Tag: subsidence

Posted on

Impact of lateral plate and screw fixation on long-term radiographic subsidence in lateral lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 44:493–497, 2026

This clinical study evaluates long-term radiographic subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), comparing stand-alone procedures with those augmented by lateral plate and screw fixation. Retrospective analysis of 146 patients (219 levels) with ≥1-year CT follow-up shows lateral plating significantly reduced subsidence odds, while 3D-printed porous titanium cages trended toward lower subsidence than PEEK.

Results note similar reoperation rates between groups, no grade III subsidence, and rare adverse events including one delayed vertebral fracture with plating; methodology included multivariate logistic regression and Marchi subsidence grading. Conclusions support lateral plate and screw fixation, particularly with porous titanium cages, as protective against severe radiographic subsidence.

Objective Assess whether adding lateral plate and screw fixation changes the long-term rate/grade of radiographic cage subsidence after LLIF (excluding posterior instrumented fusion).

Design/Population Retrospective review (2014–2022) of degenerative lumbar spondylosis LLIF cases at two centers; required ≥1-year postoperative CT; 146 patients/219 levels (45% plated, 55% stand-alone).

Subsidence grading Long-term imaging graded by Marchi criteria (grade 0: 0%–24% disc height loss; I: 25%–49%; II: 50%–74%; III: 75%–100%); no intraoperative subsidence included.

Main finding (plating effect) Lateral plate + screws was significantly associated with reduced long-term radiographic subsidence (multivariable OR 0.484, p = 0.006).

Severity pattern All grade II (severe) subsidence cases occurred in the stand-alone LLIF group (4 patients); no grade III subsidence observed.

Cage material trend 3D-printed porous titanium cages trended toward lower subsidence versus PEEK but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.401, p = 0.071).

Reoperation/fusion No significant difference in reoperation rate between plated and stand-alone groups; radiographic fusion rates were similar (83.1% plated vs 86.4% stand-alone; p = 0.58).

Noted complications/implant details One lateral-plate patient had a delayed vertebral body fracture; plated cases used 18-mm-wide cages, while nearly all stand-alone cases used 22-mm-wide cages.

Posted on

Which interbody device minimized nonunion, subsidence, and reoperation after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion?

J Neurosurg Spine 43:453–463, 2024

This meta-analysis found that allograft spacers in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) result in lower nonunion and revision rates compared to PEEK cages, with no significant difference in subsidence risk. Allograft offers enhanced fusion and minimizes revision without increasing subsidence.

• Allograft and PEEK cages are the most commonly used interbody spacers in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), replacing autograft due to lower donor site morbidity.

• This meta-analysis included 10 studies with 1462 patients comparing allograft and PEEK cages for ACDF, analyzing nonunion, subsidence, and reoperation rates.

• Allograft showed a significantly lower rate of nonunion than PEEK cages (OR 0.33, p = 0.01), indicating better fusion outcomes.

• Reoperation due to nonunion was significantly higher with PEEK cages compared to allograft (OR 0.28, p < 0.01), but overall reoperation rates for any cause were not significantly different.

• No significant difference was found in the incidence or amount of subsidence between allograft and PEEK cages.

• Allograft’s osteoconductive properties likely contribute to its higher fusion rate, while PEEK cages may lead to fibrous interface formation, reducing solid fusion.

• Meta-regression showed no significant effect of smoking, age, or number of fused levels on nonunion rates.

• Conclusion: Allograft is advantageous over PEEK cages in ACDF due to higher fusion rates and lower revision risk, without increasing subsidence

Posted on

A survival analysis for predictors of implant subsidence following 1- or 2-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 43:42–51, 2025

This study found that after 1- or 2-level TLIF, aggressive disc height restoration and taller interbody implants significantly increase the risk of implant subsidence, especially in patients with poor bone quality. Surgeons should balance correction goals with subsidence risk, particularly in those with low Hounsfield unit measurements.

• This study analyzed predictors of interbody implant subsidence after 1- or 2-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using a time-to-event (survival) analysis.

• Aggressive disc height restoration and use of taller interbody implants significantly increased the risk of subsidence.

