Literature DB >> 28620787

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

Priyan R Landham1, Angus S Don2, Peter A Robertson3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To examine monosegmental lordosis after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery and relate lordosis to cage size, shape, and placement.
METHODS: Eighty-three consecutive patients underwent single-level PLIF with paired identical lordotic cages involving a wide decompression and bilateral facetectomies. Cage parameters relating to size (height, lordosis, and length) and placement (expressed as a ratio relative to the length of the inferior vertebral endplate) were recorded. Centre point ratio (CPR) was the distance to the centre of both cages and indicated mean position of both cages. Posterior gap ratio (PGR) was the distance to the most posterior cage and indicated position and cage length indirectly. Relationships between lordosis and cage parameters were explored.
RESULTS: Mean lordosis increased by 5.98° (SD 6.86°). The cages used varied in length from 20 to 27 mm, in lordosis from 10° to 18°, and in anterior cage height from 10 to 17 mm. The mean cage placement as determined by CPR was 0.54 and by PGR was 0.16. The significant correlations were: both CPR and PGR with lordosis gain at surgery (r = 0.597 and 0.537, respectively, p < 0.001 both), cage lordosis with the final lordosis (r = 0.234, p < 0.05), and anterior cage height was negatively correlated with a change in lordosis (r = -0.297, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Cage size, shape, and position, in addition to surgical technique, determine lordosis during PLIF surgery. Anterior placement with sufficient "clear space" behind the cages is recommended. In addition, cages should be of moderate height and length, so that they act as an effective pivot for lordosis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cage; Fusion; Lordosis; Lumbar; Position

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28620787     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5170-z

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


  34 in total

1.  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

2.  Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study.

Authors:  Frank Schwab; Benjamin Ungar; Benjamin Blondel; Jacob Buchowski; Jeffrey Coe; Donald Deinlein; Christopher DeWald; Hossein Mehdian; Christopher Shaffrey; Clifford Tribus; Virginie Lafage
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2012-05-20       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Jin-Sung Kim; Byung-Uk Kang; Sang-Ho Lee; Byungjoo Jung; Young-Geun Choi; Sang Hyeop Jeon; Ho Yeon Lee
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2009-04

4.  Correlation of clinical outcome and spinopelvic sagittal alignment after surgical treatment of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  A Bourghli; S Aunoble; O Reebye; J C Le Huec
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2011-08-02       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain.

Authors:  M Roland; R Morris
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Comparative study of lumbopelvic sagittal alignment between patients with and without sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Myung-Hoon Shin; Kyeong-Sik Ryu; Jung-Woo Hur; Jin-Sung Kim; Chun-Kun Park
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion.

Authors:  M N Kumar; A Baklanov; D Chopin
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Radiographic spinal profile changes induced by cage design after posterior lumbar interbody fusion preliminary report of a study with wedged implants.

Authors:  O Diedrich; L Perlick; O Schmitt; C N Kraft
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2001-06-15       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Comparison of sagittal contour and posterior disc height following interbody fusion: threaded cylindrical cages versus structural allograft versus vertical cages.

Authors:  Adam T Groth; Timothy R Kuklo; William R Klemme; David W Polly; Teresa M Schroeder
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2005-08

10.  Position of interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: effect on 3-dimensional stability and sagittal lumbar contour.

Authors:  Antonio A Faundez; Amir A Mehbod; Chunhui Wu; Wentien Wu; Avraam Ploumis; Ensor E Transfeldt
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2008-05
View more
  10 in total

1.  Morphometry evaluations of cervical osseous endplates based on three dimensional reconstructions.

Authors:  Hang Feng; Haoxi Li; Zhaoyu Ba; Zhaoxiong Chen; Xinhua Li; Desheng Wu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  [Safety and efficacy of an electron beam melting technique-manufactured titanium mesh cage for lumbar interbody fusion].

Authors:  Timo Zippelius; Patrick Strube; Farid Suleymanov; Michael Putzier; Alexander Hölzl
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Deterioration of the fixation segment's stress distribution and the strength reduction of screw holding position together cause screw loosening in ALSR fixed OLIF patients with poor BMD.

Authors:  Jing-Chi Li; Zhi-Qiang Yang; Tian-Hang Xie; Zhe-Tao Song; Yue-Ming Song; Jian-Cheng Zeng
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-08-30

4.  Does change in focal lordosis after spinal fusion affect clinical outcomes in degenerative spondylolisthesis?

Authors:  Brian A Karamian; Stephen DiMaria; Mark J Lambrechts; Nicholas D D'Antonio; Andrew Sawires; Jose A Canseco; I David Kaye; Barrett I Woods; Mark F Kurd; Jeffery A Rihn; Joseph K Lee; Alan S Hilibrand; Christopher K Kepler; Alexander R Vaccaro; Gregory D Schroeder
Journal:  J Craniovertebr Junction Spine       Date:  2022-06-13

5.  Clinical outcomes for lumbar fusion using silicon nitride versus other biomaterials.

Authors:  Graham C Calvert; George VanBuren Huffmon; William M Rambo; Micah W Smith; Bryan J McEntire; B Sonny Bal
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-03

6.  Impact of lordotic cages in the restoration of spinopelvic parameters after dorsal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective case control study.

Authors:  Stavros Oikonomidis; Vincent Heck; Sonja Bantle; Max Joseph Scheyerer; Christoph Hofstetter; Stefan Budde; Peer Eysel; Jan Bredow
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 3.075

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

Authors:  Qing Ding; Xiangyu Tang; Ruizhuo Zhang; Hua Wu; Chaoxu Liu
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 2.071

8.  Restoration and maintenance of segment lordosis in oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Ke Gong; Yang Lin; Zhibin Wang; Feng Li; Wei Xiong
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-10-14       Impact factor: 2.562

9.  Two-year results of a double-blind multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) versus silicon nitride spinal fusion cages in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disorders.

Authors:  Bryan J McEntire; Greg Maslin; B Sonny Bal
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-09

10.  Do the positioning variables of the cage contribute to adjacent facet joint degeneration? Radiological and clinical analysis following intervertebral fusion.

Authors:  Fuping Li; Xinhua Zhan; Xin Xi; Zhili Zeng; Bin Ma; Ning Xie; Rui Zhu; Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Guoan Li; Yan Yu; Liming Cheng
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-05
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.