Tag: Interbody cage

Posted on

Interbody cages versus structural bone grafts in lumbar arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

J Neurosurg Spine 41:188–198, 2024

The role of interbodies in lumbar arthrodesis has been insufficiently supported by evidence, impacting clinical decision-making and occasionally insurance coverage. This study aimed to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between lumbar arthrodesis with a synthetic interbody spacer (cage) versus structural bone graft alone (autograft or allograft) in patients with degenerative spine disease.

METHODS A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies directly comparing outcomes of lumbar interbody arthrodesis with and without interbody cage use. The outcomes of individual studies were synthesized in meta-analyses using random-effects models.

RESULTS Twenty studies with 1508 patients (769 with an interbody cage and 739 without an interbody cage) were included. Interbody cage placement was associated with a significantly greater increase in disc height after surgery (4.0 mm vs 3.4 mm, p < 0.01). There was a significantly greater reduction of back pain (visual analog scale [VAS] score) in cases in which an interbody cage was used (5.4 vs 4.7, p = 0.03). Fusion rates were 5.5% higher in the cage group (96.3% vs 90.8%) and reached statistical significance (p = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups regarding all-cause reoperation rates, complication rates, or improvement in Oswestry Disability Index score or leg pain (VAS score).

CONCLUSIONS These results suggest that implantation of an interbody cage is associated with higher rates of fusion, more effective maintenance of disc height, and greater improvement of back pain. This study underlines the clinical value of interbody cages in lumbar arthrodesis for patients with degenerative spine disease.

Posted on

The impact of cage positioning on lumbar lordosis and disc space restoration following minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion

Neurosurg Focus 54(1):E7, 2023

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate patient and surgical factors that predict increased overall lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis correction following a minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure.

METHODS A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent one- or two-level LLIF. Preoperative, initial postoperative, and 6-month postoperative measurements of LL, segmental lordosis, anterior disc height, and posterior disc height were collected from standing lateral radiographs for each patient. Cage placement was measured utilizing the center point ratio (CPR) on immediate postoperative radiographs. Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between cage lordosis and radiographic parameters. Multivariate linear regression was performed to assess independent predictors of outcomes.

RESULTS A total of 106 levels in 78 unique patients were included. Most procedures involved fusion of one level (n = 50, 64.1%), most commonly L3–4 (46.2%). Despite no differences in baseline segmental lordosis, patients with anteriorly or centrally placed cages experienced the greatest segmental lordosis correction immediately (mean anterior 4.81° and central 4.46° vs posterior 2.47°, p = 0.0315) and at 6 months postoperatively, and patients with anteriorly placed cages had greater overall lordosis correction postoperatively (mean 6.30°, p = 0.0338). At the 6-month follow-up, patients with anteriorly placed cages experienced the greatest increase in anterior disc height (mean anterior 6.24 mm vs posterior 3.69 mm, p = 0.0122). Cages placed more posteriorly increased the change in posterior disc height postoperatively (mean posterior 4.91 mm vs anterior 1.80 mm, p = 0.0001) and at 6 months (mean posterior 4.18 mm vs anterior 2.06 mm, p = 0.0255). There were no correlations between cage lordotic angle and outcomes. On multivariate regression, anterior cage placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in segmental lordosis, while posterior placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in posterior disc height. Percutaneous screw placement, cage lordotic angle, and cage height did not independently predict any radiographic outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS LLIF procedures reliably improve LL and increase intervertebral disc space. Anterior cage placement improves the lordosis angle greater than posterior placement, which better corrects sagittal alignment, but there is still a significant improvement in lordosis even with a posteriorly placed cage. Posterior cage placement provides greater restoration in posterior disc space height, maximizing indirect decompression, but even the anteriorly placed cages provided indirect decompression. Cage parameters including cage height, lordosis angle, and material do not impact radiographic improvement.

Posted on

Radiographic and clinical outcomes in one- and two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: a comparison of bullet versus banana cages

J Neurosurg Spine 36:918–927, 2022

The aim of this study was to determine whether cage morphology influences clinical and radiographic outcomes following short-segment transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures.

METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed one- and two-level TLIFs at a single tertiary care center between August 2012 and November 2019 with a minimum 1-year radiographic and clinical follow-up. Two cohorts were compared based on interbody cage morphology: steerable “banana” cage or straight “bullet” cage. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographs, and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS A total of 135 patients with 177 interbody levels were identified; 45 patients had 52 straight cages and 90 patients had 125 steerable cages. Segmental lordosis increased with steerable cages, while it decreased with straight cages (+3.8 ± 4.6 vs −1.9 ± 4.3, p < 0.001). Conversely, the mean segmental lordosis of adjacent lumbar levels decreased in the former group, while it increased in the latter group (−0.52 ± 1.9 vs +0.52 ± 2.1, p = 0.004). This reciprocal relationship results in global sagittal parameters, including pelvic incidence minus lumbar lordosis and lumbar distribution index, which did not change after surgery with either cage morphology. Multivariate analysis confirmed that steerable cage morphology, anterior cage positioning, and less preoperative index-level segmental lordosis were associated with greater improvement in index-level segmental lordosis. PROMs were improved after surgery with both cage types, and the degree of improvement did not differ between cohorts (p > 0.05). Perioperative and radiographic complications were similar between cohorts (p > 0.05). Overall reoperation rates, as well as reoperation rates for adjacent-segment disease within 2 years of surgery, were not significantly different between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS Steerable cages are more likely to lie within the anterior disc space, thus increasing index-level segmental lordosis, which is accompanied by a reciprocal change in segmental alignment at the adjacent lumbar levels. The converse relationship occurs for straight cages, with a kyphotic change at the index levels and reciprocal lordosis occurring at adjacent levels.

 

Posted on

Expandable vs Static Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Neurosurgery 81:69–74, 2017

One criticism of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is the inability to increase segmental lordosis (SL). Expandable interbody cages are a relatively new innovation theorized to allow improvement in SL.

OBJECTIVE: To compare changes in SL and lumbar lordosis (LL) after TLIF with nonexpandable vs expandable cages. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who were ≥18 years old and underwent single-level TLIF between 2011 and 2014. Patients were categorized by cage type (static vs expandable). Primary outcome of interestwas change in SL and LL from preoperative values to those at 1 month and 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS: A total of 89 patients were studied (48 nonexpandable group, 41 expandable group). Groups had similar baseline characteristics. For SL, median (interquartile range) improvement was 3◦ for nonexpandable and 2◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P = .09; adjusted, P = .68) at 1 month postoperatively, and 3◦ for nonexpandable and 1◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P=.41; adjusted, P=.28) at 1 year postoperatively. For LL, median improvement was 1◦ for nonexpandable and 2◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P = .20; adjusted, P = .21), and 2◦ for nonexpandable and 5◦ for expandable (unadjusted, P = .15; adjusted, P=.51) at 1 year postoperatively. After excluding parallel expandable cages, there was still no difference in SL or LL improvement at 1month or 1 year postoperatively between static and expandable cages (both unadjusted and adjusted, P > .05).

CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing single-level TLIF experienced similar improvements in SL and LL regardless of whether nonexpandable or expandable cages were placed.

Proudly powered by WordPress