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.

Impact of cage position on biomechanical performance of stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the biomechanical performance of various cage positions in stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion(SA LLIF). METHODS: An intact finite element model of the L3-L5 was reconstructed. The model was verified and analyzed. Through changing the position of the cage, SA LLIF was established in four directions: anterior placement(AP), middle placement(MP), posterior placement(PP), oblique placement(OP). A 400 N vertical axial pre-load was imposed on the superior surface of L3 and a 10 N/m moment was applied on the L3 superior surface along the radial direction to simulate movements of flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Various biomechanical parameters were evaluated for intact and implanted models in all loading conditions, including the range of motion (ROM) and maximum stress. RESULTS: In the SA LLIF models, the ROM of L4-5 was reduced by 84.21-89.03% in flexion, 72.64-82.26% in extension, 92.5-95.85% in right and left lateral bending, and 87.22-92.77% in right and left axial rotation, respectively. Meanwhile, ROM of L3-4 was mildly increased by an average of 9.6% in all motion directions. Almost all stress peaks were increased after SA LLIF, including adjacent disc, facet joints, and endplates. MP had lower stress peaks of cage and endplates in most motion modes. In terms of the stress on facet joints and disc of the cephalad segment, MP had the smallest increment. CONCLUSION: In our study, SA LLIF risked accelerating the adjacent segment degeneration. The cage position had an influence on the distribution of endplate stress and the magnitude of facet joint stress. Compared with other positions, MP had the slightest effect on the stress in the adjacent facet joints. Meanwhile, MP seems to play an important role in reducing the risk of cage subsidence.

Accuracy of the Cage Placement in Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion and its Effects on the Radiological Outcome in Lumbar Degenerative Disease.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to check how accurately cages were inserted and how they affected the radiological results in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) at L2-L5. METHODS: A total of 137 patients diagnosed with lumbar degenerative disease, 184 intervertebral discs were included. We used a new cage deviation classification system on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to determine cage insertion accuracy. Cage deviation angles (CDA) were classified into four groups based on the angle formed by the long axis of the cage and the horizontal axis of the vertebral body. Other radiological parameters on plain radiographs and MRI were compared based on this classification. RESULTS: Among 183 cages, 19 were in zone Ⅰ-Ⅱ (10.32%), 163 were in zone II-III (88.59%), and two were in zone III-IV (1.09%). The median cage deviation was 4.97°. No significant differences (H = 2.479, P = .290 > .05) of CDA were found among different segments. Posterior cage deviation accounted 94.57%. The minimal, mild, moderate, and severe cage deviation was 89 (48.4%), 51 (27.7%), 30 (16.3%), and 14 (7.6%) respectively. No differences in radiological parameter changes were noted among different cage obliquity categories. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 98.91% of cages were placed in zones I-II and II-III. Most cages deviated posteriorly with CDA ranging minimal to moderate. Minimal to moderate cage deviation did not impact radiological outcomes significantly in OLIF at L2-L5. However, avoiding severe cage deviation is crucial to prevent contralateral traversing nerve root injuries.

Effects of Cage Implantation Depth on Sagittal Parameters and Functional Outcomes in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of L4-L5 Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

