Opportunistic use of lumbar computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for osteoporosis screening.

Compared with the healthy patients, patients with osteoporosis had a lower Hounsfield unit (HU) value and a higher vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score. Both the HU value and VBQ score can simply distinguish patients with osteoporosis (OP), with a cutoff value of HU value < 97.06 and VBQ score > 3.08. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to determine whether the opportunistic use of computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is effective for identifying spine surgical patients with OP. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 109 lumbar spine surgery patients who received lumbar quantitative CT (QCT) and MRI. Using the area under the curve, the CT-based HU value and MRI-based VBQ score were calculated. Then, based on the QCT results, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to determine the diagnostic performance of the HU value and VBQ score. RESULTS: The HU value was significantly lower in the OP group, and the VBQ score was significantly higher in the OP group. Using the area under the curve, the diagnostic performance of the HU value and VBQ score for OP were 0.959 and 0.880, respectively. The diagnostic threshold values determined with optimal sensitivity and specificity were an HU value of 97.06 and a VBQ score of 3.08. CONCLUSION: Opportunistic use of CT and MRI can simply distinguish patients with OP, which are expected to be potential alternatives to T-score for the osteoporosis screening.

Comparison of predictive performance for cage subsidence between CT-based Hounsfield units and MRI-based vertebral bone quality score following oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive performance between CT-based Hounsfield units (HU) and MRI-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) for cage subsidence (CS) following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral single-rod screw fixation (OLIF-AF). METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on consecutive patients who underwent OLIF-AF at our institution from 2018 to 2020. CS was determined by CT according to the change in the midpoint intervertebral space height. The VBQ score and HU value were measured from preoperative MRI and CT, respectively. Then, we evaluated the predictive performance of those two parameters by comparing the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: The mean global and segmental VBQ scores were significantly higher in the CS group, and the mean global and segmental HU values were significantly lower in the CS group. The area under the curve (AUC) of CS prediction was higher in the operative segments' VBQ score and HU value than the measurement in the global lumbar spine. Finally, the combined segmental VBQ score and segmental HU value demonstrated the highest AUC. CONCLUSION: Both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value can achieve accurate CS prediction. Moreover, the combination of those two measurements indicated the best predictive performance. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value can be used for cage subsidence prediction, in order to take preventive measures early enough. KEY POINTS: • Osteoporosis is a risk factor for CS, both MRI-based VBQ score and CT-based HU value are important predictors during vertebral bone quality evaluation. • The VBQ score and HU value measured in the operative segments are better predictors of CS than the measurement in the global lumbar spine. • Combined segmental VBQ score and segmental HU value achieved the best predictive performance for CS.

Advances in Hounsfield units value for predicting cage subsidence on spinal interbody fusion surgery.

PURPOSE: A growing number of studies have demonstrated that Hounsfield units (HU) value can effectively assess bone quality and predict cage subsidence (CS) after spinal surgery. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the utility of the HU value for predicting CS after spinal surgery and to raise some of the unresolved questions in this field. METHODS: We searched on PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library for studies correlating HU value to CS. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included in this review. We found that HU value can predicted the risk of CS effectively after spinal surgery. Moreover, the HU value of the cancellous vertebral body and the cortical endplate were used for predicting CS, in comparison, the measurement method of HU value in the cancellous vertebral body was more standardized, but which region is more important to CS remains unknown. Different cutoff thresholds of HU value have been established in different surgical procedures for predicting CS. The HU value may be superior to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) for CS prediction; however, the usage standard of HU value has not been well established. CONCLUSIONS: The HU value shows great potential for predicting CS and constitutes an advantage over DEXA. However, general consensuses about how CS is defined and HU is measured, which part of HU value is more important, and the appropriate cutoff threshold of the HU value for osteoporosis and CS still require exploration.

Spontaneous facet joint fusion in patients following oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion combined with lateral single screw-rod fixation: prevalence, characteristics and significance.

