Risk factors for cage subsidence and clinical outcomes after transforaminal and posterior lumbar interbody fusion

被引:26
|
作者
Amorim-Barbosa, Tiago [1 ]
Pereira, Catarina [1 ]
Catelas, Diogo [1 ]
Rodrigues, Claudia [1 ]
Costa, Paulo [1 ]
Rodrigues-Pinto, Ricardo [1 ]
Neves, Pedro [1 ]
机构
[1] Ctr Hosp Univ Porto, Dept Orthopaed, P-4099001 Porto, Portugal
关键词
Cage subsidence; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; Posterior lumbar interbody fusion; BONE-MINERAL DENSITY; X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY; HOUNSFIELD UNITS; DIAGNOSTIC CT; SPINE; ANTERIOR; DESIGN; PLIF;
D O I
10.1007/s00590-021-03103-z
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Cage subsidence is a very common complication after lumbar interbody fusion. It may compromise vertebral interbody fusion through progressive spinal deformity and consequently cause compression of neural elements. Clinical relevance remains, however, unclear, with few studies on this subject and even less information regarding its correlation with clinical findings. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for cage subsidence and clinical evaluation after transforaminal (TLIF) and posterior (PLIF) lumbar interbody fusion. Methods A retrospective study in patients submitted to TLIF and PLIF between 2008 and 2017 was conducted. Results A total of 165 patients were included (123 TLIF and 42 PLIF). Univariate analysis showed an increased risk of cage subsidence in spondylolisthesis comparing with degenerative disk disease (p = 0.007). A higher preoperative lumbar lordosis angle (p = 0.014) and cage placement in L2-L3 (p = 0.012) were associated with higher risk of subsidence. The posterior cage positioning on vertebral endplate was associated with a higher risk of subsidence (p = 0.028) and significant subsidence (p = 0.005), defined as cage migration > 50% of cage height. PLIF presented a higher risk when comparing with TLIF (p = 0.024). Hounsfield unit (HU) values < 135 (OR6; 95% CI [1.95-34]) and posterior positioning (OR7; 95% CI [1.7-27.3]) were independent risk factors for cage subsidence and significant subsidence, respectively, in multivariate analysis. There was a tendency for significant subsidence in degrees >= 2 of Meyerding spondylolisthesis (OR4; 95% CI [0.85-21.5]). Significant cage subsidence was not associated with worse clinical results. Other analyzed factors, such as age (p = 0.008), low bone mineral density (BMD) (p = 0.029) and type of surgery (TLIF) (p = 0.004), were associated with worse results. Conclusion The present study shows that lower BMD and posterior cage positioning are relevant risk factors for lumbar cage subsidence. Low BMD is also a predictor of poor clinical results, so it must be properly evaluated and considered, through HU values measurement in CT scan, a feasible and reliable tool in perioperative planning.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:1291 / 1299
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Risk factors for cage subsidence and clinical outcomes after transforaminal and posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Tiago Amorim-Barbosa
    Catarina Pereira
    Diogo Catelas
    Cláudia Rodrigues
    Paulo Costa
    Ricardo Rodrigues-Pinto
    Pedro Neves
    European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 2022, 32 : 1291 - 1299
  • [2] Risk factors for polyetheretherketone cage subsidence following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Singhatanadgige, Weerasak
    Sukthuayat, Amnat
    Tanaviriyachai, Terdpong
    Kongtharvonskul, Jatupon
    Tanasansomboon, Teerachat
    Kerr, Stephen J.
    Limthongkul, Worawat
    ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2021, 163 (09) : 2557 - 2565
  • [3] Risk factors for polyetheretherketone cage subsidence following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Weerasak Singhatanadgige
    Amnat Sukthuayat
    Terdpong Tanaviriyachai
    Jatupon Kongtharvonskul
    Teerachat Tanasansomboon
    Stephen J. Kerr
    Worawat Limthongkul
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2021, 163 : 2557 - 2565
  • [4] Risk Factors of Cage Subsidence in Patients Received Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Yao, Yu-Cheng
    Chou, Po-Hsin
    Lin, Hsi-Hsien
    Wang, Shih-Tien
    Liu, Chien-Lin
    Chang, Ming-Chau
    SPINE, 2020, 45 (19) : E1279 - E1285
  • [5] Subsidence of Polyetheretherketone Cage After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Kim, Moon-Chan
    Chung, Hung-Tae
    Cho, Jae-Lim
    Kim, Dong-Jun
    Chung, Nam-Su
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2013, 26 (02): : 87 - 92
  • [6] Comments on "Risk Factors of Cage Subsidence in Patients Received Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion''
    Xie, Fang
    Luo, Zhuojing
    Hu, Xueyu
    SPINE, 2020, 45 (19) : E1286 - E1286
  • [7] Risk factors for cage retropulsion after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in older patients
    Li, Nan
    Dai, Min
    Zhang, Bin
    He, Da
    Wei, Yi
    Duan, Fangfang
    Sun, Yuqing
    Liu, Bo
    Mo, Fengbo
    Tian, Wei
    ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2020, 8 (24)
  • [8] The value of Hounsfield units in predicting cage subsidence after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Xie, Fang
    Yang, Zhiwei
    Tu, Zhipeng
    Huang, Peipei
    Wang, Zhe
    Luo, Zhuojing
    Hu, Xueyu
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2022, 23 (01)
  • [9] The value of Hounsfield units in predicting cage subsidence after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Fang Xie
    Zhiwei Yang
    Zhipeng Tu
    Peipei Huang
    Zhe Wang
    Zhuojing Luo
    Xueyu Hu
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 23
  • [10] Risk Factors for Posterior Cage Migration after Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery
    Lee, Dong-Yeong
    Park, Young-Jin
    Song, Sang-Youn
    Jeong, Soon-Taek
    Kim, Dong-Hee
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2018, 12 (01) : 59 - 68