Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with stand-alone interbody cage in treatment of lumbar intervertebral foraminal stenosis : comparative study of two different types of cages

Defining cage subsidence in anterior, oblique, and lateral lumbar spine fusion approaches: a systematic review of the literature

One of the most common complications of lumbar fusions is cage subsidence, which leads to collapse of disc height and reappearance of the presenting symptomology. However, definitions of cage subsidence are inconsistent, leading to a variety of subsidence calculation methodologies and thresholds. To review previously published literature on cage subsidence in order to present the most common methods for calculating and defining subsidence in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) approaches. A search was completed in PubMed and Embase with inclusion criteria focused on identifying any study that provided descriptions of the method, imaging modality, or subsidence threshold used to calculate the presence of cage subsidence. A total of 69 articles were included in the final analysis, of which 18 (26.1%) reported on the ALIF approach, 22 (31.9%) on the OLIF approach, and 31 (44.9%) on the LLIF approach, 2 of which reported on more than one approach. ALIF articles most commonly calculated the loss of disc height over time with a subsidence threshold of > 2 mm. Most OLIF articles calculated the total amount of cage migration into the vertebral bodies, with a threshold of > 2 mm. LLIF was the only approach in which most articles applied the same method for calculation, namely, a grading scale for classifying the loss of disc height over time. We recommend future articles adhere to the most common methodologies presented here to ensure accuracy and generalizability in reporting cage subsidence.

SPINE: High heterogeneity and no significant differences in clinical outcomes of endoscopic foraminotomy vs fusion for lumbar foraminal stenosis: a meta-analysis

Objective

This study aimed to systematically review the literature for comparative and non-comparative studies reporting on clinical outcomes of patients with lumbar foraminal stenosis treated by either endoscopic foraminotomy or fusion.

Methods

In adherence with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a literature search was done on January 17, 2022, using Medline and Embase. Clinical studies were eligible if they reported outcomes following fusion or endoscopic foraminotomy, in patients with primary lumbar foraminal stenosis. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts to determine eligibility; performed data extraction; and assessed the quality of eligible studies according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist.

Results

The search returned 827 records; 266 were duplicates, 538 were excluded after title/abstract/full-text screening, and 23 were eligible, with 16 case series reporting on endoscopic foraminotomy, 7 case series reporting on fusion, and no comparative studies. The JBI checklist indicated that 21 studies scored ≥4 points. When comparing endoscopic foraminotomy to fusion, pooled data revealed reduced operative time (69 vs 119 min, P < 0.01) but similar Oswestry disability index (19 vs 20, P = 0.67), lower back pain (2 vs 2, P = 0.11), leg pain (2 vs 2, P = 0.15), complication rates (10% vs 5%, P = 0.22), and reoperation rates (5% vs 0%, P = 0.16). The proportions of patients with good/excellent MacNab criteria were similar for endoscopic foraminotomy and fusion (82-91% vs 85-91%).

Conclusions

There were high heterogeneity and no significant differences in clinical outcomes, complication rates, and reoperation rates between endoscopic foraminotomy and fusion for the treatment of lumbar foraminal stenosis; although endoscopic foraminotomy has reduced operative time.

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Patients Undergoing Revision Fusion: Clinical Outcome Comparison

OBJECTIVE

We aim to compare perioperative/postoperative clinical outcomes between minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) in patients presenting for revision surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective database was reviewed for procedures between November 2005 and December 2021. Revision MIS-TLIF/ALIFs were included, whereas primary fusions or diagnosis of infection/malignancy/trauma were excluded. Patients were grouped into MIS-TLIF/ALIF cohorts. Preoperatively/postoperatively collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) included visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), and Short-Form 12-Item Survey Mental/Physical Composite Scores.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients were eligible, with 84 patients in the MIS-TLIF cohort. The presence of degenerative spondylolisthesis and central stenosis, narcotic consumption on postoperative day 0/1, and postoperative urinary retention rates was greater in the MIS-TLIF cohort (P ≤ 0.036, all). Preoperative PROMs between cohorts did not significantly differ. Significantly favorable postoperative PROM scores were shown in the MIS-TLIF cohort with PROMIS-PF at 12 weeks/6 months (P ≤ 0.033, all). Most patients in both cohorts achieved overall minimum clinically important difference for visual analog scale back/leg score, Oswestry Disability Index, Short-Form 12-Item Survey Physical Composite Score, and PROMIS-PF. No differences were noted between cohorts within rates of MCID achievement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing revision fusion via MIS-TLIF or ALIF reported similar 1-year postoperative mean outcomes and rates of meaningful clinical achievement for physical function, mental health, disability, and back/leg pain. However, patients undergoing revision MIS-TLIF reported improved physical function at 12 weeks and 6 months. Perioperatively, patients undergoing revision MIS-TLIF were noted to consume significantly greater quantities of narcotics.