• Poor baseline bone quality, measured by lower Hounsfield units (HU) on CT, was a strong independent predictor for significant (≥4 mm) subsidence.

• Longer fusion constructs (more instrumented levels) also increased the risk of significant subsidence.

• No significant association was found between cage material (titanium vs PEEK), device geometry, or lumbopelvic parameters and subsidence risk.

• Subsidence occurred in 38.2% of levels (≥2 mm) and significant subsidence in 10.4% (≥4 mm) by last follow-up.

• Clinical implications suggest balancing correction goals with subsidence risk, especially in patients with poor bone quality.

• Further multicenter and prospective studies are recommended to validate these findings.

Posted on

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion subsidence

J Neurosurg Spine 41:463–472, 2024

The aims of this study were to 1) define the incidence of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) interbody subsidence; 2) determine the relative importance of preoperative and intraoperative patient- and instrumentation-specific risk factors predictive of postoperative subsidence using CT-based assessment; and 3) determine the impact of TLIF subsidence on postoperative complications and fusion rates.

METHODS All adult patients who underwent one- or two-level TLIF for lumbar degenerative conditions at a multi-institutional academic center between 2017 and 2019 were retrospectively identified. Patients with traumatic injury, infection, malignancy, previous fusion at the index level, combined anterior-posterior procedures, surgery with greater than two TLIF levels, or incomplete follow-up were excluded. Interbody subsidence at the superior and inferior endplates of each TLIF level was directly measured on the endplate-facing surface of both coronal and sagittal CT scans obtained greater than 6 months postoperatively. Patients were grouped based on the maximum subsidence at each operative level classified as mild, moderate, or severe based on previously documented < 2-mm, 2- to 4-mm, and ≥ 4-mm thresholds, respectively. Univariate and regression analyses compared patient demographics, medical comorbidities, preoperative bone quality, surgical factors including interbody cage parameters, and fusion and complication rates across subsidence groups.

RESULTS A total of 67 patients with 85 unique fusion levels met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Overall, 28% of levels exhibited moderate subsidence and 35% showed severe subsidence after TLIF with no significant difference in the superior and inferior endplate subsidence. Moderate (≥ 2-mm) and severe (≥ 4-mm) subsidence were significantly associated with decreases in cage surface area and Taillard index as well as interbody cages with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) material and sawtooth surface geometry. Severe subsidence was also significantly associated with taller preoperative disc spaces, decreased vertebral Hounsfield units (HU), the absence of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) use, and smooth cage surfaces. Regression analysis revealed decreases in Taillard index, cage surface area, and HU, and the absence of BMP use predicted subsidence. Severe subsidence was found to be a predictor of pseudarthrosis but was not significantly associated with revision surgery.

CONCLUSIONS Patient-level risk factors for TLIF subsidence included decreased HU and increased preoperative disc height. Intraoperative risk factors for TLIF subsidence were decreased cage surface area, PEEK cage material, bullet cages, posterior cage positioning, smooth cage surfaces, and sawtooth surface designs. Severe subsidence predicted TLIF pseudarthrosis; however, the causality of this relationship remains unclear.

Posted on

Novel Use of Bilateral Prone Transpsoas Approach for the Treatment of Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Pseudarthrosis and Interbody Cage Subsidence

Operative Neurosurgery 27:86–93, 2024

Pseudarthrosis is a complication after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) that leads to recurrent symptoms and potential revision surgery. Subsidence of the interbody adds to the complexity of surgical revision. In addition, we report a novel technique for the treatment of TLIF pseudarthrosis with subsidence and propose an approach algorithm for TLIF cage removal.

METHODS: Cases of reoperation for TLIF pseudarthrosis were reviewed. We report a novel technique using a bilateral prone transpsoas (PTP) approach to remove a subsided TLIF cage and place a new lateral cage. An approach algorithm was developed based on the experience of TLIF cage removal. The patient was placed in the prone position with somatosensory evoked potential and electromyography monitoring. A PTP retractor was placed using standard techniques on the ipsilateral side of the previous TLIF. After the discectomy, the subsided TLIF cage was visualized but unable to be removed. The initial dilator was closed, and a second PTP retractor was placed on the contralateral side. After annulotomy and discectomy to circumferentially isolate the subsided cage, a box cutter was used to push and mobilize the TLIF cage from this contralateral side, which could then be pulled out from the ipsilateral side. A standard lateral interbody cage was then placed.