OBJECTIVE: In the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis (LDS) with Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery, interbody fusion implants play a key role in supporting the vertebral body and facilitating fusion. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of implantation depth on sagittal parameters and functional outcomes in patients undergoing PLIF surgery. METHODS: This study reviewed 128 patients with L4-L5 LDS between January 2016 and August 2019. All patients underwent an open PLIF surgery that included intravertebral decompression, implantation of pedicle screws and cage. We grouped according to the position of the center of the cage relative to the L5 vertebral endplate. Patients with the center of the cage located at the anterior 1/2 of the upper end plate of the L5 vertebral body were divided into Anterior group, and located at the posterior 1/2 of the upper end plate of the L5 vertebral body were divided into Posterior group. The lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic incidence (PI), pelvic tilt (PT) and slope degree (SD) was measured for radiographic outcomes. We used the visual analog scale (VAS) and the oswestry disability index (ODI) score to assess functional outcomes. Paired t-test was used to compare imaging and bedside data before and after surgery between the two groups, and independent sample t-test, χ2 test and Fisher exact test were used to compare the data between the two groups. RESULT: The mean follow-up of Anterior group was 44.13 ± 9.23 months, and Posterior group was 45.62 ± 10.29 months (P > 0.05). The LL, SL, PT, SS, SD and PI-LL after operation showed great improvements, relative to the corresponding preoperative values in both groups (P < 0.05). Compared to Posterior group, Anterior group exhibited far enhanced SL (15.49 ± 3.28 vs. 13.67 ± 2.53, P < 0.05), LL (53.47 ± 3.21 vs. 52.08 ± 3.15, P < 0.05) outcomes and showed depressed PI-LL (8.87 ± 5.05 vs. 10.73 ± 5.39, P < 0.05) outcomes at the final follow-up. Meanwhile, the SL in Anterior group (16.18 ± 3.99) 1 months after operation were also higher than in Posterior group (14.12 ± 3.57) (P < 0.05). We found that VAS and ODI at the final follow-up in Anterior group (3.62 ± 0.96, 25.19 ± 5.25) were significantly lower than those in Posterior group (4.12 ± 0.98, 27.68 ± 5.13) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with LDS, the anteriorly placed cage may provide better improvement of SL after PLIF surgery. Meanwhile, the anteriorly placed cage may achieve better sagittal parameters of LL and PI-LL and functional outcomes at the final follow-up.

Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Posterior Percutaneous Pedicle Screw Internal Fixation: Does Variability in Cage Position Influence Clinical Outcomes?

OBJECTIVE: The study investigates how cage positions in oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) combined with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw internal fixation (PPSF) affect lumbar canal and foraminal decompression and postoperative outcomes, providing guidance for optimal placement and efficacy assessment. METHODS: This investigation assesses radiologic outcomes and follow-up data in relation to cage position variability among 80 patients who underwent L4/5 single-segment OLIF + PPSF from 2018 to 2022. RESULTS: In the study involving 80 participants, the combination of OLIF and PPSF significantly improved lower back and leg symptoms in patients, leading to positive clinical outcomes during follow-up. The intervertebral disk height increased from an average of 8.10 ± 2.79 mm before surgery to 11.75 ± 2.14 mm after surgery (P < 0.001). Additionally, this surgical technique notably increased the FH (P < 0.001) and expanded the DCSA from 68.81 ± 53.89 mmˆ2 before surgery to 102.91 ± 60.46 mmˆ2 after surgery (P < 0.001). Linear results suggest that changes in the position of the cage do not affect spinal imaging parameters. There is no significant difference in the correction of spinal parameters or prognosis whether the cage is back, middle, ahead. CONCLUSIONS: In the OLIF + PPSF procedure, strict requirements for cage position are not necessary to achieve predetermined spinal biomechanical parameters. The practice of repeated fluoroscopy to adjust cage position postimplantation does not provide added clinical benefits to the patient.

Implications of cage impactions in single-level OLIF treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Cage impactions (CI) of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) appear to be a frequent mechanical complication with a potential functional impact. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of CI occurrence, their risk factors and clinical implications in the case of combined single-level arthrodesis. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. All our patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis initially underwent OLIF combined with pedicle screw fixation (PSF). Intraoperative control with an image intensifier and a standard radiograph in the immediate postoperative period made it possible to assess the occurrence of CI, depending on the position of the implant. Secondary subsidence was sought on the standing radiological examination using EOS biplanar radiography during follow-up. The pelvic parameters were analyzed, as well as the occurrence of bone fusion. The clinical evaluation was made at≥1 year, by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the walking distance (WD) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: In all, 130 patients out of the 131 included were analyzed. A CI occurred in 25.3% (n=33) of cases and of these, 94% (n=32) occurred intraoperatively. Postmenopausal women had more CI with an odds ratio (OR) of 5.8 (P=0.034). The "CI" group had a 9.5% lower ODI score than the "non-CI" group (P=0.0040), but both provided excellent ODI gains of 30.8±16 and 32.9±15.5% (P<0.0001). An "anterior" position of the implant allowed a greater gain in lumbar lordosis (P<0.001) but was associated with greater CI occurrence (P<0.001), with an OR of 6.75 (P=0.0018). CONCLUSION: The occurrence of intraoperative cage impaction is a frequent event when performing OLIF. Postmenopausal women have an approximately 6 times greater risk of impaction than men, and patients with an "anterior" implant placement have a 7 times greater risk than with central placement. The negative impact of cage impactions on the clinical score (ODI) was significant after one year of follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, non-comparative cohort study.