Biomechanical analysis of lumbar interbody fusion supplemented with various posterior stabilization systems

PURPOSE

Biomechanical comparison between rigid and non-rigid posterior stabilization systems following lumbar interbody fusion has been conducted in several studies. However, most of these previous studies mainly focused on investigating biomechanics of adjacent spinal segments or spine stability. The objective of the present study was to compare biomechanical responses of the fusion devices when using different posterior instrumentations.

METHODS

Finite-element model of the intact human lumbar spine (L1-sacrum) was modified to simulate implantation of the fusion cage at L4-L5 level supplemented with different posterior stabilization systems including (i) pedicle screw-based fixation using rigid connecting rods (titanium rods), (ii) pedicle screw-based fixation using flexible connecting rods (PEEK rods) and (iii) dynamic interspinous spacer (DIAM). Stress responses were compared among these various models under bending moments.

RESULTS

The highest and lowest stresses in endplate, fusion cage and bone graft were found at the fused L4-L5 level with DIAM and titanium rod stabilization systems, respectively. When using PEEK rod for the pedicle screw fixation, peak stress in the pedicle screw was lower but the ratio of peak stress in the rods to yield stress of the rod material was higher than using titanium rod.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional rigid posterior stabilization system, the use of non-rigid stabilization system (i.e., the PEEK rod system and DIAM system) following lumbar interbody fusion might increase the risks of cage subsidence and cage damage, but promote bony fusion due to higher stress in the bone graft. For the pedicle screw-based rod stabilization system, using PEEK rod might reduce the risk of screw breakage but increased breakage risk of the rod itself.

Novel bone grafting technique in stand-alone ALIF procedure combining allograft and autograft ('Northumbria Technique')-Fusion rate and functional outcomes in 100 consecutive patients

INTRODUCTION

Successful ALIF surgery depends upon achieving solid fusion, whilst avoiding significant complications. Herein, we present the 'Northumbria Technique' of combining allograft with autograft in order to achieve solid interbody fusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-surgeon series of 100 consecutive patients undergoing stand-alone ALIF from 2016 to 2019 was studied. All had percutaneously harvested iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) dowels inserted into blocks of fresh frozen femoral head (FFFH) allograft, which were then inserted into the ALIF cages. Patients had dynamic radiographs at 4 months, CT at 6 months, and patient reported outcome measure scores (PROMS) throughout.

RESULTS

One hundred patients (average age 44.8 years) were followed-up for an average of 29.1 months. Ninety-four (94%) patients were assessed as having fused on both CT and radiographs by an independent Radiologist. Three (3%) patients had abolition of movement on radiographs, but either lacked a CT scan or failed to meet Williams criteria for fusion. Two patients failed to attend for any imaging, so were considered not fused, and one patient had no evidence of fusion in either modality. There was a significant improvement in all PROMS. There were no intra-operative complications, and one patient had transient donor-site pain.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly described 'Northumbria Technique' utilises the osteoconductive characteristics of the FFFH allograft, as well as the osteoinductive and osteogenic properties of the ICBG autograft. It gives high fusion rates (94-97%) and statistically significant improvements in PROMS, whilst avoiding the complications of harvesting a large amount of autograft and the huge costs of using synthetic agents.

Endplate Changes with Polyetheretherketone Cages in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Study Design

A retrospective radiographic analysis.

