Tag: cage subsidence

Posted on

Comprehensive analysis of biomechanical stability and clinical efficacy in oblique lumbar interbody fusion with distinct anterolateral fixation modalities

J Neurosurg Spine 44:436–448, 2026

This study evaluates how different anterolateral screw angles in oblique lumbar interbody fusion with anterolateral fixation (OLIF-AF) affect cage subsidence, biomechanical stability, and clinical outcomes. A retrospective cohort of 80 L4–5 OLIF-AF patients was grouped by coronal and horizontal screw angles, supplemented by finite element models simulating four screw configurations under physiological loads.

Findings show coronal-plane parallel screw placement reduced cage subsidence, cage stress, displacement, and range of motion versus nonparallel placement, while horizontal bifurcation had no significant effect on subsidence; clinical scores and fusion rates were similar across groups. The authors recommend coronal parallelism with bicortical purchase to optimize stability and lower subsidence risk.

Coronal Plane Parallel Screw Placement: Parallel screw placement in the coronal plane during OLIF-AF significantly reduces the risk of cage subsidence (CS) and enhances biomechanical stability compared to nonparallel placement.

Nonparallel Coronal Screw Placement Risks: Nonparallel coronal screw placement (G2 and G3 groups) is independently associated with higher CS rates, greater reduction in disc height (ΔDH), increased cage stress, displacement, and range of motion (ROM), indicating poorer biomechanical outcomes.

Horizontal Screw Bifurcation: Horizontal screw bifurcation (difference in horizontal plane angle) does not have a statistically significant impact on CS risk or clinical outcomes when coronal plane parallelism is maintained.

Bicortical Purchase Importance: Ensuring that screws penetrate the contralateral vertebral cortex (bicortical purchase) may further reduce the risk of CS, while lack of penetration is associated with earlier and more severe subsidence.

Clinical Outcomes: No significant differences in pain relief (VAS-LBP, VAS-LP) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were observed among the four screw configuration groups at any follow-up point; fusion rates were also similar.

Finite Element Analysis Validation: Finite element modeling confirmed that nonparallel screw configurations increase cage stress and spinal ligament tension, especially during flexion, supporting clinical findings.

Risk Factors for Subsidence: Lower bone mineral density (BMD) and nonparallel coronal screw placement are independent risk factors for cage subsidence after OLIF-AF.

Surgical Recommendation: For optimal biomechanical stability and reduced complication risk, OLIF-AF screws should be placed parallel to the coronal plane and close to the endplates, with bicortical purchase, as this configuration provides better load sharing and fusion environment.

Posted on

Development and Validation of Interpretable Machine Learning Models Incorporating Paraspinal Muscle Quality to Predict Cage Subsidence Risk Following Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Spine 2025;50:1375–1385

This multicenter retrospective study developed and validated an interpretable LightGBM machine learning model incorporating paraspinal muscle quality and bone metrics to accurately predict cage subsidence risk after PLIF. Key risk factors included lower psoas muscle index, higher fat infiltration, reduced bone density, and suboptimal cage parameters.

• A machine learning model (LightGBM) was developed to predict cage subsidence risk after PLIF, achieving high accuracy (AUC 0.9752, 92% accuracy, F1 score 0.92).

• Key independent risk factors include lower psoas muscle index (PMI), higher fat infiltration (FI), reduced bone density (HU value, VBQ), suboptimal cage position/height, and greater postoperative changes in intervertebral height (IH) and segmental angle (SA).

• Paraspinal muscle quality was a major contributor; removing muscle indicators reduced model accuracy substantially.

• Patients with cage subsidence had poorer paraspinal muscle and bone quality compared to those without subsidence.

• The model was externally validated and deployed as a web-based tool for real-time, individualized clinical risk assessment.

• Findings support personalized surgical planning and risk mitigation strategies for PLIF patients.

• The study emphasizes a multifactorial approach, integrating skeletal, muscular, and surgical parameters for optimal prediction.

• Limitations include retrospective design, use of a single cage type, and lack of comorbidity indices; further prospective studies are needed.

