Predictors of subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion

View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

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

USD  $612.00
USD  $45.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online Sign in

OBJECTIVE

Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) facilitates the restoration of disc height and the indirect decompression of neural elements. However, these benefits are lost when the graft subsides into the adjacent endplates. The factors leading to subsidence after LLIF are poorly understood. This article presents a case series of patients who underwent LLIF and reports factors correlating with subsidence.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a consecutive, prospectively collected, single-institution database of patients who underwent LLIF over a 29-month period was performed. The degree of subsidence was measured on the basis of postoperative imaging. The timing of postoperative subsidence was determined, and intraoperative fluoroscopic images were reviewed to determine whether subsidence occurred as a result of endplate violation. The association of subsidence with age, sex, cage size and type, bone density, and posterior instrumentation was investigated.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-one patients underwent LLIF at a total of 204 levels. Subsidence was observed at 23 (11.3%) operated levels. True subsidence, attributable to postoperative cage settling, occurred for 12 (5.9%) of the levels; for the remaining 11 (5.4%) levels, subsidence was associated with intraoperative endplate violation noted on fluoroscopy during cage placement. All subsidence occurred within 12 weeks of surgery. Univariate analysis showed that the prevalence of true subsidence was significantly lower among patients with titanium implants (0 of 55; 0%) than among patients with polyetheretherketone cages (12 of 149; 8.1%) (p = 0.04). In addition, the mean ratio of graft area to inferior endplate area was significantly lower among the subsidence levels (0.34) than among the nonsubsidence levels (0.42) (p < 0.01). Finally, subsidence among levels with posterior fixation (4.4% [6/135]) was not significantly different than among those without posterior fixation (8.7% [6/69]) (p = 0.23). Multivariate analysis results showed that the ratio of cage to inferior endplate area was the only significant predictor of subsidence in this study (p < 0.01); increasing ratios were associated with a decreased likelihood of subsidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the prevalence of subsidence after LLIF was low in this clinical series. Titanium cages were associated with a lower prevalence of observed subsidence on univariate analysis; however, multivariate analysis demonstrated that this effect may be attributable to the increased surface area of these cages relative to the inferior endplate area.

ABBREVIATIONS

BMI = body mass index; HU = Hounsfield units; LLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusion; PEEK = polyetheretherketone; Ti = titanium.

Images from Zhou et al. (pp 274–282).

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

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

USD  $612.00
USD  $376.00
USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Lehmen JA, Gerber EJ. MIS lateral spine surgery: a systematic literature review of complications, outcomes, and economics. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(suppl 3):287313.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Rajaraman V, Vingan R, Roth P, Heary RF, Conklin L, Jacobs GB. Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg. 1999;91(1)(suppl):6064.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Tempel ZJ, McDowell MM, Panczykowski DM, et al. Graft subsidence as a predictor of revision surgery following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(1):5056.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Le TV, Baaj AA, Dakwar E, et al. Subsidence of polyetheretherketone intervertebral cages in minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(14):12681273.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Bocahut N, Audureau E, Poignard A, et al. Incidence and impact of implant subsidence after stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018;104(3):405410.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Agarwal N, White MD, Zhang X, et al. Impact of endplate-implant area mismatch on rates and grades of subsidence following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: an analysis of 623 levels. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;33(1):1216.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Lang G, Navarro-Ramirez R, Gandevia L, et al. Elimination of subsidence with 26-mm-wide cages in extreme lateral interbody fusion. World Neurosurg. 2017;104:644652.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Satake K, Kanemura T, Nakashima H, Yamaguchi H, Segi N, Ouchida J. Cage subsidence in lateral interbody fusion with transpsoas approach: intraoperative endplate injury or late-onset settling. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2017;1(4):203210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Satake K, Kanemura T, Yamaguchi H, Segi N, Ouchida J. Predisposing factors for intraoperative endplate injury of extreme lateral interbody fusion. Asian Spine J. 2016;10(5):907914.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Niu CC, Liao JC, Chen WJ, Chen LH. Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23(5):310316.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Cabraja M, Oezdemir S, Koeppen D, Kroppenstedt S. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:172.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Li ZJ, Wang Y, Xu GJ, Tian P. Is PEEK cage better than titanium cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery? A meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17:379.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Cuzzocrea F, Ivone A, Jannelli E, et al. PEEK versus metal cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiological comparative study. Musculoskelet Surg. 2019;103(3):237241.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Cho JH, Hwang CJ, Kim H, Joo YS, Lee DH, Lee CS. Effect of osteoporosis on the clinical and radiological outcomes following one-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Orthop Sci. 2018;23(6):870877.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Tempel ZJ, Gandhoke GS, Okonkwo DO, Kanter AS. Impaired bone mineral density as a predictor of graft subsidence following minimally invasive transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(suppl 3):414419.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Zaidi Q, Danisa OA, Cheng W. Measurement techniques and utility of Hounsfield unit values for assessment of bone quality prior to spinal instrumentation: a review of current literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(4):E239E244.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Dakwar E, Cardona RF, Smith DA, Uribe JS. Early outcomes and safety of the minimally invasive, lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas approach for adult degenerative scoliosis. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(3):E8.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Ahmadian A, Verma S, Mundis GM Jr, Oskouian RJ Jr, Smith DA, Uribe JS. Minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas interbody fusion for L4–5 spondylolisthesis: clinical outcomes. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(3):314320.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Hendrickson NR, Pickhardt PJ, Del Rio AM, Rosas HG, Anderson PA. Bone mineral density T-scores derived from CT attenuation numbers (Hounsfield units): clinical utility and correlation with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Iowa Orthop J. 2018;38:2531.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR. Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2006;6(4):435443.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    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. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(1):110118.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Malham GM, Parker RM, Goss B, Blecher CM, Ballok ZE. Indirect foraminal decompression is independent of metabolically active facet arthropathy in extreme lateral interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22):E1303E1310.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Frisch RF, Luna IY, Brooks DM, Joshua G, O’Brien JR. Clinical and radiographic analysis of expandable versus static lateral lumbar interbody fusion devices with two-year follow-up. J Spine Surg. 2018;4(1):6271.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Krafft PR, Osburn B, Vivas AC, Rao G, Alikhani P. Novel titanium cages for minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion: first assessment of subsidence. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2019;4(2):171177.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Hsieh YY, Tsuang FY, Kuo YJ, Chen CH, Chiang CJ, Lin CL. Biomechanical analysis of single-level interbody fusion with different internal fixation rod materials: a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):100.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Alimi M, Lang G, Navarro-Ramirez R, et al. The impact of cage dimensions, positioning, and side of approach in extreme lateral interbody fusion. Clin Spine Surg. 2018;31(1):E42E49.

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Wang MY, Tran S, Brusko GD, et al. Less invasive spinal deformity surgery: the impact of the learning curve at tertiary spine care centers. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019;31(6):865872.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 2028 2028 264
Full Text Views 204 204 63
PDF Downloads 261 261 69
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0