Purpose

The aim of the current study is to assess endplate changes after the use of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF).

Overview of Literature

A few recent reports had revealed endplate abnormalities due to PEEK cages, which may lead to nonunions.

Methods

A retrospective computed tomography (CT)-based analysis of the endplate cavities and fusion status following PLIFs with PEEK cages was conducted by two independent observers. The term “cavity” was used to describe the endplate changes. The vertebral endplate cavities were assessed according to the size, multiplicity, location, and presence or absence of sclerosis.

Results

There were 86 fixed levels in 65 consecutive patients, with a mean age of 35.44±19.60 years. The mean follow-up was 16.5±10.1 months (range, 6–57 months). Definite fusion was seen in 56 levels (65.12%) by observer 1 versus 44 levels (51.16) by observer 2. The strength of agreement was moderate. Endplate cavities were observed in 42 levels (48.84%) by observer 1 versus 47 levels (54.65%) by observer 2, with fair agreement. The strengths of agreement for the locations, multiplicity, and size were moderate, fair, and poor, respectively. Neither age, sex, etiology, levels, nor follow-up period was significantly associated with the presence of cavities. With regard to fusions, the nonunions detected by observer 1 were significantly associated with the presence of cavities (p<0.0001). However, those detected by observer 2 were nearly significant (p=0.05).

Conclusions

There was a high rate of unfavorable radiographic findings in the form of endplate cavities in PLIF cases with PEEK cages. A more comprehensive classification for the assessment of fusions and endplate cavities should be formulated. We strongly recommend further CT-based studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up periods.

Neural decompression in challenging cases: advantages and disadvantages

The peculiarity of extreme lateral interbody fusion (LLIF) is the achievement of indirect neural decompression of the spinal canal while distracting the intervertebral disc space using an interbody cage. In this manuscript we will review the potentials and limitations of this technique when treating degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. A literature search of the PubMed-National Library of Medicine was performed. Only articles in English were included. The current available literature demonstrates that LLIF is an effective method to decompress foraminal and central canal stenosis. Based on the current available literature LLIF effects on lateral recess stenosis are less consistent. The aim of this review is to provide with a thorough overview of the latest literature available and provide the audience with targeted-oriented published results that will eventually improve the decision-making process when using the LLIF technique.

Motion preservation following total lumbar disc replacement at the lumbosacral junction: a prospective long-term clinical and radiographic investigation

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Total lumbar disc replacement (TDR) intends to avoid fusion-related negative side effects by means of motion preservation. Despite their widespread use, the adequate quality and quantity of motion, as well as the correlation between radiographic data with the patient's clinical symptomatology, remains to be established. Long-term data are lacking in particular.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to perform a clinical and radiographic long-term investigation following TDR with special emphasis on motion preservation assessment and to establish any potential correlation with patient-reported outcome parameters.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A prospective, single-center, clinical, and radiological investigation following TDR with ProDisc II (Synthes, Paoli, PA, USA) was carried out.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients with a minimum 5-year follow-up (FU) after TDR performed for the treatment of intractable and predominant (≥80%) axial low back pain resulting from single-level degenerative disc disease without instabilities or deformities at the lumbosacral junction (L5-S1) comprised the sample.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and patient satisfaction rates (three-scale outcome rating), range of motion (ROM) at the index- and cranially adjacent level as well as segmental lumbar lordosis (SLL) and global lumbar lordosis (GLL) were the outcome measures.

METHODS

All data were acquired within the framework of an ongoing prospective clinical trial. Patients were examined preoperatively, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively, and annually thereafter. X-rays were performed in antero-posterior and lateral views as well as functional flexion/extension images. Radiological examinations included ROM at the index and cranially adjacent level as well as SLL and GLL. X-ray measurements were correlated with the clinical outcome parameters. A longitudinal analysis was performed between baseline data with those from the early (3-6 months), mid- (12-24 months), and late FU stages (≥5 years).

