Does interbody cage lordosis impact actual segmental lordosis achieved in minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion?

OBJECTIVE In an effort to prevent loss of segmental lordosis (SL) with minimally invasive interbody fusions, manufacturers have increased the amount of lordosis that is built into interbody cages. However, the relationship between cage lordotic angle and actual SL achieved intraoperatively remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if the lordotic angle manufactured into an interbody cage impacts the change in SL during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) done for degenerative pathology. METHODS The authors performed a retrospective review of a single-surgeon database of adult patients who underwent primary LIF between April 2017 and December 2018. Procedures were performed for 1-2-level lumbar degenerative disease using contemporary MIS techniques, including transforaminal LIF (TLIF), lateral LIF (LLIF), and anterior LIF (ALIF). Surgical levels were classified on lateral radiographs based on the cage lordotic angle (6°-8°, 10°-12°, and 15°-20°) and the position of the cage in the disc space (anterior vs posterior). Change in SL was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analyses of the cage lordotic angle within each surgical approach were also conducted. RESULTS A total of 116 surgical levels in 98 patients were included. Surgical approaches included TLIF (56.1%), LLIF (32.7%), and ALIF (11.2%). There were no differences in SL gained by cage lordotic angle (2.7° SL gain with 6°-8° cages, 1.6° with 10°-12° cages, and 3.4° with 15°-20° cages, p = 0.581). Subgroup analysis of LLIF showed increased SL with 15° cages only (p = 0.002). The change in SL was highest after ALIF (average increase 9.8° in SL vs 1.8° in TLIF vs 1.8° in LLIF, p < 0.001). Anterior position of the cage in the disc space was also associated with a significantly greater gain in SL (4.2° vs -0.3°, p = 0.001), and was the only factor independently correlated with SL gain (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS Compared with cage lordotic angle, cage position and approach play larger roles in the generation of SL in 1-2-level MIS for lumbar degenerative disease.

[1]  Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez,et al.  Retrospective Review of Immediate Restoration of Lordosis in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of Static and Expandable Interbody Cages. , 2020, Operative neurosurgery.

[2]  T. Albert,et al.  A Review of Techniques, Time Demand, Radiation Exposure, and Outcomes of Skin-anchored Intraoperative 3D Navigation in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Spinal Surgery. , 2020, Spine.

[3]  Kern Singh,et al.  Static Versus Expandable Devices Provide Similar Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2019, HSS Journal ®.

[4]  S. Qureshi,et al.  Using minimally invasive techniques adds to the value equation for select patients. , 2019, Journal of spine surgery.

[5]  S. Qureshi,et al.  The Current State of Minimally Invasive Approaches to Adult Spinal Deformity , 2019, Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.

[6]  Paul A. Harris,et al.  The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners , 2019, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[7]  S. Qureshi,et al.  Navigation in minimally invasive spine surgery. , 2019, Journal of spine surgery.

[8]  T. Albert,et al.  Restoration of lumbar lordosis after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. , 2019, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[9]  Samuel K. Cho,et al.  Discogenic Back Pain: Literature Review of Definition, Diagnosis, and Treatment , 2019, JBMR plus.

[10]  Jun S. Kim,et al.  Anterior Column Realignment in Adult Spinal Deformity: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. , 2019, World neurosurgery.

[11]  S. Qureshi,et al.  Radiation Exposure in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: The Effect of the Learning Curve , 2019, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[12]  J. Rawlinson,et al.  Lordosis Recreation in Transforaminal and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cadaveric Study of the Influence of Surgical Bone Resection and Cage Angle. , 2018, Spine.

[13]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  The impact of age on surgical goals for spinopelvic alignment in minimally invasive surgery for adult spinal deformity. , 2018, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[14]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  Evolution of the Minimally Invasive Spinal Deformity Surgery Algorithm: An Evidence-Based Approach to Surgical Strategies for Deformity Correction. , 2018, Neurosurgery clinics of North America.

[15]  J. Rawlinson,et al.  Lordosis Re-Creation in TLIF and PLIF: A Cadaveric Study of the Influence of Surgical Bone Resection and Cage Angle. , 2018, Spine.

[16]  C. Fisher,et al.  Do intraoperative radiographs predict final lumbar sagittal alignment following single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? , 2018, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[17]  P. Saville,et al.  Overpowering posterior lumbar instrumentation and fusion with hyperlordotic anterior lumbar interbody cages followed by posterior revision: a preliminary feasibility study. , 2017, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[18]  Robert K. Eastlack,et al.  Anterior Column Realignment has Similar Results to Pedicle Subtraction Osteotomy in Treating Adults with Sagittal Plane Deformity. , 2017, World neurosurgery.

[19]  C. Ames,et al.  Age-Adjusted Alignment Goals Have the Potential to Reduce PJK , 2017, Spine.

[20]  K. Cho,et al.  Does Lordotic Angle of Cage Determine Lumbar Lordosis in Lumbar Interbody Fusion? , 2017, Spine.

[21]  P. Robertson,et al.  Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[22]  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.

[23]  Jun S. Kim,et al.  Return to Play in Adolescent Athletes With Symptomatic Spondylolysis Without Listhesis: A Meta-Analysis , 2016, Global spine journal.

[24]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  Clinical and radiographic parameters associated with best versus worst clinical outcomes in minimally invasive spinal deformity surgery. , 2016, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[25]  B. Skovrlj,et al.  Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery: A systematic review. , 2015, World journal of orthopedics.

[26]  F. Schwab,et al.  Validation of a new computer-assisted tool to measure spino-pelvic parameters. , 2015, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[27]  Young Lu,et al.  Three-dimensional Intraoperative Imaging Modalities in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Narrative Review , 2014, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[28]  R. Watkins,et al.  Sagittal Alignment After Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Anterior, Lateral, and Transforaminal Approaches , 2014, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[29]  D. Polly,et al.  Do Lordotic Cages Provide Better Segmental Lordosis Versus Nonlordotic Cages in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)? , 2014, Clinical spine surgery.

[30]  N. Anand,et al.  Limitations and ceiling effects with circumferential minimally invasive correction techniques for adult scoliosis: analysis of radiological outcomes over a 7-year experience. , 2014, Neurosurgical focus.

[31]  Robert K. Eastlack,et al.  Comparison of radiographic results after minimally invasive, hybrid, and open surgery for adult spinal deformity: a multicenter study of 184 patients. , 2014, Neurosurgical focus.

[32]  R. Fessler,et al.  Changes in coronal and sagittal plane alignment following minimally invasive direct lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease in adults: a radiographic study. , 2011, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[33]  A. Sama,et al.  Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes at 1 Year A Preliminary Report , 2011, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[34]  Kai-Ming G. Fu,et al.  RADIOGRAPHIC RESTORATION OF LUMBAR ALIGNMENT AFTER TRANSFORAMINAL LUMBAR INTERBODY FUSION , 2009, Neurosurgery.

[35]  D. Polly,et al.  Comparison of Sagittal Contour and Posterior Disc Height Following Interbody Fusion: Threaded Cylindrical Cages Versus Structural Allograft Versus Vertical Cages , 2005, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[36]  Michael R. Murray,et al.  Surgical Treatment of Isthmic Spondylolisthesis. , 2016, Clinical spine surgery.