PURPOSE: To explore the characteristics of spontaneous facet joint fusion (SFJF) in patients after oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion combined with lateral single screw-rod fixation (OLIF-LSRF). METHODS: We randomly selected 300 patients from 723 patients treated with OLIF-LSRF into a cross-sectional study based on the pilot study results. A novel fusion classification system was designed to evaluate the fusion status of the facet joints at three time points. Ultimately, the prevalence, characteristics, and significance of SFJF were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 265 (333 levels) qualified cases were included in our study. The novel classification for SFJF has excellent reliability (kappa > 0.75). The rate of SFJF was 15.20% (45/296 levels) at 3 months postoperatively, 31.34% (89/284 levels) at 6 months postoperatively, and 33.63% (112/333 levels) at the last follow-up. The circumferential fusion rate was 31.53% (105/333 levels) at the last follow-up. The location of SFJF was mostly on the right facet joint (P < 0.001), and the rate of SFJF increased significantly from 3 to 6 months after the operation (P < 0.001). The average age of patients with SFJF was older than that of patients without SFJF (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in Visual Analog Scale or Oswestry Disability Index scores between patients with and without SFJF. CONCLUSION: In the OLIF-LSRF procedure, SFJF occurs mostly at 3-6 months postoperatively, especially in elderly patients and at the right facet joint. OLIF-LSRF has the potential for circumferential fusion.

Clinical and radiological evaluation of cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral fixation.

BACKGROUND: Cage subsidence (CS) was previously reported as one of the most common complications following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). We aimed to assess the impacts of CS on surgical results following OLIF combined with anterolateral fixation, and determine its radiological characteristics as well as related risk factors. METHODS: Two hundred and forty-two patients who underwent OLIF at L4-5 and with a minimum 12 months follow-up were reviewed. Patients were divided into three groups according to the extent of disk height (DH) decrease during follow-up: no CS (DH decrease ≤ 2 mm), mild CS (2 mm < DH decrease ≤ 4 mm) and severe CS (DH decrease > 4 mm). The clinical and radiological results were compared between groups to evaluate radiological features, clinical effects and risk factors of CS. RESULTS: CS was identified in 79 (32.6%) patients, including 48 (19.8%) with mild CS and 31 (11.8%) with severe CS. CS was mainly identified within 1 month postoperatively, it did not progress after 3 months postoperatively, and more noted in the caudal endplate (44, 55.7%). In terms of clinical results, patients in the mild CS group were significantly worse than those in the no CS group, and patients in the severe CS group were significantly worse than those in the mild CS group. There was no significant difference in fusion rate between no CS (92.6%, 151/163) and mild CS (83.3%, 40/48) groups. However, significant lower fusion rate was observed in severe CS group (64.5%, 20/31) compared to no CS group. CS related risk factors included osteoporosis (OR = 5.976), DH overdistraction (OR = 1.175), flat disk space (OR = 3.309) and endplate injury (OR = 6.135). CONCLUSION: CS following OLIF was an early postoperative complication. Higher magnitudes of CS were associated with worse clinical improvements and lower intervertebral fusion. Osteoporosis and endplate injury were significant risk factors for CS. Additionally, flat disk space and DH over-distraction were also correlated with an increased probability of CS.

Stepwise reduction of bone mineral density increases the risk of cage subsidence in oblique lumbar interbody fusion patients biomechanically: an in-silico study.

BACKGROUND: Cage subsidence causes poor prognoses in patients treated by oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). Deterioration of the biomechanical environment initially triggers cage subsidence, and patients with low bone mineral density (BMD) suffer a higher risk of cage subsidence. However, whether low BMD increases the risk of cage subsidence by deteriorating the local biomechanical environment has not been clearly identified. METHODS: OLIF without additional fixation (stand-alone, S-A) and with different additional fixation devices (AFDs), including anterolateral single rod screws (ALSRs) and bilateral pedicle screws (BPSs) fixation, was simulated in the L4-L5 segment of a well-validated finite element model. The biomechanical effects of different BMDs were investigated by adjusting the material properties of bony structures. Biomechanical indicators related to cage subsidence were computed and recorded under different directional moments. RESULTS: Overall, low BMD triggers stress concentration in surgical segment, the highest equivalent stress can be observed in osteoporosis models under most loading conditions. Compared with the flexion-extension loading condition, this variation tendency was more pronounced under bending and rotation loading conditions. In addition, AFDs obviously reduced the stress concentration on both bony endplates and the OLIF cage, and the maximum stress on ALSRs was evidently higher than that on BPSs under almost all loading conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Stepwise reduction of BMD increases the risk of a poor local biomechanical environment in OLIF patients, and regular anti-osteoporosis therapy should be considered an effective method to biomechanically optimize the prognosis of OLIF patients.

Oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with stress end plate augmentation and anterolateral screw fixation for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis with osteoporosis: a matched-pair case-controlled study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be effective in treating degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (DLSS). Whether OLIF is suitable for treating patients with DLSS with osteoporosis (OP) is still controversial. Bone cement augmentation is widely used to enhance the internal fixation strength of osteoporotic spines. However, the effectiveness of OLIF combined with bone cement stress end plate augmentation (SEA) and anterolateral screw fixation (AF) for DLSS with OP have not confirmed yet. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes of OLIF-AF versus OLIF-AF-SEA in the treatment of DLSS with OP. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 60 patients with OP managed for DLSS at L4-L5. OUTCOME MEASURES: Visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back and leg, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), cage subsidence and fusion rate. METHODS: The study was performed as a retrospective matched-pair case‒controlled study. Patients with OP managed for DLSS at L4-L5 between October 2017 and June 2020 and completed at least 2 years of follow-up were included, which were 30 patients treated by OLIF-AF and 30 patients undergoing OLIF-AF-SEA. The demographics and radiographic data, fusion status and functional outcomes were therefore compared to evaluate the efficacy of the two approaches. RESULTS: Pain and disability improved similarly in both groups at the 24-month follow-up. However, the SEA group had lower pain and functional disability at 3 months postoperatively (p<.05). The mean postoperative disc height decrease (△DH) was significantly lower in the SEA group than in the control group (1.17±0.81 mm vs 2.89±2.03 mm; p<.001). There was no significant difference in lumbar lordosis (LL) or segmental lordosis (SL) between the groups preoperatively and 1 day postoperatively. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in SL and LL between the groups at 24 months postoperatively (p<.05). CS was observed in 4 cases (13.33%) in the SEA group and 17 cases (56.67%) in the control group (p<.001). A nonsignificant difference was observed in the fusion rate between the SEA and control groups (p=.347) at 24 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that OLIF-AF-SEA was safe and effective in the treatment of DLSS with OP. Compared with OLIF-AF, OLIF-AF-SEA results in a minor postoperative disc height decrease, a lower rate of CS, better sagittal balance, and no adverse effect on interbody fusion.

[Research progress of spontaneous facet fusion after lumbar spine surgery].

Objective: To summarize the research progress on spontaneous facet fusion (SFF) after lumbar spine surgery, and provide reference for further research on SFF. Methods: The definition, development, clinical significance, and related influence factors of SFF were throughout reviewed by referring to relevant domestic and foreign literature in recent years. Results: SFF is a phenomenon of joint space disappearance and fusion of upper and lower articular processes, which starts in a ring shape from the outermost edges to the central regions. Currently reported SFF occurred after posterior lumbar pedicle screw fixation. SFF may increase the stability of surgical segments and relieve clinical symptoms of patients. SFF is closely related to the method of lumbar internal fixation, facet osteoarthritis, interbody fusion, age, body mass index, type B fracture (according to AO classification), and the operative segment. Conclusion: Most reported SFF occur after posterior lumbar pedicle screw fixation, which can increase lumbar stability, but the mechanism and influencing factors remain to be further clarified.

[Research progress of effect of cage height on outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion surgery].

Objective: To summarize the effect of cage height on outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion surgery and the importance of the cage height selection. Methods: The related literature was widely reviewed to summarize the research progress on the complications caused by inappropriate height of the cage and the methods of selecting cage height. Results: Inappropriate height of the cage can lead to endplate injury, cage subsidence, internal fixation failure, adjacent segmental degeneration, over-distraction related pain, insufficient indirect decompression, instability of operation segment, poor interbody fusion, poor sequence of spine, and cage displacement. At present, the selection of the cage height is based on the results of the intraoperative model test, which is reliable but high requirements for surgical experience and hard to standardize. Conclusion: The inappropriate height of the cage may have an adverse impact on the postoperative outcome of patients. It is important to develop a selection standard of the cage height by screening the related influential factors.

