RESUMO
Several approaches (anterior, posterior, lateral, and transforaminal) are used in lumbar fusion surgery. However, it is unclear whether one of these approaches has the greatest subsidence risk as published clinical rates of cage subsidence vary widely (7-70%). Specifically, there is limited data on how a patient's endplate morphometry and trabecular bone quality influences cage subsidence risk. Therefore, this study compared subsidence (stiffness, maximum force, and work) between anterior (ALIF), lateral (LLIF), posterior (PLIF), and transforaminal (TLIF) lumbar interbody fusion cage designs to understand the impact of endplate and trabecular bone quality on subsidence. Forty-eight lumbar vertebrae were imaged with micro-ct to assess trabecular microarchitecture. micro-ct images of each vertebra were then imported into image processing software to measure endplate thickness (ET) and maximum endplate concavity depth (ECD). Generic ALIF, LLIF, PLIF, and TLIF cages made of polyether ether ketone were implanted on the superior endplates of all vertebrae and subsidence testing was performed. The results indicated that TLIF cages had significantly lower (p < 0.01) subsidence stiffness and maximum subsidence force compared to ALIF and LLIF cages. For all cage groups, trabecular bone volume fraction was better correlated with maximum subsidence force compared to ET and concavity depth. These findings highlight the importance of cage design (e.g., surface area), placement on the endplate, and trabecular bone quality on subsidence. These results may help surgeons during cage selection for lumbar fusion procedures to mitigate adverse events such as cage subsidence.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Commercially available lumbar integrated fixation cages (IFCs) have variable designs. For example, screw-based designs have up to four screws inserted at different locations across the vertebral end plate as well as at different angles in the sagittal and transverse planes. This is important as end plate and trabecular bone quality may vary across the vertebra and may affect the screw's fixation ability, particularly if bone purchase at the bone-screw interface is poor. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate whether variations in local bone quality surrounding IFC screws inserted at different locations in the vertebrae would affect their mechanical performance. STUDY DESIGN: This study is an in vitro human cadaveric biomechanical analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen lumbar (L3 and L4) vertebrae from 10 cadavers (age: 76±10 years, bone mineral density: 0.89±0.17 g/cm2) were used for this study. Pilot holes (3.5-mm diameter×15-mm length) representing three different IFC screw orientations (lateral to medial [LM], midsagittal [MS], and medial to lateral [ML]) were created in vertebrae using an IFC guide and bone awl. The screw locations and trajectories chosen are representative of commercially available IFC designs. These pilot holes were then imaged with high-resolution microcomputed tomography to obtain a three-dimensional structure of the bone surrounding the pilot hole. Local bone morphology was then quantified by evaluating a 3-mm-thick circumferential volume surrounding the pilot hole. Integrated fixation screws were implanted into pilot holes while recording maximum screw insertional torques. Screws were toggled in the cranial direction from 10 to 50 N for first 10,000 cycles, and the maximum load was increased by 25 N for every 5,000 cycles for a total of 25,000 cycles. RESULTS: Total bone volume (BV) and trabecular bone volume fraction surrounding ML screws were significantly greater (p<.03) compared with those around MS screws and LM screws. The maximum insertional torque for ML screws were greater (p=.06) than LM and significantly greater (p<.02) than MS screws. The number of cycles to failure for the ML screw was significantly greater (p<.04) than that for the LM and the MS screws. Total BV (R2≤46.2%, p<.03) and the maximum insertional torque (R2≤59.6%, p<.03) provided better correlations to screw loosening compared with all the other bone quality parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that bone quality in the vertebral body varied spatially depending on the orientation and the insertion location of the IFC screw. These alterations in local bone quality significantly affected the screw's ability to fixate to bone. These variations in bone quality may be assessed intraoperatively using screw insertional torque measurements. By understanding available bone purchase at the bone-implant interface, the appropriate implant design can be selected to maximize the fixation strength.
