Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone Trabecular Metal cages for repeatedly recurrent lumbar disc herniation and back pain

Clinical article

Michiel B. LequinNeurosurgical Center Amsterdam, Neurosurgery Spine Clinic, Sint Lucas Andreas Hospital, and Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Michiel B. Lequin in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 M.D.
,
Dagmar VerbaanNeurosurgical Center Amsterdam, Neurosurgery Spine Clinic, Sint Lucas Andreas Hospital, and Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Dagmar Verbaan in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 Ph.D.
, and
Gerrit J. BoumaNeurosurgical Center Amsterdam, Neurosurgery Spine Clinic, Sint Lucas Andreas Hospital, and Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Gerrit J. Bouma in
jns
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 M.D., Ph.D.
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $384.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $624.00
USD  $45.00
USD  $384.00
USD  $624.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

Object

Patients with recurrent sciatica due to repeated reherniation of the intervertebral disc carry a poor prognosis for recovery and create a large burden on society. There is no consensus about the best treatment for this patient group. The goal of this study was to evaluate the 12-month results of the placement of stand-alone Trabecular Metal cages in these patients.

Methods

The authors performed a retrospective analysis of 26 patients with recurrent disc herniations treated with stand-alone posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) with Trabecular Metal cages. At 1 year patients were evaluated using the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and a visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. Furthermore, Likert scores of perceived recovery and satisfaction with the treatment were recorded. Lumbar spine radiographs after 1 year were compared with postoperative radiographs to measure subsidence. Stability of the operated segment was assessed using dynamic radiography.

Results

The patient group consisted of 26 patients (62% male) with a mean age of 45.7 ± 11.4 years (± SD). Patients had a history of 1 (31%), 2 (42%), or more (27%) discectomies at the same level. The mean follow-up period was 15.3 ± 7.3 months. At follow-up the mean VAS score for pain in the affected leg was 36.7 ± 27.9. The mean VAS score for back pain was 42.5 ± 30.2. The mean RMDQ score at follow-up was 9.8 ± 6.2. Twelve (46%) of the 26 patients had a global perceived good recovery. With respect to treatment satisfaction, 18 patients (69%) were content or very content with the operation and would recommend it. Disc height was increased immediately postoperatively, and at the 1-year follow-up it was still significantly higher compared with the preoperative height (mean 41% ± 38.7%, range −25.7 to 126.8, paired t-test, both p < 0.001), although a mean of 7.52% ± 11.6% subsidence occurred (median 2.0% [interquartile range 0.0%–10.9%], p < 0.003). No significant correlation between subsidence and postoperative back pain was found (Spearman's rho −0.2, p = 0.459). Flexion-extension radiographs showed instability in 1 patient.

Conclusions

Although only 46% of patients reported a good recovery with significant reductions in back and leg pain, 85% of patients reported at least some benefit from the operation, and a marked improvement in working status at follow-up was noted. In view of previously published poor results of instrumented lumbar fusion for patients with failed back surgery syndrome, the present data indicate that Trabecular Metal interbody fusion cages can be used in a stand-alone fashion and should not always need supplemental posterior fixation in patients with recurrent disc herniation without spinal instability, although a long-term follow-up study is warranted.

Abbreviations used in this paper:

FBSS = failed back surgery syndrome; IQR = interquartile range; PEEK= polyetheretherketone; PLIF = posterior lumbar interbody fusion; RMDQ = Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire; VAS = visual analog scale.
  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • 1

    Arts MP, , Brand R, , van den Akker ME, , Koes BW, , Bartels RH, & Tan WF, et al.: Tubular diskectomy vs conventional microdiskectomy for the treatment of lumbar disk herniation: 2-year results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Neurosurgery 69:135144, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Arts MP, , Kols NI, , Onderwater SM, & Peul WC: Clinical outcome of instrumented fusion for the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome: a case series of 100 patients. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 154:12131217, 2012

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Connolly ES: Management of persistent or recurrent symptoms and signs in the postoperative lumbar disc patient. Neurosurg Clin N Am 4:161166, 1993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Connolly ES: Surgery for recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Clin Neurosurg 39:211216, 1992

  • 5

    Costa F, , Sassi M, , Ortolina A, , Cardia A, , Assietti R, & Zerbi A, et al.: Stand-alone cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of high-degree degenerative disc disease: design of a new device for an “old” technique. A prospective study on a series of 116 patients. Eur Spine J 20:Suppl 1 S46S56, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Fandiño J, , Botana C, , Viladrich A, & Gomez-Bueno J: Reoperation after lumbar disc surgery: results in 130 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 122:102104, 1993

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Gautschi OP, , Schatlo B, , Schaller K, & Tessitore E: Clinically relevant complications related to pedicle screw placement in thoracolumbar surgery and their management: a literature review of 35,630 pedicle screws. Neurosurg Focus 31:4 E8, 2011

