Literature DB >> 19475436

The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation.

Alexander Abbushi1, Mario Cabraja, Ulrich-Wilhelm Thomale, Christian Woiciechowsky, Stefan Nikolaus Kroppenstedt.   

Abstract

In posterior lumbar interbody fusion, cage migrations and lower fusion rates compared to autologous bone graft used in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure are documented. Anatomical and biomechanical data have shown that the cage positioning and cage type seem to play an important role. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion. We created a grid system for the endplates to analyze different cage positions. To analyze the influence of the cage type, we compared "closed" box titanium cages with "open" box titanium cages. This study included 40 patients with 80 implanted cages. After pedicle screw fixation, 23 patients were treated with a "closed box" cage and 17 patients with an "open box" cage. The follow-up period averaged 25 months. Twenty cages (25%) showed a migration into one vertebral endplate of <3 mm and four cages (5%) showed a migration of > or =3 mm. Cage migration was highest in the medio-medial position (84.6%), followed by the postero-lateral (42.9%), and the postero-medial (16%) cage position. Closed box cages had a significantly higher migration rate than open box cages, but fusion rates did not differ. In conclusion, cage positioning and cage type influence cage migration. The medio-medial cage position showed the highest migration rate. Regarding the cage type, open box cages seem to be associated with lower migration rates compared to closed box cages. However, the cage type did not influence bone fusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19475436      PMCID: PMC2899391          DOI: 10.1007/s00586-009-1036-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  23 in total

1.  Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbar spine stability.

Authors:  J C Goh; H K Wong; A Thambyah; C S Yu
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates.

Authors:  J P Grant; T R Oxland; M F Dvorak
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Analysis of titanium mesh cages in adults with minimum two-year follow-up.

Authors:  K R Eck; K H Bridwell; F F Ungacta; M A Lapp; L G Lenke; K D Riew
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-09-15       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Comparative study of iliac bone graft and carbon cage with local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Yasuhisa Arai; Masaki Takahashi; Hisashi Kurosawa; Katsuo Shitoto
Journal:  J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 1.118

5.  Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients.

Authors:  Finn B Christensen; Ebbe S Hansen; Søren P Eiskjaer; Kristian Høy; Peter Helmig; Pavel Neumann; Bent Niedermann; Cody E Bünger
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-12-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Cage migration in spondylolisthesis treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using BAK cages.

Authors:  Liang Chen; Huilin Yang; Tiansi Tang
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial.

Authors:  J W Brantigan; A D Steffee; M L Lewis; L M Quinn; J M Persenaire
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Effect of endplate conditions and bone mineral density on the compressive strength of the graft-endplate interface in anterior cervical spine fusion.

Authors:  T H Lim; H Kwon; C H Jeon; J G Kim; M Sokolowski; R Natarajan; H S An; G B Andersson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device.

Authors:  W J Elias; N E Simmons; G J Kaptain; J B Chadduck; R Whitehill
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 5.115

10.  Four-year follow-up results of lumbar spine arthrodesis using the Bagby and Kuslich lumbar fusion cage.

Authors:  S D Kuslich; G Danielson; J D Dowdle; J Sherman; B Fredrickson; H Yuan; S L Griffith
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  28 in total

1.  Advanced Multi-Axis Spine Testing: Clinical Relevance and Research Recommendations.

Authors:  Timothy P Holsgrove; Nikhil R Nayak; William C Welch; Beth A Winkelstein
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2015-07-17

2.  Perioperative Complications in 255 Patients Who Underwent Lateral Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LaLIF) Surgery.

Authors:  Jiaming Cui; Xingyu Guo; Zhaomin Zheng; Hui Liu; Hua Wang; Zemin Li; Jianru Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-04-19       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  A preclinical large animal study on a novel intervertebral fusion cage covered with high porosity titanium sheets with a triple pore structure used for spinal fusion.

Authors:  Katsuhisa Yamada; Manabu Ito; Toshiyuki Akazawa; Masaru Murata; Toru Yamamoto; Norimasa Iwasaki
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-05-31       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  [The PLIF and TLIF techniques. Indication, technique, advantages, and disadvantages].

Authors:  C Fleege; M Rickert; M Rauschmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  An analysis of fusion cage migration in unilateral and bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Jan William Duncan; Richard Anthony Bailey
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 3.134

6.  Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction.

Authors:  Priyan R Landham; Angus S Don; Peter A Robertson
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2017-06-15       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Biomechanical effects of direction-changeable cage positions on lumbar spine: a finite element study.

Authors:  Haiping Zhang; Dingjun Hao; Honghui Sun; Sinmin He; Biao Wang; Huimin Hu; Yongyuan Zhang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2020-02-15       Impact factor: 4.060

8.  Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation with cage fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Shan-Wen Xiao; Hua Jiang; Li-Jing Yang; Zeng-Ming Xiao
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  The summary of experience of abdominal vascular injury related to posterior lumbar surgery.

Authors:  Bingchuan Liu; Kaifeng Ye; Shan Gao; Kaixi Liu; Hui Feng; Fang Zhou; Yun Tian
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  [Application of modified direction-changeable lumbar Cage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion].

Authors:  Haiping Zhang; Dingjun Hao; Baorong He; Qinpeng Zhao; Xiaodong Wang; Tuanjiang Liu; Simin He
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2019-04-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.