RESULTS

Results from 51 patients with a mean FU of 7.8 years (range 5.0-13.3 years) were available for the final analysis. X-ray measurements revealed a maintained mobility with a trend toward gradually declining ROM values. Although no statistically significant difference in ROM was detected between the preoperative and early FU (6.8° vs. 5.8°, p=.1), a further reduction in ROM became statistically significant at the mid- and final FU, with mean ROM of 5.2° and 4.4°, respectively (p<.001). Global lumbar lordosis increased from 48.8° to 54.4° (p<.0001) which was attributed to a lordotic shift from 18.2° to 28.0° at the index segment (p<.00001) and which was positively correlated with the applied implant lordosis (p<.05). A compensatory reduction of lordosis was observed at the cranially adjacent segment (p<.0001). The mobility of the cranially adjacent level remained unchanged (p>.05). The clinical outcome scores (VAS, ODI) revealed a significant improvement from baseline levels (p<.05). The reduction in ROM was not negatively correlated with the patient's clinical symptomatology (p>.05).

CONCLUSION

The present data reveal an increased GLL resulting from a lordotic shift of the index segment, which was strongly correlated with the applied implant lordosis. This lordotic shift was accompanied by a compensatory reduction of lordosis at the cranially adjacent segment. A gradual and statistically significant decline of the device mobility was noted over time which, however, did not negatively impact the patient's clinical symptomatology. Although the present long-term investigation provides additional insight into longitudinal radiographic changes and their influence on the patient's clinical symptomatology following TDR, the adequate quality and quantity of motion with artificial motion-preserving implants remains to be established, which will aid in defining more refined treatment concepts for both fusion and motion preserving techniques alike.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone oblique cages with and without a titanium coating: a randomised clinical pilot study

AIMS

We compared the clinical and radiological outcomes of using a polyetheretherketone cage with (TiPEEK) and without a titanium coating (PEEK) for instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a randomised clinical pilot trial of 40 patients who were scheduled to undergo a TLIF procedure at one or two levels between L2 and L5. The Oswestry disability index (ODI), EuroQoL-5D, and back and leg pain were determined pre-operatively, and at three, six, and 12 months post-operatively. Fusion rates were assessed by thin slice CT at three months and by functional radiography at 12 months.

RESULTS

At final follow-up, one patient in each group had been lost to follow-up. Two patients in each of the PEEK and TiPEEK groups were revised for pseudarthrosis (p = 1.00). The rate of complete or partial fusion at three months was 91.7% in both groups. Overall, there were no significant differences in ODI or in radiological outcomes between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Favourable results with identical clinical outcomes and a high rate of fusion was seen in both groups. The titanium coating appears to have no negative effects on outcome or safety in the short term. A future study to determine the effect of titanium coating is warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1366-72.

Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion - complications and perioperative results

OBJECTIVES

Historically, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) was related to high rates of intraoperative complications and adverse events related to interbody devices. In recent decades, there have been technical adjustments, and cages that are more suitable have emerged. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and complication rate of the use of stand-alone mini-ALIF using a self-locking cage.

METHODS

Retrospective single center study. Inclusion criteria: retroperitoneal mini-ALIF for single-level fusion (L5S1); self-locking cage; DDD/stenosis and grade I spondylolisthesis. Exclusion criteria: posterior supplementation, previous fusion/arthroplasty. Endpoints: surgery data, intraoperative and perioperative adverse events related both to surgical access and to the intersomatic device.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven cases were enrolled. Median surgical time was 90 min; median blood loss was 100 mL. The median length of stay in the ICU was zero days; median hospital stay was one day. Ten cases had an adverse event (11.5%): four major adverse events (4.6%; 3 L bleeding; DVT; retroperitoneal haematoma; incisional hernia), and seven minor events (8%; peritoneum injury; minor vascular injury; events related to the cage). No cases of retrograde ejaculation were observed. There was improvement in pain, physical restriction, and quality of life (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mini-ALIF procedure performed for single-level fusion at the distal lumbar level demonstrated low adverse event rates related to both the surgical approach and to the intersomatic device, with reduced hospital stay and satisfactory perioperative clinical results.

