Effects of the cage height and positioning on clinical and radiographic outcome of lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The proper cage positioning and height in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF). This study evaluated their effects on clinical and radiographic outcome measures in patients undergoing LLIF. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study analyzed the characteristics and perioperative data of patients who underwent LLIF between January 2019 and December 2020. Radiographic (lumbar lordosis [LL], foraminal height, disc height [DH], segmental angle [SA], cross-sectional area [CSA] of thecal sac) and clinical (Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale) outcomes were assessed preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the last follow-up. The effects of cage height and positioning on these parameters were also investigated. RESULTS: With a mean follow-up of 12.8 months, 47 patients with 70 operated level were analyzed. Data demonstrated that postsurgical clinical and radiographic outcome measures were significantly better than before surgery(P < 0.05). Cage height and positioning showed no significant difference with regarding to clinical outcome(P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis of the cage positioning showed that DH and SA were better restored by the final follow-up in patients with anteriorly placed cages than those with posteriorly placed cages (P < 0.05). Cages of posterior position showed significantly upgrading cage subsidence (P = 0.047). Cage height subgroup analysis showed that the preoperative forminal height, DH, and SA in the 11-mm cage group were significantly lower than in the 13-mm cage group; however, these parameters were comparable in the two groups postoperatively and at the final follow-up (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the postoperative and final follow-up degrees of DH, SA, and LL have improved in the 11-mm cage group more than the 13-mm cage group. The preoperative, postoperative, and final follow-up LL values in the 11-mm cage group were lower than in the 13-mm cage group(P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Cage height and positioning did not affect the clinical outcomes in the present study. Cages in anterior position showed better restoration in DH, SA and decreased the incidence of cage subsidence. A comparable radiographic outcome can be achieved by inserting an appropriate cage height based on preoperative radiography.

[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.

Impact of Interspace Distraction on Fusion and Clinical Outcomes in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of change in interspace height on fusion and postoperative neck pain. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: The optimal height of a cervical interbody device (cage) in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is not well defined. In addition, the effect of interspace distraction on fusion and postoperative neck pain remains unclear. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of consecutive patients who underwent one- or two-level ACDF using polyetheretherketone cages by multiple surgeons from January 2015 to June 2016. We excluded patients younger than 18 years old, patients who had prior surgery at the same level (s), those with two-stage procedures, and those with less than 3 months of followup. Fusion was determined using the "Song" criteria. Ordinal regression was used to determine predictors of fusion. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 323 consecutive patients. Twenty-two patients met the exclusion criteria. A total of 435 operative levels were included in the 301 remaining patients. Interspace fusion did not significantly vary by increasing interspace height with fusion rates between 76.2% and 82.8% at a mean follow-up of 17.9±12.6 months. The effect of an increase in interspace height and neck pain PRO was available for 163 patients who underwent one-level ACDF at a mean follow-up period of 16.2±13.1 months. We found no significant difference in fusion rate or neck pain score with increasing interspace height from 1 to 8 mm. Ordinal regression demonstrated no significant predictors of fusion. CONCLUSIONS: Interspace distraction from 1 to 8 mm did not result in significantly different pseudarthrosis rates or postoperative neck pain.

Long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: Potential advantages of using expandable versus static cages during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) are not fully established. The authors aimed to compare the long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static TLIF cages. METHODS: A retrospective review of 1- and 2-level TLIFs over a 10-year period with expandable and static cages was performed at the University of California, San Francisco. Patients with posterior column osteotomy (PCO) were subdivided. Fusion assessment, cage subsidence, anterior and posterior disc height, foraminal dimensions, pelvic incidence (PI), segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch (PI-LL), pelvic tilt (PT), sacral slope (SS), and sagittal vertical axis (SVA) were assessed. RESULTS: A consecutive series of 178 patients (with a total of 210 levels) who underwent TLIF using either static (148 levels) or expandable cages (62 levels) was reviewed. The mean patient age was 60.3 ± 11.5 years and 62.8 ± 14.1 years for the static and expandable cage groups, respectively. The mean follow-up was 42.9 ± 29.4 months for the static cage group and 27.6 ± 14.1 months for the expandable cage group. Within the 1-level TLIF group, the SL and PI-LL improved with statistical significance regardless of whether PCO was performed; however, the static group with PCOs also had statistically significant improvement in LL and SVA. The expandable cage with PCO subgroup had significant improvement in SL only. All of the foraminal parameters improved with statistical significance, regardless of the type of cages used; however, the expandable cage group had greater improvement in disc height restoration. The incidence of cage subsidence was higher in the expandable group (19.7% vs 5.4%, p = 0.0017). Within the expandable group, the unilateral facetectomy-only subgroup had a 5.6 times higher subsidence rate than the PCO subgroup (26.8% vs 4.8%, p = 0.04). Four expandable cages collapsed over time. CONCLUSIONS: Expandable TLIF cages may initially restore disc height better than static cages, but they also have higher rates of subsidence. Unilateral facetectomy alone may result in more subsidence with expandable cages than using bilateral PCO, potentially because of insufficient facet release. Although expandable cages may have more power to induce lordosis and restore disc height than static cages, subsidence and endplate violation may negate any significant gains compared to static cages.