RESULTS: Retractor time was less than 10 minutes on each side. The patient’s symptoms resolved postoperatively. We review illustrative cases of various approaches for TLIF cage removal spanning the lumbosacral spine and recommend an operative approach based on the lumbar level, degree of subsidence, and mobility of the interbody.

CONCLUSION: Bilateral PTP retractors for TLIF cage removal may be effectively used in cases of pseudarthrosis with severe cage subsidence. Careful consideration of various factors, including patient surgical history, body habitus, and intraoperative findings, is essential in determining the appropriate treatment for these complex cases.

Posted on

Subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion using a 3D-printed porous titanium interbody cage

J Neurosurg Spine 37:663–669, 2022

Cage subsidence is a well-known phenomenon after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), occurring in 10%–20% of cases. A 3D-printed porous titanium (pTi) cage has a stiffness that mimics the modulus of elasticity of native vertebrae, which reduces stress at the bone-hardware interface, lowering the risk of subsidence. In this study, the authors evaluated their institutional rate of subsidence and resultant reoperation in patients who underwent LLIF using a 3D-printed pTi interbody cage.

METHODS This is a retrospective case series of consecutive adult patients who underwent LLIF using pTi cages from 2018 to 2020. Demographic and clinical characteristics including age, sex, bone mineral density, smoking status, diabetes, steroid use, number of fusion levels, posterior instrumentation, and graft size were collected. The Marchi subsidence grade was determined at the time of last follow-up. Outcome measures of interest were subsidence and resultant reoperation. Univariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the extent to which clinical and operative characteristics were associated with Marchi grade I–III subsidence. Significance was assessed at p < 0.05.

RESULTS Fifty-five patients (38 with degenerative disc disease and 17 with adult spinal deformity) were treated with 97 pTi interbody cages with a mean follow-up of 18 months. The mean age was 63.6 ± 10.1 years, 60% of patients were female, and 36% of patients had osteopenia or osteoporosis. Patients most commonly underwent single-level LLIF (58.2%). Sixteen patients (29.1%) had posterior instrumentation. The subsidence grade distribution was as follows: 89 (92%) grade 0, 5 (5%) grade I, 2 (2%) grade II, and 1 (1%) grade III. No patients who were active or prior smokers and no patients with posterior instrumentation experienced graft subsidence. No clinical or operative characteristics were significantly associated with graft subsidence. One patient (1.8%) required reoperation because of subsidence.

CONCLUSIONS In this institutional case series, subsidence of pTi intervertebral cages after LLIF occurred in 8% of operated levels, 3% of which were grade II or III. Only 1 patient required reoperation. These reported rates are lower than those reported for polyetheretherketone implants. Further studies are necessary to compare the impact of these cage materials on subsidence after LLIF.

Posted on

Predictors of subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 37:183–187, 2022

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) facilitates the restoration of disc height and the indirect decompression of neural elements. However, these benefits are lost when the graft subsides into the adjacent endplates. The factors leading to subsidence after LLIF are poorly understood. This article presents a case series of patients who underwent LLIF and reports factors correlating with subsidence.

METHODS A retrospective review of a consecutive, prospectively collected, single-institution database of patients who underwent LLIF over a 29-month period was performed. The degree of subsidence was measured on the basis of postoperative imaging. The timing of postoperative subsidence was determined, and intraoperative fluoroscopic images were reviewed to determine whether subsidence occurred as a result of endplate violation. The association of subsidence with age, sex, cage size and type, bone density, and posterior instrumentation was investigated.