Factors affecting successful immediate indirect decompression in oblique lateral interbody fusion in lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Background: Oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) offers indirect decompression of stenotic lesions of the spinal canal and foramen through immediate disc height restoration. Only a few studies have reported the effect of cage position and associated intraoperatively modifiable factors for successful immediate indirect decompression following OLIF surgery. This study aimed to investigate the intraoperatively modifiable factors for successful radiological outcomes of OLIF. Methods: This study included 46 patients with 80 surgical levels who underwent OLIF without direct posterior decompression. Preoperative and postoperative radiological parameters were evaluated and intraoperatively modifiable radiologic parameters for successful immediate radiologic decompression on magnetic resonance image (MRI) were determined. Radiologic parameters were preoperative and postoperative radiological parameters including anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH) lumbar lordotic angle (LLA), segmental lordotic angle (SLA), foraminal height (FH), cage position, cross-sectional area (CSA) of the thecal sac, cross-sectional foraminal area (CSF), facet distance (FD). Results: All radiologic outcomes significantly improved. Comparing preoperative and postoperative values, mean CSA increased from 99.63±40.21 mm2 to 125.02±45.90 mm2 (p<.0001), and mean left CSF increased from 44.54±12.90 mm2 to 69.91±10.80 mm2 (p<.0001). FD also increased from 1.40±0.44 to 1.92±0.71 mm (p<.0001). FH increased from 16.31±3.3 to 18.84±3.47 mm (p<.0001). ADH and PDH also significantly increased (p<.0001). Immediate postoperative CSF and FH improvement rate (%) were significantly correlated with posterior disc height restoration rate (%) (p=.0443, and p=.0234, respectively). In addition, the patients with a cage positioned in the middle of the vertebral body experienced a greater FH improvement rate (%) compared to the patients with a cage positioned anteriorly. Finally, Visual analogue scale (VAS) for leg pain was improved immediately. Conclusions: OLIF provided satisfactory immediate indirect decompression in central and foraminal spinal stenosis. Moreover, intraoperative surgical technique for successful radiologic CSF and FH improvement included restoration of the PDH and placement of the cage in the middle.

Does Cage Position Affect the Risk of Cage Subsidence After Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Osteoporotic Lumbar Spine: A Finite Element Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical effects of different cage positions with stand-alone (SA) methods and bilateral pedicle screw fixation (BPSF) in the osteoporotic lumbar spine after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). METHODS: A finite element model of an intact L3-L5 lumbar spine was constructed. After validation, an osteoporosis model (OP) was constructed by assigning osteoporotic material properties. SA models (SA1, SA2, SA3) and BPSF models (BPSF1, BPSF2, BPSF3) in which a cage was placed in the anterior, middle, and posterior third of the L5 superior endplate (SEP) were constructed at the L4-L5 segment of the OP. The L4-L5 range of motion (ROM), the stress of the L5 SEP, the stress of the cage, and the stress of fixation were compared among the different models. RESULTS: According to the degree of ROM of L4-L5, the stress of the L5 SEP and the stress of the cage for most physiological motions, the SA and BPSF models were ranked as follows: SA2 < SA1 < SA3, BPSF2 < BPSF1 < BPSF3. In BPSF2, the stress of fixation was minimal in most motions. At the same cage position, the ROM of L4-L5, the stress of the L5 SEP, and the stress of the cage in the BPSF models were significantly reduced compared with those in SA models; compared with SA2, BPSF2 had a maximum reduction of 83.24%, 70.71%, and 73.52% in these parameters, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Placing the cage in the middle third of the L5 SEP for OLIF could reduce the maximum stresses of the L5 SEP, the cage, and the fixation, which may reduce the risk of postoperative cage subsidence, endplate collapse, and fixation fracture in the osteoporotic lumbar spine. Compared with SA OLIF, BPSF could provide sufficient stability for the surgical segment and may reduce the incidence of the aforementioned complications.

