Bone quality in patients with osteoporosis undergoing lumbar fusion surgery: analysis of the MRI-based vertebral bone quality score and the bone microstructure derived from microcomputed tomography.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Osteoporosis is a risk factor for instrumentation failure in spine surgery. Bone strength is commonly assessed by bone mineral density (BMD) as a surrogate marker. However, BMD represents only a portion of bone strength and does not capture the qualitative dimensions of bone. Recently, the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score was introduced as a novel marker of bone quality. However, it is still unclear if the VBQ score correlates with in-vivo bone microstructure. PURPOSE: The aims of the study were (1) to demonstrate differences in MRI-based (VBQ) and in-vivo (microcomputed tomography; µCT) bone quality between osteopenic/osteoporotic and normal bone, (2) to show the correlation between VBQ, bone microstructure and volumetric BMD (vBMD), and (3) to determine the predictive value of the VBQ score for the prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cross-sectional study. PATIENT SAMPLE: 267 patients who underwent posterior lumbar fusion surgery from 2014 to 2021 at a single academic institution. Bone biopsies were harvested intraoperatively in 118 patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: VBMD, VBQ score, and bone microstructure parameters derived from µCT. METHODS: Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) measurements were performed at the lumbar spine and the L1/L2 average was used to categorize patients with a vBMD ≤120mg/cm3 as osteopenic/osteoporotic. The VBQ score was determined by dividing the median signal intensity of the L1-L4 vertebrae by the signal intensity of the cerebrospinal fluid using sagittal T1-weighted MRI scans. Intraoperative bone biopsies from the posterior superior iliac spine were obtained and evaluated with µCT. VBQ scores and µCT parameters were compared between the normal and the osteopenic/osteoporotic group. Correlations between VBQ score, µCT parameters and vBMD were assessed with Spearman's correlation (ρ). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the VBQ score as a predictor for osteopenia/osteoporosis. Multiple linear regression analysis with vBMD L1/L2 as outcome was used to identify independent predictors from VBQ, µCT parameters and demographics. RESULTS: 267 patients (55.8% female, age 63.3 years, BMI 29.7 kg/m2; n=118 with bone biopsy) with a prevalence of osteopenia/osteoporosis of 65.2% were analyzed. In the osteopenic/osteoporotic group the VBQ score, structured model index (SMI), and trabecular separation (Tb.Sp) were significantly higher, whereas bone volume fraction (BV/TV), connectivity density (Conn.D) and trabecular number (Tb.N) were significantly lower. There were significant correlations between VBQ and µCT parameters ranging from ρ=-.387 to ρ=0.314 as well as between vBMD and µCT parameters ranging from ρ=-.425 to ρ=.421, and vBMD and VBQ (ρ=-.300, p<.001). ROC analysis discriminated osteopenia/osteoporosis with a sensitivity of 84.7% and a specificity of 40.6% at a VBQ score threshold value of 2.18. Age, BV/TV and trabecular thickness (Tb.Th), but not VBQ, were significant independent predictors for vBMD (corrected R2=0.434). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated for the first time that the VBQ score is associated with trabecular microstructure determined by µCT. The bone microstructure and VBQ score were significantly different in patients with impaired vBMD. However, the ability to predict osteopenia/osteoporosis with the VBQ score was moderate. The VBQ score appears to reflect additional bone quality characteristics and might have a complementary role to vBMD. This enhances our understanding of the biological background of the radiographic VBQ score and might be a take-off point to evaluate the clinical utility of it as non-invasive screening tool for bone quality.

Endplate volumetric bone mineral density measured by quantitative computed tomography as a novel predictive measure of severe cage subsidence after standalone lateral lumbar fusion.

PURPOSE: Quantitative computed tomography (QCT) is an alternate imaging method to dual X-ray absorptiometry to measure bone mineral density (BMD). One advantage of QCT is that it allows site-specific volumetric BMD (vBMD) measurements in a small region. In this study, we utilized site-specific, endplate vBMD (EP-vBMD) as a potential predictive marker of severe cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF) patients and conducted a retrospective comparative study between EP-vBMD and trabecular vBMDs (Tb-vBMD) in the vertebrae. METHODS: Patients undergoing SA-LLIF from 2007 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. EP-vBMD was defined as the average of the upper and lower endplate volumetric BMDs measured in cortical and trabecular bone included in a 5-mm area of interest beneath the cage contact surfaces. We compared Tb-vBMDs and EP-vBMDs between disk levels that had severe cage subsidence and levels with no severe subsidence. RESULTS: Both EP-vBMD and Tb-vBMD could be measured in 210 levels of 96 patients. Severe cage subsidence was observed in 58 levels in 38 patients. Median (IQR) Tb-vBMD was 120.5 mg/cm3 (100.8-153.7) in the non-severe subsidence group and 117.9 mg/cm3 (90.6-149.5) in the severe subsidence group (p = 0.393), whereas EP-vBMD was significantly lower in the severe subsidence group than the non-severe subsidence group (non-severe subsidence 257.4 mg/cm3 (216.3-299.4), severe subsidence 233.5 mg/cm3 (193.4-273.3), p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: We introduced a novel site-specific vBMD measurement for cage subsidence risk assessment. Our results showed that EP-vBMD was a reproducible measurement and appeared more predictive for severe cage subsidence after SA-LLIF than Tb-vBMD. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Perioperative Risk Factors for Early Revisions in Stand-Alone Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Lateral lumbar interbody fusion can be performed without supplemental posterior instrumentation. Previous reports have shown favorable results with stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion (SA-LLIF); however, a reoperation rate of up to 26% has been reported. It remains unclear what perioperative factors are associated with early failure after SA-LLIF. The objective of this study is to determine perioperative factors that increase the risk of early revisions after SA-LLIF. METHODS: Data of consecutive patients with SA-LLIF were reviewed. All revisions or recommendations for revision surgery within 12 months after the LLIF procedure were documented. As potential contributors, operative levels, preoperative clinical diagnosis, number of fusion levels, and the average L1/L2 quantitative computed tomography-volumetric bone mineral density value were obtained along with other demographic factors. Cage subsidence (grade 0-III as per Marchi et al.), was also evaluated in patients who had radiographs/computed tomography between 6 and 12 months postoperatively (n = 122). Logistic regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of 133 eligible patients, 21 (15.8%) underwent revision surgery and 4 (3.0%) were recommended for revision surgery within 1 year primarily because of neurologic symptoms or pain (68%). Baseline demographics showed no significant difference between the revision and the nonrevision group. The average number of levels fused was 2.12 (revision group) and 2.14 (nonrevision group) (P = 0.55). Significantly more patients in the revision group had the diagnosis of foraminal stenosis (64.0% vs. 39.8%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with foraminal stenosis were more likely to have early revision surgery after SA-LLIF primarily because of neurologic symptoms/pain. This information can assist in preoperative discussions and management of patient expectations.