Literature DB >> 30142459

Risk factors for cage migration and cage retropulsion following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Man-Kyu Park1, Kyoung-Tae Kim2, Woo-Seok Bang3, Dae-Chul Cho4, Joo-Kyung Sung4, Young-Seok Lee5, Chang Kyu Lee6, Chi Heon Kim7, Brian K Kwon8, Won-Kee Lee9, Inbo Han10.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a widely accepted surgical procedure, but cage migration (CM) and cage retropulsion (CR) are associated with poor outcomes.
PURPOSE: This study seeks to identify risk factors associated with these serious events. STUDY
DESIGN: A prospective observational longitudinal study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Over a 5-year period, 881 lumbar levels in 784 patients were treated using TLIF at three spinal surgery centers. OUTCOME MEASURES: We evaluated the odds ratio of the risk factors for CM with and without subsidence and CR in multivariate analysis.
METHODS: Our study classified CM into two subgroups: CM without subsidence and CM with subsidence. Cases of spinal canal and/or foramen intrusion of the cage was defined separately as CR. Patient records, operative notes, and radiographs were analyzed for factors potentially related to CM with subsidence, CM without subsidence, and CR.
RESULTS: Of 881 lumbar levels treated with TLIFs, CM without subsidence was observed in 20 (2.3%) and CM with subsidence was observed in 36 (4.1%) patients. Among the CM cases, CR was observed in 17 (17/56, 30.4%). The risk factors of CM without subsidence were osteoporosis (OR 8.73, p < .001) and use of a unilateral single cage (OR 3.57, p < .001). Osteoporosis (OR 5.77, p < .001) and endplate injury (OR 26.87, p < .001) were found to be significant risk factors for CM with subsidence. Risk factors of CR were osteoporosis (OR 7.86, p < .001), pear-shaped disc (OR 8.28, p = .001), endplate injury (OR 18.70, p < .001), unilateral single cage use (OR 4.40, p = .03), and posterior cage position (OR 6.45, p = .04). A difference in overall fusion rates was identified, with a rate of 97.1% (801 of 825) for no CM, 55.0% (11 of 20) for CM without subsidence, 41.7% (15 of 36) for CM with subsidence, and 17.6% (3 of 17) for CR at 1.5 years postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that osteoporosis is a significant risk factor for both CM and CR. In addition, a pear-shaped disc, posterior positioning of the cage, the presence of endplate injury and the use of a single cage were correlated with the CM with and without subsidence and CR.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cage migration; Cage retropulsion; Interbody cage; Osteoporosis; Risk factors; Subsidence; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Year:  2018        PMID: 30142459     DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.08.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  17 in total

1.  [Advances in research on Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion].

Authors:  Long Zhao; Jiancheng Zeng; Tianhang Xie; Xingxiao Pu; Yufei Lu
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-08-15

2.  Risk factors for cage subsidence and clinical outcomes after transforaminal and posterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Tiago Amorim-Barbosa; Catarina Pereira; Diogo Catelas; Cláudia Rodrigues; Paulo Costa; Ricardo Rodrigues-Pinto; Pedro Neves
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-08-31

3.  The Change of Spinal Canal According to Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis: A Prospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Young-Seok Lee; Dong-Hyun Lee; Dae-Chul Cho; Inbo Han; Chi Heon Kim; Heum-Dai Kwon; Kyoung-Tae Kim
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2022-05-13

4.  Safety and Tolerability of Stromal Vascular Fraction Combined with β-Tricalcium Phosphate in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Phase I Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Un Yong Choi; Kyoung-Tae Kim; Kwang Gi Kim; Sang Heon Lim; Young Jae Kim; Seil Sohn; Seung Hun Sheen; Chan Yeong Heo; Inbo Han
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-10-08       Impact factor: 6.600

5.  Endplate injury as a risk factor for cage retropulsion following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: An analysis of 1052 cases.

Authors:  Zhi-Jie Zhou; Ping Xia; Feng-Dong Zhao; Xiang-Qian Fang; Shun-Wu Fan; Jian-Feng Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  Risk factors for cage retropulsion after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in older patients.

Authors:  Nan Li; Min Dai; Bin Zhang; Da He; Yi Wei; Fangfang Duan; Yuqing Sun; Bo Liu; Fengbo Mo; Wei Tian
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2020-12

7.  Instrumented Posterolateral fusion versus instrumented Interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases in uremic patients under hemodialysis.

Authors:  Chia-Ning Ho; Jen-Chung Liao; Wen-Jer Chen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-12-05       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Mechanical properties and fluid permeability of gyroid and diamond lattice structures for intervertebral devices: functional requirements and comparative analysis.

Authors:  Anatolie Timercan; Vadim Sheremetyev; Vladimir Brailovski
Journal:  Sci Technol Adv Mater       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 8.090

9.  [Comparison of the effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion and posterior lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery].

Authors:  Guangduo Zhu; Yingjie Hao; Lei Yu; Cheng Peng; Jian Zhu; Panke Zhang
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-06-15

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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.