Posted on

Development and internal validation of a risk score for subsidence of expandable spacers in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery

Brain and Spine 5 (2025) 104322

This study developed and internally validated the Expandable TLIF Subsidence Index (ETSI) to predict risk of cage subsidence after TLIF surgery with expandable spacers. Key risk factors include high ASA score, non-degenerative indication, lower lumbar levels, small cage size, and posterior cage position.

• A risk score (Expandable TLIF Subsidence Index, ETSI) was developed to predict cage subsidence (CS) after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using expandable spacers.

• The study analyzed 388 patients (482 levels), finding a 31.7% CS rate at 3 months.

• Independent risk factors for CS included high ASA score, non-degenerative surgical indication, lower lumbar level, small cage size, and posterior cage position.

• The ETSI score ranges from -2 to 6; higher scores indicate higher CS risk (each point increases CS odds by about 2x).

• Modifiable risk factors (cage size and position) can reduce CS risk if addressed during surgery.

• Higher ETSI scores are also associated with increased risk of non-union/pseudarthrosis.

• The ETSI demonstrated moderate predictive performance (AUROC ≈ 0.68).

• The score may aid surgical planning and should be externally validated in future studies.

Posted on

Development and internal validation of a risk score for subsidence of expandable spacers in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery

Brain and Spine 5 (2025) 104322

This study developed and validated the Expandable TLIF Subsidence Index (ETSI) to predict risk of cage subsidence after TLIF surgery with expandable spacers. Key risk factors include high ASA score, non-degenerative indications, lower lumbar level, small cage size, and posterior cage position. Some risk factors are modifiable.

• A risk score (ETSI) was developed to predict cage subsidence (CS) after TLIF surgery using expandable spacers.

• Independent risk factors for CS include high ASA score, non-degenerative surgical indication, lower lumbar level, small cage size, and posterior cage position.

• ETSI ranges from -2 to 6 points and shows a moderate ability to classify CS risk (AUROC ≈ 0.68).

• Modifiable risk factors (cage size and position) can reduce CS risk if optimized by the surgeon.

• Higher ETSI scores are associated with increased risk of non-union/pseudarthrosis at 3 and 12 months.

• Anterior placement of the cage lowers subsidence risk, while posterior placement increases it.

• The study included 388 patients with a 3-month CS rate of 31.7%.

• The ETSI is the first comprehensive scoring system for CS risk with expandable TLIF cages.

Posted on

Modic Changes Increase the Cage Subsidence Rate in Spinal Interbody Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of different Modic changes (MC) grades on the cage subsidence rate after spinal interbody fusion surgery.

METHODS: We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to August 13, 2023, for relevant randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Review Manager 5.3 and STATA13.0 were used to conduct this meta-analysis. The subsidence rate was assessed using relative risk and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 716 segments were allocated to four groups according to the type of MC. The subsidence rate in the non-Modic changes (NMC) was significantly lower than that in the MC. The subsidence rate in the NMC was significantly lower than that in the MC in the subgroup of cages with extra instrumentation. No significant difference was identified between the 2 groups in the oblique lumbar interbody fusion subgroup. The subsidence rate in the NMC was significantly lower than that in the MC in the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion subgroup. The subsidence rate in the NMC was significantly lower than that in the MC1 and MC2. We found no significant difference between NMC and MC3, MC1 and MC2, MC1 and MC3, or MC2 and MC3.

CONCLUSIONS: MC may be associated with a higher cage subsidence rate. With the increase in MC grades, the incidence of subsidence decreased gradually, but it was always higher than that in the NMC. Oblique lumbar interbody fusion may be a better choice for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease with MC.

Posted on

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with stress end plate augmentation and anterolateral screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with osteoporosis

The Spine Journal 23 (2023) 523−532

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be effective in treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Whether OLIF is suitable for treating patients with DLSS with osteoporosis (OP) is still controversial. Bone cement augmentation is widely used to enhance the internal fixation strength of osteoporotic spines. However, the effectiveness of OLIF combined with bone cement stress end plate augmentation (SEA) and anterolateral screw fixation (AF) for DLSS with OP have not confirmed yet.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes of OLIF-AF versus OLIF-AF-SEA in the treatment of DLSS with OP.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study.

PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 60 patients with OP managed for DLSS at L4−L5.

OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), cage subsidence and fusion rate.

METHODS: The study was performed as a retrospective matched-pair case‒controlled study. Patients with OP managed for DLSS at L4−L5 between October 2017 and June 2020 and completed at least 2 years of follow-up were included, which were 30 patients treated by OLIF-AF and 30 patients undergoing OLIF-AF-SEA. The demographics and radiographic data, fusion status and functional outcomes were therefore compared to evaluate the efficacy of the two approaches.

RESULTS: Pain and disability improved similarly in both groups at the 24-month follow-up. However, the SEA group had lower pain and functional disability at 3 months postoperatively (p<.05). The mean postoperative disc height decrease (4DH) was significantly lower in the SEA group than in the control group (1.17§0.81 mm vs 2.89§2.03 mm; p<.001). There was no significant difference in lumbar lordosis (LL) or segmental lordosis (SL) between the groups preoperatively and 1 day postoperatively. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in SL and LL between the groups at 24 months postoperatively (p<.05). CS was observed in 4 cases (13.33%) in the SEA group and 17 cases (56.67%) in the control group (p<.001). A nonsignificant difference was observed in the fusion rate between the SEA and control groups (p=.347) at 24 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that OLIF-AF-SEA was safe and effective in the treatment of DLSS with OP. Compared with OLIF-AF, OLIF-AF-SEA results in a minor postoperative disc height decrease, a lower rate of CS, better sagittal balance, and no adverse effect on interbody fusion.

Posted on

Radiographic comparison of L5–S1 lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage subsidence and displacement by fixation strategy: anterior plate versus integrated screws

J Neurosurg Spine 38:126–130, 2023

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to radiographically compare cage subsidence and displacement between L5–S1 lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages secured with an anterior buttress plate and cages secured with integrated screws.

METHODS Consecutive patients who underwent L5–S1 lateral ALIF with supplemental posterior fixation by a single surgeon from June 2016 to January 2021 were reviewed. Radiographs were analyzed and compared between the two groups based on the type of fixation used to secure the L5–S1 lateral ALIF cage: 1) anterior buttress plate or 2) integrated screws. The following measurements at L5–S1 were analyzed on radiographs obtained preoperatively, before discharge, and at latest follow-up: 1) anterior disc height, 2) posterior disc height, and 3) segmental lordosis. Cage subsidence and anterior cage displacement were determined radiographically.

RESULTS One hundred thirty-nine patients (mean age 60.0 ± 14.3 years) were included for analysis. Sixty-eight patients were treated with an anterior buttress plate (mean follow-up 12 ± 5 months), and 71 were treated with integrated screws (mean follow-up 9 ± 3 months). Mean age, sex distribution, preoperative L5–S1 lordosis, preoperative L5–S1 anterior disc height, and preoperative L5–S1 posterior disc height were statistically similar between the two groups. After surgery, the segmental L5–S1 lordosis and L5–S1 anterior disc heights significantly improved for both groups, and each respective measurement was similar between the groups at final follow-up. Posterior disc heights significantly increased after surgery with integrated screws but not with the anterior buttress plate. As such, posterior disc heights were significantly greater at final follow-up for integrated screws. Compared with patients who received integrated screws, significantly more patients who received the anterior buttress plate had cage subsidence cranially through the L5 endplate (20.6% vs 2.8%, p < 0.01), cage subsidence caudally through the S1 endplate (27.9% vs 0%, p < 0.01), and anterior cage displacement (22.1% vs 0%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS In this radiographic analysis of 139 patients who underwent lateral L5–S1 ALIF supplemented by posterior fixation, L5–S1 cages secured with an anterior buttress plate demonstrated significantly higher rates of cage subsidence and anterior cage displacement compared with cages secured with integrated screws. While the more durable stability afforded by cages secured with integrated screws suggests that they may be a more viable fixation strategy for L5–S1 lateral ALIFs, there are multiple factors that can contribute to cage subsidence, and, thus, definitive presumption cannot be made that the findings of this study are directly related to the buttress plate.

Proudly powered by WordPress