Literature DB >> 23563336

A cadaveric radiographic analysis on the effect of extreme lateral interbody fusion cage placement with supplementary internal fixation on indirect spine decompression.

German A Marulanda1, Aniruddh Nayak, Ryan Murtagh, Brandon G Santoni, James B Billys, Antonio E Castellvi.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Cadaveric Biomechanical and Radiographic Analysis.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the changes in intervertebral height and lateral and central recess areas afforded by lateral interbody fusion cages with 2 supplemental forms of internal fixation in cadaveric specimens. BACKGROUND DATA: When conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar stenosis fails, traditional intervention has been direct posterior decompression. The minimally invasive, lateral transpsoas approach may be a viable alternative to direct decompression by providing restoration of the foraminal and intervertebral dimensions, yet few reports have examined the anatomic and radiographic changes that occur using this technique.
METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) scans were taken of 18 intact lumbar (L1-S1) cadaveric specimens under a 400 N preload. Intervertebral height, foraminal areas, and canal area were measured at L3-L4 and L4-L5. Thereafter, the cadaveric specimens were instrumented with lateral cages placed in the central or posterior third of the disk space at L3-L4 and L4-L5 and either (1) lateral plate (n=9) or (2) bilateral posterior pedicle screw fixation (n=9). All constructs were again subjected to a 400 N preload, postinstrumentation CT scans were taken, and changes in intervertebral height and lateral and central recess areas were calculated.
RESULTS: There was no effect of cage placement on any radiographic metric of indirect decompression for either fusion construct. In the lateral plate and pedicle screw groups, respectively, significant increases in average posterior disk height (30.9%, 60.1%), average right (35.3%, 61.5%) and left foraminal area (48.3%, 57.8%), and average canal area (32.3%, 33.3%) were observed. Pedicle screw instrumentation afforded a significantly greater increase in average posterior disk height and foraminal area compared with the lateral plate group, though there was no difference in the average increase in canal area afforded by either form of fixation.
CONCLUSIONS: The radiographic results reported here using a cadaveric model add validity to the underlying rationale described for the minimally invasive lateral approach technique. Increases in disk height, foraminal and canal areas were not dependent on cage positioning within the disk space. As intraoperative placement of a cage in the central portion of the disk is an easier and safer technique, our results suggest that central placement may be preferable in a clinical setting.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 23563336     DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828f9da1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  10 in total

1.  Central and foraminal indirect decompression in MIS lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): video lecture.

Authors:  Eric H Elowitz
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 2.  MIS lateral spine surgery: a systematic literature review of complications, outcomes, and economics.

Authors:  Jeff A Lehmen; Edward J Gerber
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Indirect Decompression for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Stenosis.

Authors:  Peter B Derman; Donna D Ohnmeiss; Abbey Lauderback; Richard D Guyer
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-12

4.  Indirect decompression of lumbar stenosis with transpsoas interbody cages and percutaneous posterior instrumentation.

Authors:  Antonio E Castellvi; Thomas W Nienke; German A Marulanda; Ryan D Murtagh; Brandon G Santoni
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Early clinical and radiological results of unilateral posterior pedicle instrumentation through a Wiltse approach with lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Jerry Y Du; Paul D Kiely; Eric Bogner; Motasem Al Maaieh; Alexander Aichmair; Stephan N Salzmann; Russel C Huang
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-09

6.  Biomechanical evaluation of interbody fixation with secondary augmentation: lateral lumbar interbody fusion versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Jakub Godzik; Samuel Kalb; Marco T Reis; Phillip M Reyes; Vaneet Singh; Anna G U S Newcomb; Steve W Chang; Brian P Kelly; Neil R Crawford
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

7.  Effects on inadvertent endplate fracture following lateral cage placement on range of motion and indirect spine decompression in lumbar spine fusion constructs: A cadaveric study.

Authors:  Brandon G Santoni; Gerald E Alexander; Aniruddh Nayak; Andres Cabezas; German A Marulanda; Ryan Murtagh; Antonio E Castellvi
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2013-12-01

8.  Intraoperative Myelography in Transpsoas Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Preliminary Prospective Study.

Authors:  Yang Yang; Liangming Zhang; Jianwen Dong; Zihao Chen; Peigen Xie; Ruiqiang Chen; Lei He; Feng Feng; Limin Rong; Bin Liu
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  One-stage extreme lateral interbody fusion and percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spine tuberculosis.

Authors:  Q-Y Wang; M-G Huang; D-Q Ou; Y-C Xu; J-W Dong; H-D Yin; W Chen; L-M Rong
Journal:  J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.041

10.  Resting Pain Level as a Preoperative Predictor of Success With Indirect Decompression for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Amrit S Khalsa; Areian Eghbali; Robert K Eastlack; Stacie Tran; Behrooz A Akbarnia; Justin B Ledesma; Gregory M Mundis
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2018-07-26
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.