Evaluating Outcomes of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is an effective surgical approach for selected spinal pathologies. It avoids the morbidity and complications associated with instrumented ALIF, such as plate fixation and the traditionally used posterior approach. Despite improved disc space visualization and clearance, the associated posterior instability and increased risk of nonfusion present major challenges to this approach. The integral cage design aims to address these challenges by providing the necessary stabilization through intracorporeal screws. However, there is limited and controversial data available for stand-alone ALIF and integral cage fixation. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to evaluate recent findings on outcomes of stand-alone ALIF devices to explore areas of controversy and identify directions for future research.

METHODS

Two reviewers conducted independent, systematic literature searches for appropriate studies in 5 electronic databases as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were filtered by the use of specified selection criteria, particularly exclusion of studies with supplementary fixation to ALIF and studies published before the year 2000. A total of 17 studies met the criteria, and their data were comprehensively extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

The current literature is supportive of stand-alone ALIF due to acceptable clinical outcomes, promising fusion rates and disc height restoration. However, data and outcomes remain preliminary, and there are numerous areas of controversy.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence for the efficacy and safety of stand-alone ALIF. However, the extent of improvement based on specific indications for surgery remains unclear. Further investigation utilizing more methodologically rigorous studies of long-term outcomes is necessary to address these issues.

PEEK Cages in Lumbar Fusion: Mid-term Clinical Outcome and Radiologic Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Historical cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of mid-term clinical outcome and radiologic fusion in patients treated with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion can be a good alternative in chronic low back pain when conservative treatment fails. Although titanium alloy cages give good fusion rates, disadvantages are the subsidence of the cage in the adjacent vertebrae and problematic radiologic evaluation of fusion. PEEK cages such as the Synfix-LR cage (Synthes, Switzerland) should overcome this.

METHODS

From December 2004 until August 2007, 95 patients (21 double-level and 74 single-level) with degenerative disk disease from L3-S1 were operated by a single surgeon. The number of reoperations was counted. Radiologic fusion on computed tomography scan was scored with a new scoring system by an independent skeletal radiologist and orthopedic surgeon. Intraobserver agreement and specificity were assessed. Clinical improvement was measured by the Oswestry Disability Index score. The median duration of clinical follow-up was 47.7 months (range 29.9-61.6).

RESULTS

In total, 26 patients were reoperated after a median period of 17.6 months (range 6.7-46.9) of the initial surgery. Of the 26 patients, 23 patients (18 single-level and 5 double-level) were reoperated for symptomatic pseudarthrosis. A moderate agreement (κ=0.36) and a specificity of 70% and 37% for the radiologist and orthopedic surgeon, respectively, were found for scoring bony bridging. The Oswestry Disability Index score improved after initial surgery; however, reoperated patients reported a significantly lower improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

A high number of reoperations after an anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure with the Synfix-LR cage were found, mainly because of symptomatic pseudarthrosis. The absence of posterior fixation in combination with lower stiffness and the hydrophobic characteristics of PEEK probably lead to insufficient initial stability, creating suboptimal conditions for bony bridging, and thus solid fusion. The proposed ease of the evaluation of radiologic fusion could not be supported. Clinicians should be alert on pseudarthrosis when patients treated with the Synfix-LR cage presented with persisted or aggravated complaints.

L5/S1 Fusion Rates in Degenerative Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review Comparing ALIF, TLIF, and Axial Interbody Arthrodesis

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the fusion rate of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and axial arthrodesis at the lumbosacral junction in adult patients undergoing surgery for 1- and 2-level degenerative spine conditions.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An L5/S1 interbody fusion is a commonly performed procedure for pathology such as spondylolisthesis with stenosis; however, it is unclear if 1 technique leads to superior fusion rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE was conducted for literature published between January 1, 1992 and August 17, 2014. All peer-reviewed articles related to the fusion rate of L5/S1 for an ALIF, TLIF, or axial interbody fusion were included.

