Risk Factors of Cage Subsidence in Patients Received Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

被引:81
|
作者
Yao, Yu-Cheng [1 ]
Chou, Po-Hsin [1 ,2 ]
Lin, Hsi-Hsien [1 ,2 ]
Wang, Shih-Tien [1 ,2 ]
Liu, Chien-Lin [1 ,2 ]
Chang, Ming-Chau [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Taipei Vet Gen Hosp, Dept Orthoped & Traumatol, 201,Sect 2,Shih Pai Rd, Taipei 112, Taiwan
[2] Natl Yang Ming Univ, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Taipei, Taiwan
关键词
body mass index; bone mineral density; cage position; cage subsidence; complication; disc height; fusion rate; minimally invasive surgery; patient-reported outcome; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion;
D O I
10.1097/BRS.0000000000003557
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Study Design. A retrospective cohort study. Objective. To determine the risk factors of cage subsidence in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and its correlation with patientreported outcomes. Summary of Background Data. Cage subsidence is among the cage-related complications after TLIF and may lead to poor outcomes. Few studies have addressed the incidence of cage subsidence in MI-TLIF. Methods. This retrospective study of a prospectively collected database was conducted from October 2015 to October 2017. All patients received MI-TLIF with a minimum of 2-year followup. All levels were separated into the cage subsidence (CS group) and no cage subsidence (non-CS group) groups. Cage subsidence was evaluated using lateral radiographs and defined as more than 2mm migration of the cage into the endplate of adjacent vertebral body. Patient demographics, perioperative details, and radiographic parameters were recorded. Cagerelated parameters were cage height, cage insertion level, and cage position. Cage position was recorded using central point ration (CPR). Patient-reported outcome was analyzed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively. Results. Ninety-three patients (126 levels) were included. Mean age was 66.5 years with an average follow-up of 36.9 months. Overall incidence of cage subsidence was 34.1%. The CS group had significantly higher body mass index, less bone mineral density (BMD), shorter disc height, and higher CPR than the nonCS group. BMD, disc height, and CPR were significantly negatively correlated with depth of cage subsidence. ODI improvement was significantly lesser in the CS group than in the non-CS group. Fusion rate and complications were unrelated to cage subsidence. Conclusion. The BMD, disc height, and cage position were the most significant risk factors that were negatively correlated with depth of cage subsidence. Placing a TLIF cage anteriorly if possible may reduce the risk of cage subsidence.
引用
下载
收藏
页码:E1279 / E1285
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Factors associated with readmission after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Tumialan, Luis M.
    Weinstein, Nolan
    Farber, S. Harrison
    Desai, Shashvat M.
    Marciano, Frederick F.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2023, 38 (06) : 681 - 687
  • [22] Reduced Acute Care Costs With the ERAS® Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared With Conventional Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Wang, Michael Y.
    Chang, Hsuan Kan
    Grossman, Jay
    NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 83 (04) : 827 - 834
  • [23] Minimally invasive tubular surgery for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Kimball, Jon
    Yew, Andrew
    Getachew, Ruth
    Lu, Daniel C.
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2013, 35
  • [24] MINIMALLY INVASIVE TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION WITH EXPANDABLE CAGES
    Buckland, Aaron J.
    Proctor, Dylan J.
    JBJS ESSENTIAL SURGICAL TECHNIQUES, 2023, 13 (02):
  • [25] History and Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Prabhu, Michael C.
    Jacob, Kevin C.
    Patel, Madhav R.
    Pawlowski, Hanna
    Vanjani, Nisheka N.
    Singh, Kern
    NEUROSPINE, 2022, 19 (03) : 479 - 491
  • [26] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Spine
    Chaudhary, Kshitij S.
    Groff, Michael W.
    TECHNIQUES IN ORTHOPAEDICS, 2011, 26 (03) : 146 - 155
  • [27] The surgical technique of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Lawton, C. D.
    Smith, Z. A.
    Barnawi, A.
    Fessler, R. G.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGICAL SCIENCES, 2011, 55 (03) : 259 - 264
  • [28] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Outpatient Setting
    Emami, Arash
    Faloon, Michael
    Issa, Kimona
    Shafa, Eiman
    Pourtaheri, Sina
    Sinha, Kumar
    Hwang, Ki S.
    ORTHOPEDICS, 2016, 39 (06) : E1218 - E1222
  • [29] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis in patients with significant obesity
    Lau, Darryl
    Ziewacz, John
    Park, Paul
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2013, 20 (01) : 80 - 83
  • [30] The identification of risk factors for increased postoperative pain following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Nathaniel W. Jenkins
    James M. Parrish
    Benjamin C. Mayo
    Nadia M. Hrynewycz
    Thomas S. Brundage
    Franchesca A. Mogilevsky
    Joon S. Yoo
    Kern Singh
    European Spine Journal, 2020, 29 : 1304 - 1310