Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion

Clinical article

Restricted access

Object

Indirect decompression of the neural structures through interbody distraction and fusion in the lumbar spine is feasible, but cage subsidence may limit maintenance of the initial decompression. The influence of interbody cage size on subsidence and symptoms in minimally invasive lateral interbody fusion is heretofore unreported. The authors report the rate of cage subsidence after lateral interbody fusion, examine the clinical effects, and present a subsidence classification scale.

Methods

The study was performed as an institutional review board–approved prospective, nonrandomized, comparative, single-center radiographic and clinical evaluation. Stand-alone short-segment (1- or 2-level) lateral lumbar interbody fusion was investigated with 12 months of postoperative follow-up. Two groups were compared. Forty-six patients underwent treatment at 61 lumbar levels with standard interbody cages (18 mm anterior/posterior dimension), and 28 patients underwent treatment at 37 lumbar levels with wide cages (22 mm). Standing lateral radiographs were used to measure segmental lumbar lordosis, disc height, and rate of subsidence. Subsidence was classified using the following scale: Grade 0, 0%–24% loss of postoperative disc height; Grade I, 25%–49%; Grade II, 50%–74%; and Grade III, 75%–100%. Fusion status was assessed on CT scanning, and pain and disability were assessed using the visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index. Complications and reoperations were recorded.

Results

Pain and disability improved similarly in both groups. While significant gains in segmental lumbar lordosis and disc height were observed overall, the standard group experienced less improvement due to the higher rate of interbody graft subsidence. A difference in the rate of subsidence between the groups was evident at 6 weeks (p = 0.027), 3 months (p = 0.042), and 12 months (p = 0.047). At 12 months, 70% in the standard group and 89% in the wide group had Grade 0 or I subsidence, and 30% in the standard group and 11% in wide group had Grade II or III subsidence. Subsidence was detected early (6 weeks), at which point it was correlated with transient clinical worsening, although progression of subsidence was not observed after the 6-week time point. Moreover, subsidence occurred predominantly (68%) in the inferior endplate. Fusion rate was not affected by cage dimension (p > 0.999) or by incidence of subsidence (p = 0.383).

Conclusions

Wider cages avoid subsidence and better restore segmental lordosis in stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. Cage subsidence is identified early in follow-up and can be accessed using the proposed classification scale.

Abbreviations used in this paper:BMI = body mass index; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; VAS = visual analog scale; XLIF = extreme lateral interbody fusion.

Article Information

Address correspondence to: Luis Marchi, M.Sc., Vergueiro Street, 1421, Suite 305, São Paulo 04101-000, Brazil. email: luismarchi@gmail.com.

Please include this information when citing this paper: published online May 10, 2013; DOI: 10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12319.

© AANS, except where prohibited by US copyright law.

Headings

Figures

  • View in gallery

    Intervertebral cages compared in the current study. Left: Standard cage with an anteroposterior width of 18 mm (arrow). Right: Wide cage with an anteroposterior width of 22 mm (arrow).

  • View in gallery

    Subsidence grading. Radiographs showing examples of the different subsidence grades (0–III).

  • View in gallery

    Graph showing the time course of subsidence. Incidence of subsidence by grade (0–III) is shown at each follow-up point. No statistically significant difference was found among the assessments (chi-square test [6 df] = 4.887; p = 0.558).

  • View in gallery

    Graph showing the incidence of subsidence per cage group. The subsidence rate shown is relative to the 12-month radiological assessment. Group rates are statistically different (chi-square test [3 df] = 7.971; p = 0.047).

  • View in gallery

    Case example of fusion after Grade III subsidence. Twelve-month radiographs (A and C) and CT images (B and D) showing fusion obtained after placement of a standard cage despite high-grade subsidence occurrence.