RESULTS

In total, 42 articles and 1507 patients were included in this systematic review. A difference in overall fusion rates was identified, with a rate of 99.2% (range, 96.4%-99.8%) for a TLIF, 97.2% (range, 91.0%-99.2%) for an ALIF, and 90.5% (range, 79.0%-97.0%) for an axial interbody fusion (P=0.005). In a paired analysis directly comparing fusion techniques, only the difference between a TLIF and an axial interbody fusion was significant. However, when only cases in which bilateral pedicle screws supported the interbody fusion, no statistical difference (P>0.05) between the 3 techniques was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature available to guide the treatment of L5/S1 pathology is poor, but the available data suggest that a high fusion rate can be expected with the use of an ALIF, TLIF, or axial interbody fusion. Any technique-dependent benefit in fusion rate can be eliminated with common surgical modifications such as the use of bilateral pedicle screws.

Impact of screw location and endplate preparation on pullout strength for anterior plates and integrated fixation cages

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Numerous integrated fixation cages (IFCs) have recently been introduced to the market with "zero-profile" designs that incorporate screw fixation through the vertebral endplate. It is unclear whether differences in bone quality and quantity in this insertion location may affect fixation compared with screws used in traditional anterior plate (AP) fixation. Moreover, endplate preparation for IFC implantation may affect fixation strength.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare pullout strength of screws used in IFCs with screws used for AP implantations.

STUDY DESIGN

A biomechanical cadaveric study.

METHODS

T12 and L1 vertebrae from 13 human cadaver spines were prepared for pullout testing. End plates in T12 vertebrae were scraped according to surgical practice for fusion procedures. Conversely, endplates in L1 vertebrae were kept intact (unscraped). Integrated fixation cage screws were implanted at a 45° angle into the endplate and AP screws were implanted horizontally into the same vertebral body. Pullout testing was performed on all screws, and peak pullout force (PPF) and work were compared between groups to determine fixation strength. In addition, micro-CT imaging was used to assess bone quantity and quality parameters such as trabecular bone volume fraction, endplate and anterior cortex thickness at screw insertion location, endplate mineralization, and anterior cortex mineralization.

RESULTS

Peak pullout force for IFC screws (176±68 N) with scraped endplates was similar (p=.26) to AP screws (192±84 N). However, PPF for IFC screws (231±75 N) with unscraped endplates was significantly greater (p<.01) than AP screws (176±50 N). Peak pullout force for IFC screws with scraped endplates was significantly lower (p=.03) than IFC screws with unscraped endplates. Scraped endplates group (0.17±0.05 mm) were thinner (p=.05) than unscraped endplates (0.21±0.06 mm) by approximately 40 µ on average.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that IFC and AP screws exhibited similar fixation behavior when the endplate is prepared according to common surgical practices. However, endplate scraping reduces endplate thickness by 20% on average, resulting in a decrease in fixation strength when compared with the unscraped endplates and provides bounds for IFC screw fixation strength.

Successful treatment of severe sympathetically maintained pain following anterior spine surgery

Sympathetic dysfunction is one of the possible complications of anterior spine surgery; however, it has been underestimated as a cause of complications. We report two successful experiences of treating severe dysesthetic pain occurring after anterior spine surgery, by performing a sympathetic block. The first patient experienced a burning and stabbing pain in the contralateral upper extremity of approach side used in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and underwent a stellate ganglion block with a significant relief of his pain. The second patient complained of a cold sensation and severe unexpected pain in the lower extremity of the contralateral side after anterior lumbar interbody fusion and was treated with lumbar sympathetic block. We aimed to describe sympathetically maintained pain as one of the important causes of early postoperative pain and the treatment option chosen for these cases in detail.

Finite element analysis of minimal invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

The purpose of our study is to develop and validate three-dimensional finite element models of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, and explore the most appropriate method of fixation and fusion by comparing biomechanical characteristics of different fixation method. We developed four fusion models: bilateral pedicle screws fixation with a single cage insertion model (A), bilateral pedicle screws fixation with two cages insertion model (B), unilateral pedicle screws fixation with a single cage insertion model (C), and unilateral pedicle screws fixation with two cages insertion model (D); the models were subjected to different forces including anterior bending, posterior extension, left bending, right bending, rotation, and axial compressive. The von Mises stress of the fusion segments on the pedicle screw and cages was recorded. Angular variation and stress of pedicle screw and cage were compared. There were differences of Von Mises peak stress among four models, but were within the range of maximum force. The angular variation in A, B, C, and D decreased significantly compared with normal. There was no significant difference of angular variation between A and B, and C and D. Bilateral pedicle screws fixation had more superior biomechanics than unilateral pedicle screws fixation. In conclusion, the lumbar interbody fusion models were established using varying fixation methods, and the results verified that unilateral pedicle screws fixation with a single cage could meet the stability demand in minimal invasive transforaminal interbody fusion.

Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages--a three-dimensional finite element analysis

Background

For anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), stand-alone cages can be supplemented with vertebral plate, locking screws, or threaded cylinder to avoid the use of posterior fixation. Intuitively, the plate, screw, and cylinder aim to be embedded into the vertebral bodies to effectively immobilize the cage itself. The kinematic and mechanical effects of these integrated components on the lumbar construct have not been extensively studied. A nonlinearly lumbar finite-element model was developed and validated to investigate the biomechanical differences between three stand-alone (Latero, SynFix, and Stabilis) and SynCage-Open plus transpedicular fixation. All four cages were instrumented at the L3-4 level.

Methods

The lumbar models were subjected to the follower load along the lumbar column and the moment at the lumbar top to produce flexion (FL), extension (EX), left/right lateral bending (LLB, RLB), and left/right axial rotation (LAR, RAR). A 10 Nm moment was applied to obtain the six physiological motions in all models. The comparison indices included disc range of motion (ROM), facet contact force, and stresses of the annulus and implants.

Results

At the surgical level, the SynCage-open model supplemented with transpedicular fixation decreased ROM (>76%) greatly; while the SynFix model decreased ROM 56-72%, the Latero model decreased ROM 36-91%, in all motions as compared with the INT model. However, the Stabilis model decreased ROM slightly in extension (11%), lateral bending (21%), and axial rotation (34%). At the adjacent levels, there were no obvious differences in ROM and annulus stress among all instrumented models.

Conclusions

ALIF instrumentation with the Latero or SynFix cage provides an acceptable stability for clinical use without the requirement of additional posterior fixation. However, the Stabilis cage is not favored in extension and lateral bending because of insufficient stabilization.

Microscopic anterior foraminal decompression combined with anterior lumbar interbody fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPF) provides successful surgical outcomes to isthmic spondylolisthesis patients with indirect decompression through foraminal volume expansion. However, indirect decompression through ALIF followed by PPF may not obtain a successful surgical outcome in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis accompanied by foraminal stenosis caused by a posterior osteophyte or foraminal sequestrated disc herniation. Thus far, there has been no report of foraminal decompression through anterior direct access in the lumbar spine.

PURPOSE

This study aims to describe the new surgical technique of microscopic anterior foraminal decompression and to analyze the clinical outcomes and radiologic results of the microscopic anterior decompression during ALIF followed by PPF.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

We conducted a multisurgeon, retrospective, clinical series from a single institution.

PATIENT SAMPLE

This study was carried out from March 2007 to July 2010 and included 40 consecutive patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis accompanied by foraminal stenosis caused by posterior osteophyte or foraminal sequestrated disc herniation undergoing microscopic anterior foraminal decompression during ALIF followed by PPF.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The visual analog scales (VAS) of back and leg pain and the Oswestry disability index were measured preoperatively and at the last follow-up.

METHODS

Postoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging measured whether decompression of neural structure had been made and morphometric change of the foramen and the amount of resected bone. Moreover, segmental lordosis, whole lumbar lordosis, disc height, and degree of listhesis were measured through X-ray examination before the operation and at the last follow-up; we also verified whether fusion had been achieved.

