| Literature DB >> 32744116 |
Nam-Su Chung1, Han-Dong Lee1, Chang-Hoon Jeon1.
Abstract
STUDYEntities:
Keywords: Modic changes; oblique lateral interbody fusion; radiological outcome; subsidence; vertebral end plate lesions
Year: 2020 PMID: 32744116 PMCID: PMC8453684 DOI: 10.1177/2192568220941447
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Global Spine J ISSN: 2192-5682
Figure 1.Vertebral end plate (EP) lesions: (A) Modic changes, (B) Schmorl’s nodes, (C) EP cartilage erosion, and (D) EP sclerosis.
Figure 2.Oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) procedures. (A) Discectomy and cartilaginous end plate (EP) removal was performed through OLIF 25 tubular retractor system. (B) Lateral cage was filled with autologous iliac crest bone graft and demineralized bone matrix.
Associations among Vertebral End Plate (EP) Lesions.
| Modic changes | No (n = 53) | Yes (n = 72) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type 1 (n = 33) | Type 2 (n = 22) | Type 3 (n = 17) | ||
| Schmorl’s node (n = 26) | 9 | 8 | 4 | 5 |
| EP cartilage erosion (n = 31) | 2 | 11 | 8 | 10 |
| EP sclerosis (n = 44) | 7 | 14 | 11 | 12 |
Vertebral End Plate (EP) Lesions and Radiological Outcomes.a
| Modic changes | Schmorl’s node | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No (n = 53) | Yes (n = 72) | No (n = 99) | Yes (n = 26) | |
| Anterior disc height (mm) | ||||
| Preoperative | 8.6 ± 3.6 |
| 7.9 ± 3.7 |
|
| Last follow-up | 13.4 ± 2.7 | 12.8 ± 2.8 | 13.3 ± 2.9 | 12.8 ± 2.4 |
| Increase | 4.9 ± 2.8 |
| 5.3 ± 3.5 |
|
| Posterior disc height (mm) | ||||
| Preoperative | 5.4 ± 2.0 |
| 5.4 ± 1.7 |
|
| Last follow-up | 7.1 ± 1.4 | 6.6 ± 2.2 | 7.1 ± 2.4 | 6.5 ± 2.1 |
| Increase | 1.7 ± 2.4 | 2.2 ± 2.1 | 1.7 ± 2.2 | 2.5 ± 2.3 |
| Segmental angle (deg) | ||||
| Preoperative | 4.5 ± 6.2 |
| 3.5 ± 6.3 | 1.7 ± 4.7 |
| Last follow-up | 9.3 ± 4.3 | 9.0 ± 5.0 | 9.0 ± 4.1 | 9.4 ± 5.7 |
| Increase | 5.0 ± 5.8 | 7.6 ± 6.5 | 5.6 ± 6.0 | 7.7 ± 6.6 |
| Cage subsidence | 5 | 4 | 6 | 3 |
| EP cartilage erosion | EP sclerosis | |||
| No (n = 94) | Yes (n = 31) | No (n = 81) | Yes (n = 44) | |
| Anterior disc height (mm) | ||||
| Preoperative | 7.0 ± 3.7 | 6.9 ± 4.2 | 7.7 ± 3.5 | 6.6 ± 3.9 |
| Last follow-up | 13.2 ± 2.6 | 12.8 ± 3.4 | 13.7 ± 2.6 | 12.8 ± 2.7 |
| Increase | 6.2 ± 3.8 | 6.0 ± 3.9 | 6.1 ± 3.4 | 6.2 ± 4.0 |
| Posterior disc height (mm) | ||||
| Preoperative | 4.8 ± 2.0 | 5.2 ± 2.9 | 5.4 ± 2.0 | 4.6 ± 2.2 |
| Last follow-up | 6.9 ± 2.3 | 6.4 ± 2.5 | 7.2 ± 2.3 | 6.7 ± 2.3 |
| Increase | 2.1 ± 2.2 | 1.2 ± 2.6 | 1.8 ± 2.4 | 2.0 ± 2.2 |
| Segmental angle (deg) | ||||
| Preoperative | 3.0 ± 5.8 | 2.8 ± 6.4 | 3.5 ± 5.9 | 2.6 ± 5.8 |
| Last follow-up | 9.2 ± 4.8 | 8.8 ± 4.4 | 9.6 ± 4.5 | 8.9 ± 4.8 |
| Increase | 6.4 ± 6.3 | 6.0 ± 6.3 | 6.4 ± 6.2 | 6.3 ± 6.3 |
| Cage subsidence | 6 | 3 | 7 | 1 |
a Boldfaced values are statistically significant.
Figure 3.An illustration of oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) case at vertebral end plate (EP) lesion. (A) A 63-year-old male patient presented with adjacent segment pathology at the L2-3 level. He had undergone OLIF at the L3-4-5 levels 3 years before the presentation. Black arrow indicates a huge vertebral EP lesion. (B) Additional OLIF was performed at the L2-3 level. Despite the huge EP lesion, a successful fusion was observed.