Do Radiographic Results of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Vary with Cage Position in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Diseases?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the radiographic results are affected by cage position in single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). METHOD: Between January 2016 and June 2018, 130 patients (62 males and 68 females, average age: 55.28 ± 10.11 years) who underwent single-level TLIF were analyzed retrospectively. Standing lateral radiographs of the lumbar spine were collected and evaluated preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the time of last follow-up. Cage position in the fused segment was recorded using a central point ratio (CPR), which indicated the cage position. CPR is calculated by dividing the distance between the cage center point and the posterior extent of the superior endplate of the inferior vertebra by the length of the superior endplate of the inferior vertebra. Based on cage positions, the patients were divided into three groups: Anterior Group (n = 38); Middle Group (n = 68); and Posterior Group (n = 24). Segmental lumbar lordosis (SLL), foraminal height (FH), posterior disc height (PDH), and anterior disc height (ADH) were evaluated. A subanalysis was also performed on cage height within each group. RESULTS: The average follow-up time of the patients was 35.20 ± 4.43 months. The mean values of CPR in Anterior Group, Middle Group, and Posterior Group were 0.64, 0.51, and 0.37, respectively. The FH, PDH, and ADH were significantly increased after TLIF in all groups (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in increase of SLL in Anterior Group (4.4°) and Middle Group (3.0°), but not in Posterior Group (0.3°). Furthermore, in the comparison of the three groups, the increase of SLL, FH, and PDH was statistically different (P < 0.05), while not for ADH (P > 0.05). The significant correlations in surgery were: CPR and ΔSLL (r = 0.584, P < 0.001), CPR and ΔFH (r = -0.411, P < 0.001), and CPR and ΔPDH (r = -0.457, P < 0.001). However, ADH had a positive correlation with cage height when the cage was located in anterior and middle of the endplate. Moreover, cage height had a positive correlation with SLL when the cage was located anteriorly and had a negative correlation with SLL when the cage was located posteriorly. FH and PDH both had a positive correlation with cage height in any cage position. CONCLUSION: The cage located in different positions has different effects on radiographic results in single-level TLIF. A thicker cage located anteriorly will gain maximum SLL and avoid the reduction of FH and PDH.

Does the Position of Cage Affect the Clinical Outcome of Lateral Interbody Fusion in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis?

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the ideal cage position in lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) and to investigate if the posterior instrumentation would affect the indirect decompression. METHODS: Patients underwent 2-stage surgeries: stage I was LLIF and stage II was percutaneous pedicle screws fixation after 1 week. Anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), left and right foraminal height (FH), and segmental angle (SA) were measured on lateral computed tomography reconstructions. The cross-sectional area of the thecal sac (CSA) was determined by the outlined area of the thecal sac on a T2-weighted axial magnetic resonance imaging. The patients were subgroups according to the cage position: the anterior (cage located at the anterior 1/3 of disc space) and posterior groups (cage located at the posterior 2/3 of disc space). P values <.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: This study included 46 patients and 71 surgical levels. After stage I LLIF, significant increase in ADH, PDH, bilateral FH was found in both 2 subgroups, as well as the CSA (all Ps < .01). SA increased 2.84° ± 3.2° in the anterior group after stage I LLIF and increased 0.81° ± 3.1° in the posterior group (P = .013). After stage II surgery, SA was similar between the anterior and posterior groups (P = .20). CONCLUSION: The anteriorly placed cage may provide better improvement of anterior disc height and segmental angle after stand-alone LLIF surgery. After the second stage posterior instrumentation, the cage position would not affect the segmental angle or foraminal height.

