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
  • [41] Predictors of Subsidence and its Clinical Impact After Expandable Cage Insertion in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion
    Subramanian, Tejas
    Merrill, Robert K.
    Shahi, Pratyush
    Pathania, Shane
    Araghi, Kasra
    Maayan, Omri
    Zhao, Eric
    Shinn, Daniel
    Kim, Yeo Eun
    Kamil, Robert
    Song, Junho
    Dalal, Sidhant S.
    Vaishnav, Avani S.
    Othman, Yahya
    Steinhaus, Michael E.
    Sheha, Evan D.
    Dowdell, James E.
    Iyer, Sravisht
    Qureshi, Sheeraz A.
    SPINE, 2023, 48 (23) : 1670 - 1678
  • [42] Comparison of midline lumbar interbody fusion and minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of lumbar degeneration disease
    Xuelei Zhang
    Yu Zhang
    Zuchao Gu
    Guo Li
    Scientific Reports, 14 (1)
  • [43] Multiexpandable cage for minimally invasive posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Coe, Jeffrey D.
    Zucherman, James F.
    Kucharzyk, Donald W.
    Poelstra, Kornelis A.
    Miller, Larry E.
    Kunwar, Sandeep
    MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2016, 9 (09) : 341 - 347
  • [44] Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Two Techniques
    Tender, G. C.
    Serban, D.
    CHIRURGIA, 2014, 109 (06) : 812 - 821
  • [45] Learning curve and complications of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Silva, Pedro S.
    Pereira, Paulo
    Monteiro, Pedro
    Silva, Pedro A.
    Vaz, Rui
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2013, 35 (02)
  • [46] Minimally-invasive technique for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF)
    Burak M. Ozgur
    Kevin Yoo
    Gerardo Rodriguez
    William R. Taylor
    European Spine Journal, 2005, 14 : 887 - 894
  • [47] Comparison of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Transforaminal Interbody Lumbar Fusion
    Kim, Chi Heon
    Easley, Kirk
    Lee, Jun-Seok
    Hong, Jae-Young
    Virk, Michael
    Hsieh, Patrick C.
    Yoon, Sangwook T.
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 10 : 143S - 150S
  • [48] Complications Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Incidence, Independent Risk Factors, and Clinical Impact
    Jenkins, Nathaniel W.
    Parrish, James M.
    Hrynewycz, Nadia M.
    Brundage, Thomas S.
    Singh, Kern
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2020, 33 (05): : E236 - E240
  • [49] Pearls: Improving Upon Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Qureshi, Sheeraz
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2019, 477 (03) : 501 - 505
  • [50] Intraoperative electromyography monitoring in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
    Bindal, Rajesh K.
    Ghosh, Subrata
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2007, 6 (02) : 126 - 132