel stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) versus LLIF with posterior pedicle screw instrumentation in 87 age-matched patients. The retrospective analysis reports similar LCM rates (7% vs 5%), no significant differences in complications, and comparable improvements in Oswestry Disability Index and pain scores at ≥1 year follow-up.

The report details patient selection, radiographic assessment methods, operative characteristics, and risk-factor analysis, emphasizing meticulous selection for multilevel stand-alone LLIF. Authors conclude multilevel stand-alone LLIF can be safe in selected patients but call for prospective studies to validate findings and clarify factors contributing to cage migration.

Lateral Cage Migration (LCM) Incidence: LCM occurred in 7% of multilevel stand-alone LLIF cases and 5% of LLIF cases with posterior instrumentation; this difference was not statistically significant.

Patient Selection Criteria: Optimal candidates for multilevel stand-alone LLIF have neutral sagittal and coronal balance, mild to moderate facet arthropathy, stable grade 1 spondylolisthesis, absence of severe central canal stenosis, normal or mildly reduced bone mineral density, and comorbidities or age that increase surgical risk with posterior fixation.

Clinical Outcomes: Both cohorts (stand-alone and posterior instrumentation) showed significant postoperative improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) scores, with no significant differences between groups.

Complication Rates: Postoperative complication rates were similar between groups (23% stand-alone vs. 20% posterior instrumentation), and no intraoperative complications were reported in either group.

Biomechanical Considerations: Supplemental posterior instrumentation increases construct stability, but clinical significance in preventing LCM in well-selected patients remains unclear; stand-alone LLIF can be safe with meticulous patient selection.

Role of Lateral Plates: Adding lateral plates to stand-alone LLIF does not significantly improve stability or reduce cage migration/subsidence in multilevel constructs and may increase cost and risk.

Risk Factors for LCM: No significant demographic, radiographic, or procedural risk factors for LCM were identified in this study; all patients with LCM had normal bone density, and meticulous surgical technique and patient selection are emphasized.

Study Limitations: Retrospective design, single institution, and small sample size may limit generalizability; prospective studies are needed for further validation.

Posted on

Risk factors for polyetheretherketone cage subsidence following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Acta Neurochirurgica (2021) 163:2557–2565

Interbody cage subsidence is a postoperative complication leading to poor outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). This study aimed to identify risk factors of cage subsidence in lumbar spinal diseases after MIS-TLIF using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage.

Methods In this retrospective cohort study, plain radiographs and three-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) performed 12 months after MIS-TLIF were evaluated, and the risk of cage subsidence was calculated with odds ratio (OR), confidence interval (CI), and logistic regression analysis.

Results A total of 114 patients (mean age, 65 years) and 135 levels were included in this study: 80 (59.3%) with and 55 (40.7%) without cage subsidence. Multifidus atrophy showed the strongest association with PEEK cage subsidence (p < 0.001). Compared to those with normal mass, the odds of PEEK cage subsidence were 76.0 (95% CI: 3.9–1472.9) for severe atrophy. The factors significantly associated with cage subsistence were posterior cage position (OR = 4.2; p = 0.005), cage height ≥ 12 mm (OR = 7.6; p = 0.008), use of an autograft mixed with demineralized bone matrix (DBM) (OR = 5.8; p = 0.002), body mass index (BMI) > 27.5 kg/m2 (OR = 4.2; p = 0.03), and titanium-coated PEEK (Ti-PEEK) cage-type (OR = 38.4, p = 0.02).

Conclusions In MIS-TLIF with a PEEK cage, the factors associated with an increased risk of cage subsidence were higher BMI, increased severity of multifidus muscle atrophy, Ti-coated PEEK cage-type, cage height ≥ 12 mm, use of DBM mixed autograft, and posterior cage position.

Posted on

Incidence and clinical relevance of cage subsidence in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Acta Neurochirurgica (2018) 160:873–880

The placement of intervertebral cages in anterior cervical discectomy (ACDF) supposedly maintains foraminal height. The most commonly reported cage-related complication is subsidence, although it is unknown whether a correlation between subsidence and clinical outcome exists. Aim To assess the incidence and relevance of subsidence.

Methods Literature searches were performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase,Web of Science, COCHRANE, and CENTRAL. The inclusion criteria were as follows: ≥ 20 patients, ADCF with cage, subsidence assessed, and primary data. Risk of bias was assessed using adjusted Cochrane checklists.

Results Seventy-one studies, comprising 4784 patients, were included. Subsidence was generally defined as ≥ 3-mm loss of height comparing postoperative intervertebral heights with heights at last follow-up. Mean incidence of subsidence was 21% (range 0–83%). Of all patients, 46% of patients received polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) cages, 31% received titanium cages, 18% received cage-screw-combinations, and 5% received polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) cages. Patients treated with cagescrew- combinations had significantly less subsidence than patients treated with PEEK, titanium, or PMMA cages (15.1% vs. 23.5% vs. 24.9% vs. 30.2%; p < 0.001). Thirteen studies assessed clinical outcome in relation to subsidence; the majority did not find a significant correlation. Only four studies correlated subsidence to cage size and/or height; no correlation was established.

Conclusions Subsidence in ACDF with cages occurs in 21% of patients. The risk for subsidence seems lower using PEEK or titanium cages or adding screws.Whether subsidence affects clinical outcome is not satisfactorily evaluated in the available literature. Future studies on this correlation are warranted in order to establish the additional value of the interposition of a cage in ACDF.

Proudly powered by WordPress