References

  • 1

    Acaroglu ERIatridis JCSetton LAFoster RJMow VCWeidenbaum M: Degeneration and aging affect the tensile behavior of human lumbar anulus fibrosus. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:269027011995

  • 2

    Barsa PSuchomel P: Factors affecting sagittal malalignment due to cage subsidence in standalone cage assisted anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J 16:139514002007

  • 3

    Billinghurst JAkbarnia BA: Extreme lateral interbody fusion—XLIF. Curr Orthop Pract 20:2382512009

  • 4

    Blumenthal SLBaker JDossett ASelby DK: The role of anterior lumbar fusion for internal disc disruption. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13:5665691988

  • 5

    Bridwell KHLenke LGMcEnery KWBaldus CBlanke K: Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects?. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:141014181995

  • 6

    Burkus JKGornet MFDickman CAZdeblick TA: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion using rhBMP-2 with tapered interbody cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 15:3373492002

  • 7

    Cappuccino ACornwall GBTurner AWLFogel GRDuong HTKim KD: Biomechanical analysis and review of lateral lumbar fusion constructs. Spine 35:26 SupplS361S3672010

  • 8

    Cheung KMCZhang YGLu DSLuk KDKLeong JCY: Reduction of disc space distraction after anterior lumbar interbody fusion with autologous iliac crest graft. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:138513892003

  • 9

    Choi JYSung KH: Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages. Eur Spine J 15:16222006

  • 10

    Closkey RFParsons JRLee CKBlacksin MFZimmerman MC: Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:101110151993

  • 11

    Cloward RB: The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care. J Neurosurg 10:1541681953

  • 12

    Daffner SDWang JC: Migrated XLIF cage: case report and discussion of surgical technique. Orthopedics 33:5182010

  • 13

    Dua KKepler CKHuang RCMarchenko A: Vertebral body fracture after anterolateral instrumentation and interbody fusion in two osteoporotic patients. Spine J 10:e11e152010

  • 14

    Eck KRBridwell KHUngacta FFLapp MALenke LGRiew KD: Analysis of titanium mesh cages in adults with minimum two-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:240724152000

  • 15

    Ferguson SJSteffen T: Biomechanics of the aging spine. Eur Spine J 12:Suppl 2S97S1032003

  • 16

    Fujiwara ATamai KYamato MAn HSYoshida HSaotome K: The relationship between facet joint osteoarthritis and disc degeneration of the lumbar spine: an MRI study. Eur Spine J 8:3964011999

  • 17

    Fukuta SMiyamoto KHosoe HShimizu K: Kidney-type intervertebral spacers should be located anteriorly in cantilever transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analyses of risk factors for spacer subsidence for a minimum of 2 years. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:1891952011

  • 18

    Gercek EArlet VDelisle JMarchesi D: Subsidence of standalone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J 12:5135162003

  • 19

    Gilbert SGJohns PCChow DCBlack RC: Relation of vertebral bone screw axial pullout strength to quantitative computed tomographic trabecular bone mineral content. J Spinal Disord 6:5135211993

  • 20

    Glassman SDCarreon LYDjurasovic MCampbell MJPuno RMJohnson JR: RhBMP-2 versus iliac crest bone graft for lumbar spine fusion: a randomized, controlled trial in patients over sixty years of age. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 33:284328492008

  • 21

    Gödde SFritsch EDienst MKohn D: Influence of cage geometry on sagittal alignment in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:169316992003

  • 22

    Goh JCWong HKThambyah AYu CS: Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbar spine stability. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:35402000

  • 23

    Grant JPOxland TRDvorak MF: Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:8898962001

  • 24

    Ha SKPark JYKim SHLim DJKim SDLee SK: Radiologic assessment of subsidence in stand-alone cervical polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 44:3703742008

  • 25

    Harms JGJeszenszky D: The unilateral, transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol 6:88991998

  • 26

    Hou YLuo Z: A study on the structural properties of the lumbar endplate: histological structure, the effect of bone density, and spinal level. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:E427E4332009

  • 27

    Jackson RPMcManus AC: Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment and balance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age, sex, and size. A prospective controlled clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:161116181994

  • 28

    Jost BCripton PALund TOxland TRLippuner KJaeger P: Compressive strength of interbody cages in the lumbar spine: the effect of cage shape, posterior instrumentation and bone density. Eur Spine J 7:1321411998

  • 29

    Karikari IOGrossi PMNimjee SMHardin CHodges TRHughes BD: Minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion in patients older than 70 years of age: analysis of peri- and postoperative complications. Neurosurgery 68:8979022011

  • 30

    Kim SBJeon TSHeo YMLee WSYi JWKim TK: Radiographic results of single level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disease: focusing on changes of segmental lordosis in fusion segment. Clin Orthop Surg 1:2072132009

  • 31

    Knox JBDai JM IIIOrchowski J: Osteolysis in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bone morphogenetic protein-2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36:6726762011

  • 32

    Kumar AKozak JADoherty BJDickson JH: Interspace distraction and graft subsidence after anterior lumbar fusion with femoral strut allograft. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18:239324001993