Whether Anterolateral Single Rod Can Maintain the Surgical Outcomes Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Double-Segment Disc Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with anterolateral single-rod screw fixation (AF) in treating two-segment lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDDD) and to determine whether AF can maintain the surgical results. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent OLIF combined with AF (OLIF-AF) for LDDD at the L3-5 levels between October 2017 and May 2018. A total of 84 patients, including 44 males and 40 females, with a mean age of 62.8 ± 6.8 years, who completed the 12-month follow-up were eventually enrolled. Clinical outcomes, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) score for the low back and leg, and radiographic parameters, including the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, disc height (DH), foraminal height (FH), degree of upper vertebral slippage (DUVS), segmental lumbar lordosis (SL), fusion rate, and lumbar lordosis (LL), were recorded before surgery and 1 and 12 months after surgery. Surgical-related complications, including cage subsidence (CS), were also evaluated. The local radiographic parameters were compared between L3-4 and L4-5. The clinical results and all radiographic parameters were compared between patients with and without CS. RESULTS: Significant improvements were observed in radiographic parameters 1 day postoperatively (p < 0.05). Local radiological parameters in L4-5 had a significant decrease at 12 months postoperatively (p < 0.05), while they were well-maintained at L3-4 throughout the follow-up period (p > 0.05). CS was observed in 26 segments (15.5%). Endplate injury was observed in four segments (2.4%). There was no significant difference in the fusion rate between the segments with and without CS (p = 0.355). The clinical results improved significantly after surgery (p < 0.05), and no significant difference was observed between the groups with and without CS (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Anterolateral fixation combined with OLIF provides sufficient stability to sustain most radiological improvements in treating double-segment LDDD. Subsidence was the most common complication, which was prone to occur in L4-5 compared to L3-4, but did not impede the fusion process or diminish the surgical results.

Comparing the medium-term outcomes of lumbar interbody fusion via transforaminal and oblique approach in treating lumbar degenerative disc diseases.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) has been proven to be effective in treating lumbar degenerative disorders (LDDs) via indirect decompression. However, its superiority over transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains questionable, especially in terms of medium-term follow-up. PURPOSE: To compare the medium-term clinical and radiological outcomes of TLIF and OLIF in treating patients with LDDs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Fifty-two patients treated by TLIF and forty-six patients treated by OLIF. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical records including the visual analog scale (VAS) score of the lower back and leg and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Radiological records including disk height (DH), lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the spinal canal, and fusion rate. Surgical-related information and complications were also recorded. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients who were surgically managed for LDDs at L4-5 between 2015 and 2017 and completed at least 4 years of follow-up. A total of 98 patients were analyzed, with 46 patients treated by OLIF combined with anterolateral single screw-rod fixation (OLIF-AF group), and 52 patients treated by TLIF (TLIF group). Parameters including postoperative outcomes and perioperative complications were compared with evaluate the efficacy of the two approaches. RESULTS: There was significantly less bleeding, surgical duration, and hospitalization in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group. Significant improvements in the clinical score were achieved in both groups. However, the VAS score of the lower back was significantly higher in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group throughout the whole follow-up period. Significantly higher expansion of the CSA was found in the TLIF group than in the OLIF-AF group. However, the improvements in DH, LL, and SL were significantly lower in the TLIF group. The fusion rate was significantly higher in the OLIF-AF group than in the TLIF group within 6 months postoperatively, and there was no significant difference between the two groups at the final record. No significant difference was found in the rate of overall complications between the two groups (25.0% vs. 23.9%, p=.545). The intraoperative complication rate in the TLIF group (13.5%) was slightly higher than that in the OLIF-AF group (6.5%) (p=.257). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adjacent segment disorder (ASD) between the two groups (7.7% vs. 10.9%, p=.422). Cage subsidence was slightly lower in the TLIF group (5.8%) than in the OLIF-AF group (13.0%) (p=.298). CONCLUSIONS: Both the TLIF and OLIF-AF approaches demonstrated good medium-term outcomes in treating LDDs. Compared with TLIF, OLIF-AF showed advantages in postoperative recovery, improvement of intervertebral space and lumbar sagittal balance, and early intervertebral fusion but was associated with inferior spinal canal decompression efficacy. The two approaches shared comparable overall complication rates. However, OLIF-AF tended to have fewer intraoperative complications, and a higher incidence of subsidence.

[Advances in research on Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion].

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the advances in research on Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion, and provide reference for its prevention. METHODS: The definition, development, clinical significance, and related risk factors of Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion were throughout reviewed by referring to relevant domestic and doreign literature in recent years. RESULTS: At present, there is no consensus on the definition of Cage subsidence, and mostly accepted as the disk height reduction greater than 2 mm. Cage subsidence mainly occurs in the early postoperative stage, which weakens the radiological surgical outcome, and may further damage the effectiveness or even lead to surgical failure. Cage subsidence is closely related to the Cage size and its placement location, intraoperative endplate preparation, morphological matching of disk space to Cage, bone mineral density, body mass index, and so on. CONCLUSION: The appropriate size and shape of the Cage usage, the posterolateral Cage placed, the gentle endplate operation to prevent injury, the active perioperative anti-osteoporosis treatment, and the education of patients to control body weight may help to prevent Cage subsidence and ensure good surgical results.