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
  • [31] Hidden blood loss and its possible risk factors in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Yuanxing Zhou
    Xin Fu
    Ming Yang
    Song Ke
    Bo Wang
    Zhonghai Li
    Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 15
  • [32] The identification of risk factors for increased postoperative pain following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Jenkins, Nathaniel W.
    Parrish, James M.
    Mayo, Benjamin C.
    Hrynewycz, Nadia M.
    Brundage, Thomas S.
    Mogilevsky, Franchesca A.
    Yoo, Joon S.
    Singh, Kern
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 29 (06) : 1304 - 1310
  • [33] Hidden blood loss and its possible risk factors in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Zhou, Yuanxing
    Fu, Xin
    Yang, Ming
    Ke, Song
    Wang, Bo
    Li, Zhonghai
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY AND RESEARCH, 2020, 15 (01)
  • [34] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature
    Vazan, Martin
    Gempt, Jens
    Meyer, Bernhard
    Buchmann, Niels
    Ryang, Yu-Mi
    ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2017, 159 (06) : 1137 - 1146
  • [35] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a technical description and review of the literature
    Martin Vazan
    Jens Gempt
    Bernhard Meyer
    Niels Buchmann
    Yu- Mi Ryang
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2017, 159 : 1137 - 1146
  • [36] Predictive Factors of Hospital Stay in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Instrumentation
    Siemionow, Krzysztof
    Pelton, Miguel A.
    Hoskins, Jonathan A.
    Singh, Kern
    SPINE, 2012, 37 (24) : 2046 - 2054
  • [37] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases
    Fan Shunwu
    Zhao Xing
    Zhao Fengdong
    Fang Xiangqian
    SPINE, 2010, 35 (17) : 1615 - 1620
  • [38] Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis
    Massie, Lara W.
    Zakaria, Hesham Mostafa
    Schultz, Lonni R.
    Basheer, Azam
    Buraimoh, Morenikeji Ayodele
    Chang, Victor
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2018, 44 (01)
  • [39] MINIMALLY INVASIVE TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION IN DEGENERATIVE LUMBAR SPINE DISEASE
    Gupta, Pankaj
    Sharma, Arvind
    Singh, Jitendra
    Deen, Shameer
    Tanwar, Akansha
    JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCIENCES-JEMDS, 2015, 4 (105): : 17055 - 17057
  • [40] Application of a narrow-surface cage in full endoscopic minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    He, Er-xing
    Guo, Jing
    Ling, Qin-jie
    Yin, Zhi-xun
    Wang, Ying
    Li, Ming
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2017, 42 : 83 - 89