  • 33

    Kumar MNBaklanov AChopin D: Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 10:3143192001

  • 34

    Kuslich SDUlstrom CLGriffith SLAhern JWDowdle JS: The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion. History, techniques, and 2-year follow-up results of a United States prospective, multicenter trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:126716791998

  • 35

    Le TVBaaj AADakwar EBurkett CJMurray GSmith DA: Subsidence of polyetheretherketone intervertebral cages in minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37:126812732012

  • 36

    Marchi LAbdala NOliveira LAmaral RCoutinho EPimenta L: Stand-alone lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of low-grade degenerative spondylolisthesis. ScientificWorldJournal 2012:4563462012

  • 37

    McAfee PCCunningham BWDevine JWilliams EYu-Yahiro J: Classification of heterotopic ossification (HO) in artificial disk replacement. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:3843892003

  • 38

    Meyerding HW: Spondylolisthesis. Surg Gynecol Obstet 54:3713771932

  • 39

    Mroz TEWang JCHashimoto RNorvell DC: Complications related to osteobiologics use in spine surgery: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:9 SupplS86S1042010

  • 40

    Oliveira LMarchi LCoutinho EAbdala NPimenta L: The use of rh-BMP2 in standalone eXtreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF®): clinical and radiological results after 24 months follow-up. World Spi Col J 1:19252010

  • 41

    Oliveira LMarchi LCoutinho EPimenta L: A radiographic assessment of the ability of the extreme lateral interbody fusion procedure to indirectly decompress the neural elements. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:26 SupplS331S3372010

  • 42

    Oliveira LMarchi LCoutinho EPimenta L: The subsidence rate in XLIF osteoporotic patients in standalone procedures. Spine J 10 SupplS51S522010. (Abstract)

  • 43

    Ozgur BMAryan HEPimenta LTaylor WR: Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:4354432006

  • 44

    Park SHPark WMPark CWKang KSLee YKLim SR: Minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion followed by percutaneous translaminar facet screw fixation in elderly patients. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 10:6106162009

  • 45

    Pimenta LTurner AWDooley ZAParikh RDPeterson MD: Biomechanics of lateral interbody spacers: going wider for going stiffer. ScientificWorldJournal 2012:3818142012

  • 46

    Roberts SMcCall IWMenage JHaddaway MJEisenstein SM: Does the thickness of the vertebral subchondral bone reflect the composition of the intervertebral disc?. Eur Spine J 6:3853891997

  • 47

    Rodgers WBCox CSGerber EJ: Early complications of extreme lateral interbody fusion in the obese. J Spinal Disord Tech 23:3933972010

  • 48

    Sandhu HSTurner SKabo JMKanim LELiu DNourparvar A: Distractive properties of a threaded interbody fusion device. An in vivo model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21:120112101996

  • 49

    Schiffman MBrau SAHenderson RGimmestad G: Bilateral implantation of low-profile interbody fusion cages: subsidence, lordosis, and fusion analysis. Spine J 3:3773872003

  • 50

    Skaggs DLWeidenbaum MIatridis JCRatcliffe AMow VC: Regional variation in tensile properties and biochemical composition of the human lumbar anulus fibrosus. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19:131013191994

  • 51

    Sohn MJKayanja MMKilinçer CFerrara LABenzel EC: Biomechanical evaluation of the ventral and lateral surface shear strain distributions in central compared with dorsolateral placement of cages for lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 4:2192242006

  • 52

    Southern EPFye MAPanjabi MMPatel TCCholewicki J: Disc degeneration: a human cadaveric study correlating magnetic resonance imaging and quantitative discomanometry. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:217121752000

  • 53

    Steffen TTsantrizos AAebi M: Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25:107710842000

  • 54

    Tokuhashi YAjiro YUmezawa N: Subsidence of metal interbody cage after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Orthopedics 32:pii2009

  • 55

    Tormenti MJMaserati MBBonfield CMOkonkwo DOKanter AS: Complications and radiographic correction in adult scoliosis following combined transpsoas extreme lateral interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw instrumentation. Neurosurg Focus 28:3E72010

  • 56

    Weiner BKFraser RD: Spine update lumbar interbody cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:6346401998

TrendMD

Cited By

Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 416 416 38
Full Text Views 273 273 11
PDF Downloads 267 267 16
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0

PubMed

Google Scholar