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Gragnaniello C, , De Castro I, & Nader R, Recurrent lumbar disk herniation: repeat diskectomy versus fusion. Vaccaro AR, & Eck JC: Controversies in Spine Surgery: Best Evidence Recommendations New York, Thieme Medical Publishers, 2010. 161172

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Häkkinen A, , Kiviranta I, , Neva MH, , Kautiainen H, & Ylinen J: Reoperations after first lumbar disc herniation surgery; a special interest on residives during a 5-year follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:2, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Kara B, , Başkurt Z, & Acar U: One year outcome after surgery for lumbar disc herniation: a comparison of reoperated and not reoperated patients. Turk Neurosurg 17:16, 2007

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Kim MS, , Park KW, , Hwang C, , Lee YK, , Koo KH, & Chang BS, et al.: Recurrence rate of lumbar disc herniation after open discectomy in active young men. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34:2429, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Lau D, , Terman SW, , Patel R, , La Marca F, & Park P: Incidence of and risk factors for superior facet violation in minimally invasive versus open pedicle screw placement during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 18:356361, 2013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Levine BR, , Sporer S, , Poggie RA, , Della Valle CJ, & Jacobs JJ: Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. Biomaterials 27:46714681, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Löfgren H, , Engquist M, , Hoffmann P, , Sigstedt B, & Vavruch L: Clinical and radiological evaluation of Trabecular Metal and the Smith-Robinson technique in anterior cervical fusion for degenerative disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 19:464473, 2010

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Mannion AF, & Elfering A: Predictors of surgical outcome and their assessment. Eur Spine J 15:Suppl 1 S93S108, 2006

  • 16

    Marchetti PG, , Binazzi R, , Vaccari V, , De Zerbi M, & Landi S: Failed back syndromes: opinions and personal experiences. Chir Organi Mov 79:127130, 1994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Marchi L, , Abdala N, , Oliveira L, , Amaral R, , Coutinho E, & Pimenta L: Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. Clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine 19:110118, 2013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    McAfee PC, , Cunningham BW, , Lee GA, , Orbegoso CM, , Haggerty CJ, & Fedder IL, et al.: Revision strategies for salvaging or improving failed cylindrical cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24:21472153, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    North RB, , Campbell JN, , James CS, , Conover-Walker MK, , Wang H, & Piantadosi S, et al.: Failed back surgery syndrome: 5-year follow-up in 102 patients undergoing repeated operation. Neurosurgery 28:685691, 1991

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    O'Sullivan MG, , Connolly AE, & Buckley TF: Recurrent lumbar disc protrusion. Br J Neurosurg 4:319325, 1990

  • 21

    Palma L, , Carangelo B, , Muzii VF, , Mariottini A, , Zalaffi A, & Capitani S: Microsurgery for recurrent lumbar disk herniation at the same level and side: do patients fare worse? Experience with 95 consecutive cases. Surg Neurol 70:619621, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Papadopoulos EC, , Girardi FP, , Sandhu HS, , Sama AA, , Parvataneni HK, & O'Leary PF, et al.: Outcome of revision discectomies following recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:14731476, 2006

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Peul WC, , van den Hout WB, , Brand R, , Thomeer RT, & Koes BW: Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation: two year results of a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 336:13551358, 2008

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Schiffman M, , Brau SA, , Henderson R, & Gimmestad G: Bilateral implantation of low-profile interbody fusion cages: subsidence, lordosis, and fusion analysis. Spine J 3:377387, 2003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Silvers HR, , Lewis PJ, , Asch HL, & Clabeaux DE: Lumbar diskectomy for recurrent disk herniation. J Spinal Disord 7:408419, 1994

  • 26

    Suk KS, , Lee HM, , Moon SH, & Kim NH: Recurrent lumbar disc herniation: results of operative management. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:672676, 2001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Tokuhashi Y, , Ajiro Y, & Umezawa N: Subsidence of metal interbody cage after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw fixation. Orthopedics 32:259, 2009

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Vamvanij V, , Fredrickson BE, , Thorpe JM, , Stadnick ME, & Yuan HA: Surgical treatment of internal disc disruption: an outcome study of four fusion techniques. J Spinal Disord 11:375382, 1998

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Vishteh AG, & Dickman CA: Anterior lumbar microdiscectomy and interbody fusion for the treatment of recurrent disc herniation. Neurosurgery 48:334338, 2001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Zhang Y, , Ahn PB, , Fitzpatrick DC, , Heiner AD, , Poggie RA, & Brown TD: Interfacial frictional behavior: cancellous bone, cortical bone, and a novel porous tantalum biomaterial. J Musculoskelet Res 3:245251, 1999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 816 208 18
Full Text Views 517 15 0
PDF Downloads 448 21 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0