Impact of endplate-implant area mismatch on rates and grades of subsidence following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: an analysis of 623 levels

Restricted access

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $369.00

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

USD  $600.00

OBJECTIVE

Stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is a useful minimally invasive approach for select spinal disorders, but implant subsidence may occur in up to 30% of patients. Previous studies have suggested that wider implants reduce the subsidence rate. This study aimed to evaluate whether a mismatch of the endplate and implant area can predict the rate and grade of implant subsidence.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients who underwent stand-alone LLIF between July 2008 and June 2015; 297 patients (623 surgical levels) met inclusion criteria. Imaging studies were examined to grade graft subsidence according to Marchi criteria. Thirty patients had radiographic evidence of implant subsidence. The endplates above and below the implant were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients with implant subsidence were identified. Of these patients, 6 had Marchi grade 0, 4 had grade I, 12 had grade II, and 8 had grade III implant subsidence. There was no statistically significant correlation between the endplate-implant area mismatch and subsidence grade or incidence. There was also no correlation between endplate-implant width and length mismatch and subsidence grade or incidence. However, there was a strong correlation between the usage of the 18-mm-wide implants and the development of higher-grade subsidence (p = 0.002) necessitating surgery. There was no significant association between the degree of mismatch or Marchi subsidence grade and the presence of postoperative radiculopathy. Of the 8 patients with 18-mm implants demonstrating radiographic subsidence, 5 (62.5%) required reoperation. Of the 22 patients with 22-mm implants demonstrating radiographic subsidence, 13 (59.1%) required reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no correlation between endplate-implant area, width, or length mismatch and Marchi subsidence grade for stand-alone LLIF. There was also no correlation between either endplate-implant mismatch or Marchi subsidence grade and postoperative radiculopathy. The data do suggest that the use of 18-mm-wide implants in stand-alone LLIF may increase the risk of developing high-grade subsidence necessitating reoperation compared to the use of 22-mm-wide implants.

ABBREVIATIONS BMI = body mass index; DEXA = dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry; LLIF = lateral lumbar interbody fusion; PI-LL = pelvic incidence–lumbar lordosis.
Article Information

Contributor Notes

Correspondence D. Kojo Hamilton: University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. hamiltondk@upmc.edu.INCLUDE WHEN CITING Published online March 6, 2020; DOI: 10.3171/2020.1.SPINE19776.Disclosures Dr. Tempel reports being a consultant for NuVasive. Dr. Okonkwo reports being a consultant for NuVasive and Zimmer Biomet; he owns stock in Stryker. Dr. Kanter reports being a consultant for NuVasive; he receives royalties from Zimmer Biomet. Dr. Agarwal reports receiving royalties from Thieme Medical Publishers.
Headings
References
  • 1

    Agarwal NFaramand AAlan NTempel ZJHamilton DKOkonkwo DO: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion in the elderly: a 10-year experience. J Neurosurg Spine 29:5255292018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Alimi MHofstetter CPCong GTTsiouris AJJames ARPaulo D: Radiological and clinical outcomes following extreme lateral interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 20:6236352014

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Gstoettner MHeider DLiebensteiner MBach CM: Footprint mismatch in lumbar total disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 17:147014752008 (Erratum Eur Spine J 18:118 2009)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Humphreys SCHodges SDPatwardhan AGEck JCMurphy RBCovington LA: Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:5675712001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Kozak JAHeilman AEO’Brien JP: Anterior lumbar fusion options. Technique and graft materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res (300):45511994

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Kwon BKim DH: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: indications, outcomes, and complications. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 24:961052016

  • 9

    Lang GNavarro-Ramirez RGandevia LHussain INakhla JZubkov M: Elimination of subsidence with 26-mm-wide cages in extreme lateral interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 104:6446522017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Lehmen JAGerber EJ: MIS lateral spine surgery: a systematic literature review of complications, outcomes, and economics. Eur Spine J 24 (Suppl 3):2873132015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Macki MAnand SKSurapaneni APark PChang V: Subsidence rates after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. World Neurosurg 122:5996062019

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Marchi LAbdala NOliveira LAmaral RCoutinho EPimenta L: Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 19:1101182013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Oh KWLee JHLee JHLee DYShim HJ: The correlation between cage subsidence, bone mineral density, and clinical results in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Spine Surg 30:E683E6892017

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Oxland TRGrant JPDvorak MFFisher CG: Effects of endplate removal on the structural properties of the lower lumbar vertebral bodies. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:7717772003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

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

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Rajaraman VVingan RRoth PHeary RFConklin LJacobs GB: Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg 91 (1 Suppl):60641999

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Sasso RCKenneth Burkus JLeHuec JC: Retrograde ejaculation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion: transperitoneal versus retroperitoneal exposure. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:102310262003

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Tempel ZJGandhoke GSOkonkwo DOKanter AS: Impaired bone mineral density as a predictor of graft subsidence following minimally invasive transpsoas lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 24 (Suppl 3):4144192015

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    Tempel ZJMcDowell MMPanczykowski DMGandhoke GSHamilton DKOkonkwo DO: Graft subsidence as a predictor of revision surgery following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 28:50562018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Thaler MHartmann SGstöttner MLechner RGabl MBach C: Footprint mismatch in total cervical disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 22:7597652013

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Metrics

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 509 509 372
Full Text Views 43 43 29
PDF Downloads 24 24 15
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0
PubMed
Google Scholar