RESULTS

Successful decompression was confirmed in both patients with foraminal stenosis caused by posterior osteophyte and those with foraminal sequestrated disc herniation. Clinically, compared with before the surgery, the VAS (leg and back) and the Oswestry disability index significantly decreased at the last follow-up (p=.000). With regard to radiology, at the last follow-up all patients had bone fusion on X-ray examination, and an increase in disc height, a reduction in the degree of listhesis, an increase in segmental lordosis, and an increase in whole lumbar lordosis were significant in both groups (p=.000) compared with before the surgery. Foraminal volume, foraminal width, and foraminal height also significantly increased postoperatively compared with before the operation (p=.000). The height, width, and dimension of resected body were 4.61±1.05 mm, 7.92±1.42 mm, 17.15±4.96 mm(2), respectively, in patients with foraminal stenosis caused by a posterior osteophyte, and 3.88±0.92 mm, 6.8±1.29 mm, and 13.12±2.25 mm(2), respectively, in patients with foraminal sequestrated disc.

CONCLUSIONS

The microscopic anterior foraminal approach provides successful foraminal decompression. Combined with ALIF and PPF, this approach shows a good surgical outcome in patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis accompanied by foraminal stenosis caused by a posterior osteophyte or those with foraminal sequestrated disc herniation.

Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone lumbar polyether-ether-ketone interbody cage with integrated screws

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Stand-alone interbody cages with integrated screws potentially provide a biomechanically stable solution for anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) that alleviates the need for additional exposure for supplemental fixation, thereby reducing the chance of additional complications and morbidity.

PURPOSE

To compare the stability of a stand-alone anterior interbody fusion system with integrated fixation screws against traditional supplemental fixation methods and to evaluate the difference between three and four fixation screws in the stand-alone cage.

STUDY DESIGN

In vitro cadaveric biomechanical study.

METHODS

Eight cadaveric lumbar spines (L2-sacrum) were tested using a flexibility protocol consisting of three cycles to ±7.5 Nm in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. The conditions evaluated were intact spine; polyether-ether-ketone cage (zero integrated screws) at L4-L5; cage (zero screws)+bilateral pedicle screws (PS); cage (three screws); cage (four screws); cage (zero screws)+anterior plate; and cage (three screws)+spinous process plate. Motion at the index level was assessed using an optoelectronic system.

RESULTS

The cage without integrated screws reduced the motion in flexion-extension and lateral bending (p<.001) compared with that in the intact spine. In axial rotation, mean range of motion (ROM) was 8% greater than in intact spine (p>.962). The addition of three integrated screws reduced ROM significantly compared with the cage without screws in all motion planes (p<.001). A fourth screw had no statistically significant effect on the ROM, although there was a trend toward less motion with four screws compared with three. In flexion-extension, the cage with three integrated screws and the spinous process plate was the most rigid condition. There was no significant difference from the bilateral PS (p=.537); however, this was more rigid than all other conditions (p<.024). The most stable condition in lateral bending and axial rotation was the cage with bilateral PS. In lateral bending, the cage (three or four screws) was not significantly different from the cage with anterior plate or the cage (three screws) with spinous process plate fixation; however, only the latter condition was statistically comparable with bilateral PS. In axial rotation, there were no significant differences between the conditions that included integrated screws or supplemental fixation (p>.081).

CONCLUSIONS

Biomechanical testing revealed that the stand-alone cage with integrated screws provides more immediate stability than a cage alone and provides equivalent stability to ALIF constructs with supplemental fixation in lateral bending and axial rotation. Additional flexion-extension rigidity of the anterior cage maybe realized by the addition of a spinous process plate that was found to be as stable as supplemental bilateral PS.

[Revision strategies for ventral implant failure in the lumbar spine exemplified by stand-alone cages]

This article gives a review of the possible revision strategies after repeated operative treatment of degenerative spinal diseases using stand-alone cages. Own clinical experiences and reports from the literature were taken into consideration. Dorsal stabilization is the main consideration for all access routes even if it can be discussed, albeit controversially, whether ventral removal of an installed cage is justified, because this contains a significantly higher perioperative risk. The increased risk of neurological complications by dorsal revision and for vascular complications by ventral access, especially at the L4/5 level must be particularly considered. Clinical data and own experience have shown that in the majority of cases an additional dorsal stabilization should be favored for revision surgery. Currently large clinical studies which deal with the revision problematic of stand-alone cages with respect to the access route are still lacking.