RESULTS One hundred thirty-one patients underwent LLIF at a total of 204 levels. Subsidence was observed at 23 (11.3%) operated levels. True subsidence, attributable to postoperative cage settling, occurred for 12 (5.9%) of the levels; for the remaining 11 (5.4%) levels, subsidence was associated with intraoperative endplate violation noted on fluoroscopy during cage placement. All subsidence occurred within 12 weeks of surgery. Univariate analysis showed that the prevalence of true subsidence was significantly lower among patients with titanium implants (0 of 55; 0%) than among patients with polyetheretherketone cages (12 of 149; 8.1%) (p = 0.04). In addition, the mean ratio of graft area to inferior endplate area was significantly lower among the subsidence levels (0.34) than among the nonsubsidence levels (0.42) (p < 0.01). Finally, subsidence among levels with posterior fixation (4.4% [6/135]) was not significantly different than among those without posterior fixation (8.7% [6/69]) (p = 0.23). Multivariate analysis results showed that the ratio of cage to inferior endplate area was the only significant predictor of subsidence in this study (p < 0.01); increasing ratios were associated with a decreased likelihood of subsidence.

CONCLUSIONS Overall, the prevalence of subsidence after LLIF was low in this clinical series. Titanium cages were associated with a lower prevalence of observed subsidence on univariate analysis; however, multivariate analysis demonstrated that this effect may be attributable to the increased surface area of these cages relative to the inferior endplate area.

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

Long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 34:471–480, 2021

Potential advantages of using expandable versus static cages during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are not fully established. The authors aimed to compare the long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static TLIF cages.

METHODS A retrospective review of 1- and 2-level TLIFs over a 10-year period with expandable and static cages was performed at the University of California, San Francisco. Patients with posterior column osteotomy (PCO) were subdivided. Fusion assessment, cage subsidence, anterior and posterior disc height, foraminal dimensions, pelvic incidence (PI), segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were assessed.

RESULTS A consecutive series of 178 patients (with a total of 210 levels) who underwent TLIF using either static (148 levels) or expandable cages (62 levels) was reviewed. The mean patient age was 60.3 ± 11.5 years and 62.8 ± 14.1 years for the static and expandable cage groups, respectively. The mean follow-up was 42.9 ± 29.4 months for the static cage group and 27.6 ± 14.1 months for the expandable cage group. Within the 1-level TLIF group, the SL and PI-LL improved with statistical significance regardless of whether PCO was performed; however, the static group with PCOs also had statistically significant improvement in LL and SVA. The expandable cage with PCO subgroup had significant improvement in SL only. All of the foraminal parameters improved with statistical significance, regardless of the type of cages used; however, the expandable cage group had greater improvement in disc height restoration. The incidence of cage subsidence was higher in the expandable group (19.7% vs 5.4%, p = 0.0017). Within the expandable group, the unilateral facetectomy-only subgroup had a 5.6 times higher subsidence rate than the PCO subgroup (26.8% vs 4.8%, p = 0.04). Four expandable cages collapsed over time.

CONCLUSIONS Expandable TLIF cages may initially restore disc height better than static cages, but they also have higher rates of subsidence. Unilateral facetectomy alone may result in more subsidence with expandable cages than using bilateral PCO, potentially because of insufficient facet release. Although expandable cages may have more power to induce lordosis and restore disc height than static cages, subsidence and endplate violation may negate any significant gains compared to static cages.

 

Posted on

Lower Hounsfield units on CT are associated with cage subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

J Neurosurg Spine 33:425–432, 2020

A consequence of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is graft subsidence, potentially leading to kyphosis, nonunion, foraminal stenosis, and recurrent pain. Bone density, as measured in Hounsfield units (HUs) on CT, may be associated with subsidence. The authors evaluated the association between HUs and subsidence rates after ACDF.

METHODS A retrospective study of patients treated with single-level ACDF at the University of California, San Francisco, from 2008 to 2017 was performed. HU values were measured according to previously published methods. Only patients with preoperative CT, minimum 1-year follow-up, and single-level ACDF were included. Patients with posterior surgery, tumor, infection, trauma, deformity, or osteoporosis treatment were excluded. Changes in segmental height were measured at 1-year follow-up compared with immediate postoperative radiographs. Subsidence was defined as segmental height loss of more than 2 mm.