The anterior and traverse cage can provide optimal biomechanical performance for both traditional and percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a well-established surgical treatment for patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease; however, the optimal position for the interbody fusion cage in TLIF procedures for reducing cage-related complications remains uncertain. The present study aims to compare the biomechanical effects between different cage positions in TLIF and percutaneous endoscopic-TLIF (PE-TLIF). METHOD: An intact finite element model of L3-L5 from computed tomography images of a 25-year-old healthy male without any lumbar disease was reconstructed and validated. TLIF and PE-TLIF were performed on L4-L5 with bilateral pedicle screws fixation. Two surgical finite element models were subjected to loads with six degrees of freedom. The range of motion (ROM) and von Mises stress of the implantations and endplates were measured for the anterior, middle, and posterior district and the traverse or oblique direction of the cage respectively. RESULTS: As the cage was implanted forward, the ROMs in the fused L4-L5 segments and the von Mises stress of the cage and endplates decreased while the von Mises stress of the screws increased; this was also shown in the traverse cage when compared with the oblique cage (A-90-compared with A-45- had a 31.3%, 1.7%, 12.6%, and 5.7% decrease in FL, EX, LB and AR). The ROMs (TLIF A-45 increase of 80.8%, 23.8%, and 12.2% in FL, EX, and LB when compared with PE-TLIF), cage stress, and endplate stress of PE-TLIF were lower than those of TLIF. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the ROM of the fusion segments, implanting the cage in the anterior district in the traverse direction can effectively enhance the fusion segment stiffness, thus contributing to the stability of the lumbar spine after fusion. It can also cause less cage stress and endplate stress, which indicates its beneficial effect in avoiding cage injury or subsidence. However, the higher stress of the pedicle screws and rods indicates higher failure risk. PE-TLIF had better biomechanical performance than TLIF. Therefore, it is recommended that the surgeon implant the cage in the anterior district of the L5 vertebra's upper endplate in the traverse direction using the PE-TLIF technique.

Direction-changeable cage reduces X-ray exposure in treating isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis: a retrospective study.

In spite of a variety of designs for the lumbar interbody fusion cage, there is no consensus on the optimal design so far. Different cage designs may cause different extent of X-ray exposure to visualize the cage positon intraoperatively. In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the X-ray exposure and clinical outcomes of the direction-changeable cage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). The patients were divided into the direction-changeable cage group (group A, n=79) and non-direction-changeable cage group (group B, n=84). Intraoperative implantation duration, cage position adjustment times, implantation fluoroscopy times, fluoroscopy exposure time of cage implantation, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were recorded before and after operation at the last follow-up. CT scanning was performed to evaluate lumbar fusion. All the patients underwent single-level TLIF and were followed up for 12 to 18 months. In the group A, intraoperative implantation duration, cage position adjustment times, implantation fluoroscopy times, and fluoroscopy exposure time of cage implantation were 6.7 ± 3.6 min, 1.2 ± 0.4 times, 2.5 ± 0.6 times, 7.84 ± 1.83 s, retrospectively. In the group B, these parameters were 11.5 ± 5.9 min, 2.6 ± 1.3 times, 5.8 ± 1.7 times, and 15.31 ± 5.16 s retrospectively, which were higher than those in the non-direction-changeable cage group with statistical significance (P<0.05). In terms of ODI and VAS scores, there was no statistical difference between the two groups before or after operation at the last follow-up (P>0.05). Regarding to the complications, there were 4 cases (4.49%) in the group A, with 3 cases of non-union and 1 case of dural laceration. Eight cases (10.53%) showed complications in the group B, with 7 cases of non-union and 1 case of infection. There was a significant difference between the groups in terms of the complication rate (P<0.05). In conclusion, the direction-changeable cage has merits like lower radiation exposure and fewer complications compared to the non-direction-changeable cage in treating isthmic lumbar spondylolisthesis. Both cages could yield equal clinical outcomes.

A radiographic analysis of cage positioning in lateral transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion.

Direct Lumbar Interbody Fusion (DLIF) and eXtreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) are the most common surgical platforms available for performing transpsoas spinal fusion but no study has been carried out to compare them. We evaluated 21 DLIF and 22 XLIF cage positions by measuring the distance between the posterior vertebral border and the centre of the cage normalised to the midsagittal length of the inferior end plate. We found that DLIF cages were significantly more anteriorly located than XLIF (0.65 vs 0.52, p = 0.001) at L4-5, suggesting that XLIF would permit implantation of wider cages than DLIF.