Cage subsidence in lateral interbody fusion with transpsoas approach: intraoperative endplate injury or late-onset settling

Introduction Few studies have investigated the influence of cage subsidence patterns (intraoperative endplate injury or late-onset cage settling) on bony fusion and clinical outcomes in lateral interbody fusion (LIF). This retrospective study was performed to compare the fusion rate and clinical outcomes of cage subsidence patterns in LIF at one year after surgery. Methods Participants included 93 patients (aged 69.0±0.8 years; 184 segments) who underwent LIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation. All segments were evaluated by computed tomography and classified into three groups: Segment E (intraoperative endplate injury, identified immediately postoperatively); Segment S (late-onset settling, identified at 3 months or later); or Segment N (no subsidence). We compared patient characteristics, surgical parameters and fusion status at 1 year for the three subsidence groups. Patients were classified into four groups: Group E (at least one Segment E), Group S (at least one Segment S), Group ES (both Segments E and S), or Group N (Segment N alone). Visual analog scales (VASs) and the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) were compared for the four patient groups. Results 184 segments were classified: 31 as Segment E (16.8%), 21 as Segment S (11.4%), and 132 as Segment N (71.7%). Segment E demonstrated significantly lower bone mineral density (-1.7 SD of T-score, p=0.003). Segment S demonstrated a significantly higher rate of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages (100%, p=0.03) and a significantly lower fusion rate (23.8%, p=0.01). There were no significant differences in VAS or in any of the JOABPEQ domains among the four patient groups. Conclusions Intraoperative endplate injury was significantly related to bone quality, and late-onset settling was related to PEEK cages. Late-onset settling demonstrated a worse fusion rate. However, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes among the subsidence patterns.

[1]  S. Yi,et al.  Comparison of Outcomes of Anterior, Posterior, and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery at a Single Lumbar Level with Degenerative Spinal Disease. , 2017, World neurosurgery.

[2]  T. Nakayama,et al.  Vertebral Endplate Cyst as a Predictor of Nonunion After Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages , 2016, Spine.

[3]  G. Malham,et al.  Assessment and classification of subsidence after lateral interbody fusion using serial computed tomography. , 2015, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[4]  B. Boyan,et al.  Implant Materials Generate Different Peri-implant Inflammatory Factors , 2015, Spine.

[5]  K. Takeshita,et al.  Japanese orthopaedic association back pain evaluation questionnaire (JOABPEQ) as an outcome measure for patients with low back pain: reference values in healthy volunteers , 2015, Journal of orthopaedic science : official journal of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association.

[6]  D. Khorsand,et al.  Radiographical and Clinical Evaluation of Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion: Effects of Cage Size and Instrumentation Type With a Minimum of 1-Year Follow-up , 2014, Spine.

[7]  A. Fujikawa,et al.  Comparison of fusion rates following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone cages or titanium cages with transpedicular instrumentation , 2014, European Spine Journal.

[8]  Aniruddh N. Nayak,et al.  Effects on inadvertent endplate fracture following lateral cage placement on range of motion and indirect spine decompression in lumbar spine fusion constructs: A cadaveric study , 2013, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[9]  N. Abdala,et al.  Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. , 2013, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[10]  G. Malham,et al.  Clinical Outcome and Fusion Rates after the First 30 Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusions , 2012, TheScientificWorldJournal.

[11]  M. Čabraja,et al.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages , 2012, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[12]  Tien V. Le,et al.  Subsidence of Polyetheretherketone Intervertebral Cages in Minimally Invasive Lateral Retroperitoneal Transpsoas Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2012, Spine.

[13]  James F. Marino.  Subsidence of metal interbody cage after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation. , 2010, Orthopedics.

[14]  S. Lim,et al.  Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous translaminar facet screw fixation in elderly patients. , 2009, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[15]  Yang Hou,et al.  A Study on the Structural Properties of the Lumbar Endplate: Histological Structure, the Effect of Bone Density, and Spinal Level , 2009, Spine.

[16]  R. Vaidya,et al.  Complications in the Use of rhBMP-2 in PEEK Cages for Interbody Spinal Fusions , 2008, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[17]  Vijay K. Goel,et al.  Biomechanical Rationale for Using Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Spacers for Lumbar Interbody Fusion–A Finite Element Study , 2006, Spine.

[18]  H. Aryan,et al.  Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. , 2006, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[19]  T. Steffen,et al.  The in vitro stabilising effect of polyetheretherketone cages versus a titanium cage of similar design for anterior lumbar interbody fusion , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[20]  Jae Young Choi,et al.  Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages , 2004, European Spine Journal.

[21]  Thomas R. Oxland,et al.  Mapping the Structural Properties of the Lumbosacral Vertebral Endplates , 2001, Spine.

[22]  M. Aebi,et al.  Cages: designs and concepts , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[23]  S. Belkoff,et al.  An in vitro biomechanical evaluation of bone cements used in percutaneous vertebroplasty. , 1999, Bone.