RESULTS A total of 91 patients met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in age or sex between the subsidence and nonsubsidence groups. Mean HU values in the subsidence group (320.8 ± 23.9, n = 8) were significantly lower than those of the nonsubsidence group (389.1 ± 53.7, n = 83, p < 0.01, t-test). There was a negative correlation between the HU values and segmental height loss (Pearson’s coefficient −0.735, p = 0.01). Using receiver operating characteristic curves, the area under the curve was 0.89, and the most appropriate threshold of HU value was 343.7 (sensitivity 77.1%, specificity 87.5%). A preoperative lower HU is a risk factor for postoperative subsidence (binary logistic regression, p < 0.05). The subsidence rate and distance between allograft and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) materials were not significantly different (PEEK 0.9 ± 0.7 mm, allograft 1.0 ± 0.7 mm; p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS Lower preoperative CT HU values are associated with cage subsidence in single-level ACDF. Preoperative measurement of HUs may be useful in predicting outcomes after ACDF.

Posted on

PEEK versus titanium cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis of subsidence

Neurosurg Focus 49 (3):E10, 2020

The authors have provided a review of radiographic subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) as a comparative analysis between titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. Many authors describe a reluctance to use titanium cages in spinal fusion secondary to subsidence concerns due to the increased modulus of elasticity of metal cages. The authors intend for this report to provide observational data regarding the juxtaposition of these two materials in the LLIF domain.

METHODS A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified 113 consecutive patients undergoing lateral fusion for degenerative indications from January to December 2017. The surgeons performing the cage implantations were two orthopedic spine surgeons and two neurosurgeons. Plain standing radiographs were obtained at 1–2 weeks, 8–12 weeks, and 12 months postoperatively. Using a validated grading system, interbody subsidence into the endplates was graded at these time points on a scale of 0 to III. The primary outcome measure was subsidence between the two groups. Secondary outcomes were analyzed as well.

RESULTS Of the 113 patients in the sample, groups receiving PEEK and titanium implants were closely matched at 57 and 56 patients, respectively. Cumulatively, 156 cages were inserted and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein– 2 (rhBMP-2) was used in 38.1%. The average patient age was 60.4 years and average follow-up was 75.1 weeks. Subsidence in the titanium group in this study was less common than in the PEEK cage group. At early follow-up, groups had similar subsidence outcomes. Statistical significance was reached at the 8- to 12-week and 52-week follow-ups, demonstrating more subsidence in the PEEK cage group than the titanium cage group. rhBMP-2 usage was also highly correlated with higher subsidence rates at all 3 follow-up time points. Age was correlated with higher subsidence rates in univariate and multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS Titanium cages were associated with lower subsidence rates than PEEK cages in this investigation. Usage of rhBMP-2 was also robustly associated with higher endplate subsidence. Each additional year of age correlated with an increased subsidence risk. Subsidence in LLIF is likely a response to a myriad of factors that include but are certainly not limited to cage material. Hence, the avoidance of titanium interbody implants secondary solely to concerns over a modulus of elasticity likely overlooks other variables of equal or greater importance.

Posted on

Complications for minimally invasive lateral interbody arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing prepsoas and transpsoas approaches

J Neurosurg Spine 30:446–460, 2019

Minimally invasive anterolateral retroperitoneal approaches for lumbar interbody arthrodesis have distinct advantages attractive to spine surgeons. Prepsoas or transpsoas trajectories can be employed with differing complication profiles because of the inherent anatomical differences encountered in each approach. The evidence comparing them remains limited because of poor quality data. Here, the authors sought to systematically review the available literature and perform a meta-analysis comparing the two techniques.

METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A database search was used to identify eligible studies. Prepsoas and transpsoas studies were compiled, and each study was assessed for inclusion criteria. Complication rates were recorded and compared between approach groups. Studies incorporating an analysis of postoperative subsidence and pseudarthrosis rates were also assessed and compared.

