Jong-Tae Kim1, Myung-Hoon Shin2, Ho-Jin Lee1, Du-Yong Choi1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Incheon St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 56 Dongsu-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, 403-720, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Incheon St Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 56 Dongsu-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, 403-720, Republic of Korea. novice97@naver.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate a radiological and clinical difference between the curvilinear type cages compared to the straight type cages for the restoration of lumbopelvic sagittal alignment and its maintenance after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure. METHODS: 68 patients who underwent single-level TLIF using either the straight type or curvilinear type cage were retrospectively reviewed. Assessment of the lumbopelvic parameters and the height of disc space was performed before surgery as well as 2 days, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Clinical outcome was assessed using VAS and ODI. RESULTS: The curvilinear type cages were positioned more anteriorly than the straight type. Restoration of the segmental lordosis (SL) in the curvilinear group was significantly greater than the straight group and at 12 months of follow-up, the straight group showed greater decrease in the disc height than the curvilinear group. The straight group failed to show improvement of lumbar lordosis (LL), while the curvilinear group showed significant restoration of LL and could maintain it to the 6 months of follow-up. In both groups, pelvic tilt was significantly decreased and it lasted to 6 months in the straight group; whereas in the curvilinear group, it was maintained to the last follow-up of 12 months. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean VAS and ODI score over the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the curvilinear type cage is superior to the straight type cage in improving the SL and maintaining both the restored lumbopelvic parameters and elevated disc height. These results could be attributable to the anterior position of the curvilinear cage which permits easy restoration of segmental lordosis and less sinking of cages.
PURPOSE: To evaluate a radiological and clinical difference between the curvilinear type cages compared to the straight type cages for the restoration of lumbopelvic sagittal alignment and its maintenance after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure. METHODS: 68 patients who underwent single-level TLIF using either the straight type or curvilinear type cage were retrospectively reviewed. Assessment of the lumbopelvic parameters and the height of disc space was performed before surgery as well as 2 days, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Clinical outcome was assessed using VAS and ODI. RESULTS: The curvilinear type cages were positioned more anteriorly than the straight type. Restoration of the segmental lordosis (SL) in the curvilinear group was significantly greater than the straight group and at 12 months of follow-up, the straight group showed greater decrease in the disc height than the curvilinear group. The straight group failed to show improvement of lumbar lordosis (LL), while the curvilinear group showed significant restoration of LL and could maintain it to the 6 months of follow-up. In both groups, pelvic tilt was significantly decreased and it lasted to 6 months in the straight group; whereas in the curvilinear group, it was maintained to the last follow-up of 12 months. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean VAS and ODI score over the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the curvilinear type cage is superior to the straight type cage in improving the SL and maintaining both the restored lumbopelvic parameters and elevated disc height. These results could be attributable to the anterior position of the curvilinear cage which permits easy restoration of segmental lordosis and less sinking of cages.
Authors: Thomas G Lowe; Shukor Hashim; Lucas A Wilson; Michael F O'Brien; David A B Smith; Molly J Diekmann; Julie Trommeter Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-11-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Patrick C Hsieh; Tyler R Koski; Brian A O'Shaughnessy; Patrick Sugrue; Sean Salehi; Stephen Ondra; John C Liu Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2007-10