RESULTS For the prepsoas studies, 20 studies for the complications analysis and 8 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the transpsoas studies, 39 studies for the complications analysis and 19 studies for the pseudarthrosis outcomes analysis were included. For the complications analysis, 1874 patients treated via the prepsoas approach and 4607 treated with the transpsoas approach were included. In the transpsoas group, there was a higher rate of transient sensory symptoms (21.7% vs 8.7%, p = 0.002), transient hip flexor weakness (19.7% vs 5.7%, p < 0.001), and permanent neurological weakness (2.8% vs 1.0%, p = 0.005). A higher rate of sympathetic nerve injury was seen in the prepsoas group (5.4% vs 0.0%, p = 0.03). Of the nonneurological complications, major vascular injury was significantly higher in the prepsoas approach (1.8% vs 0.4%, p = 0.01). There was no difference in urological or peritoneal/bowel injury, postoperative ileus, or hematomas (all p > 0.05). A higher infection rate was noted for the trans-psoas group (3.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.01). With regard to postoperative fusion outcomes, similar rates of subsidence (12.2% prepsoas vs 13.8% transpsoas, p = 0.78) and pseudarthrosis (9.9% vs 7.5%, respectively, p = 0.57) were seen between the groups at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS Complication rates vary for the prepsoas and transpsoas approaches owing to the variable retroperitoneal anatomy encountered during surgical dissection. While the risks of a lasting motor deficit and transient sensory dis- turbances are higher for the transpsoas approach, there is a reciprocal reduction in the risks of major vascular injury and sympathetic nerve injury. These results can facilitate informed decision-making and tailored surgical planning regarding the choice of minimally invasive anterolateral access to the spine.

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.

Posted on

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Banana-Shaped and Straight Cages: Radiological and Clinical Results from a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

Neurosurgery 82:289–298, 2018

In minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), cage type and position play important roles in fusion achievement and sagittal alignment correction. However, no prospective randomized comparison of the results using different types of cage has been reported to date.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the radiological and clinical outcomes of unilateral MIS-TLIF using 2 types of cage.

METHODS: All candidates for single-level MIS-TLIF were randomized into banana-shaped cage and straight-cage groups. Plain radiographs and computed tomography scans were used for assessment of cage positions, fusion status, disc height, segmental lordotic angle, cage subsidence, and pelvic parameters. Clinical outcome was assessed using visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores.

RESULTS: Forty-four and 40 consecutive patients were operated on using banana-shaped and straight cages, respectively. Cage position was more anterior and lateral in the straightcage group and more medial and posterior in the banana-shaped cage group. Solid fusion was achieved in 95.2% and 96.6% of the 2 groups, respectively, at 12 mo. The change in disc height and segmental lordotic angle postoperatively was significantly greater in the banana-shaped cage group. The incidence of subsidence during follow-up was significantly higher in the banana-shaped cage group (P<.04). Clinically, the visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index scores decreased significantly after surgery in both groups, with no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSION: Our preliminary outcomes suggest that the subsidence rate may be higher using banana-shaped cages in MIS-TLIF, possibly due to their more medial final position.

 

Posted on

Subsidence after lateral interbody fusion

Assessment and classi cation of subsidence after lateral interbody fusion using serial computed tomography

J Neurosurg Spine 23:589–597, 2015

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.

Posted on

Outcome After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Arthrodesis A Clinical Study of 368 Patients

Neurosurg Q 2009;19:164–170

Aim: To define the predictors for the clinical outcome after anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis for patients with degenerative diseases of the cervical spine. Does the subsidence of the intervertebral spacer in the adjacent vertebral have a negative influence on the outcome?
Materials and Methods: In a prospective clinical study, 368 patients underwent anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis with degenerative disease of the cervical spine. The patients were treated between September 1997 and January 2005. All patients were followed up 1 year after surgery.
Results: Young age of the patient, mono-segmental anterior cervical discectomy and arthrodesis of the lower cervical spine are predictors of a satisfactory outcome. We did not find statistical differences in the outcome between male and female patients or between patients with or without subsidence of the cage.
Conclusions: Good results can be achieved by early operative therapy. The subsidence of the cage does not affect the outcome.

Proudly powered by WordPress