Analysis of the causes of cage subsidence after oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion / 中国骨伤

OBJECTIVE@#To observe the cage subsidence after oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF) for lumbar spondylosis, summarize the characteristics of the cage subsidence, analyze causes, and propose preventive measures.@*METHODS@#The data of 144 patients of lumbar spine lesions admitted to our hospital from October 2015 to December 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 43 males and 101 females, and the age ranged from 20 to 81 years old, with an average of (60.90±10.06) years old. Disease types:17 patients of lumbar intervertebral disc degenerative disease, 12 patients of giant lumbar disc herniation, 5 patients of discogenic low back pain, 33 patients of lumbar spinal stenosis, 26 patients of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis, 28 patients of lumbar spondylolisthesis with spondylolisthesis, 11 patients of adjacent vertebral disease after lumbar internal fixation, 7 patients of primary spondylitis in the inflammatory outcome stage, and 5 patients of lumbar degenerative scoliosis. Preoperative dual-energy X-ray bone mineral density examination showed 57 patients of osteopenia or osteoporosis, and 87 patients of normal bone density. The number of fusion segments:124 patients of single-segment, 11 patients of two-segment, 8 patients of three-segment, four-segment 1 patient. There were 40 patients treated by stand-alone OLIF, and 104 patients by OLIF combined with posterior pedicle screw. Observed the occurrence of fusion cage settlement after operation, conducted monofactor analysis on possible risk factors, and observed the influence of fusion cage settlement on clinical results.@*RESULTS@#All operations were successfully completed, the median operation time was 99 min, and the median intraoperative blood loss was 106 ml. Intraoperative endplate injury occurred in 30 patients and vertebral fracture occurred in 5 patients. The mean follow-up was (14.57±7.14) months from 6 to 30 months. During the follow-up, except for the patients of primary lumbar interstitial inflammation and some patients of lumbar spondylolisthesis with spondylolisthesis, the others all had different degrees of cage subsidence. Cage subsidence classification:119 patients were normal subsidence, and 25 patients were abnormal subsidence (23 patients were gradeⅠ, and 2 patients were gradeⅡ). There was no loosening or rupture of the pedicle screw system. The height of the intervertebral space recovered from the preoperative average (9.48±1.84) mm to the postoperative average (12.65±2.03) mm, and the average (10.51±1.81) mm at the last follow-up. There were statistical differences between postoperative and preoperative, and between the last follow-up and postoperative. The interbody fusion rate was 94.4%. The low back pain VAS decreased from the preoperative average (6.55±2.2 9) to the last follow-up (1.40±0.82), and there was statistically significant different. The leg pain VAS decreased from the preoperative average (4.72±1.49) to the final follow-up (0.60±0.03), and the difference was statistically significant (t=9.13, P<0.000 1). The ODI index recovered from the preoperative average (38.50±6.98)% to the latest follow-up (11.30±3.27)%, and there was statistically significant different. The complication rate was 31.3%(45/144), and the reoperation rate was 9.72%(14/144). Among them, 8 patients were reoperated due to fusion cage subsidence or displacement, accounting for 57.14%(8/14) of reoperation. The fusion cage subsidence in this group had obvious characteristics. The monofactor analysis showed that the number of abnormal subsidence patients in the osteopenia or osteoporosis group, Stand-alone OLIF group, 2 or more segments fusion group, and endplate injury group was higher than that in the normal bone mass group, OLIF combined with pedicle screw fixation group, single segment fusion group, and no endplate injury group, and the comparison had statistical differences.@*CONCLUSION@#Cage subsidence is a common phenomenon after OLIF surgery. Preoperative osteopenia or osteoporosis, Stand-alone OLIF, 2 or more segments of fusion and intraoperative endplate injury may be important factors for postoperative fusion cage subsidence. Although there is no significant correlation between the degree of cage subsidence and clinical symptoms, there is a risk of cage migration, and prevention needs to be strengthened to reduce serious complications caused by fusion of cage subsidence, including reoperation.

Clinical and Radiological Results of Microsurgical Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Decompression without Posterior Instrumentation for Lateral Recess Stenosis

STUDY DESIGN: A single-center, retrospective patient review of clinical and radiological outcomes of microsurgical posterior lumbar interbody fusion and decompression, without posterior instrumentation, for the treatment of lateral recess stenosis. PURPOSE: This study documented the clinical and radiological results of microsurgical posterior lumbar interbody fusion and decompression of the lateral recess using interbody cages without posterior instrumentation for the treatment of lateral recess stenosis. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Although microsurgery has some advantages, various complications have been reported following microsurgical decompression, including cage migration, pseudoarthrosis, neurologic deficits, and persistent pain. METHODS: A total of 34 patients (13 men, 21 women), with a mean age of 56.65+/-9.1 years (range, 40-77 years) confirmed spinal stability, and preoperative radiological findings of lateral recess stenosis, were included in the study. Interbody polyetheretherketone cages and auto grafts were used in all patients. Posterior instrumentation was not used because of limited resection of the posterior lumbar structures. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs, computed tomography scans, and magnetic resonance imaging were assessed and compared to images taken at the final follow-up. Functional recovery was also evaluated according to the Macnab criteria at the final follow-up. RESULTS: The average follow-up time was 35.05+/-8.65 months (range, 24-46 months). The clinical results, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and duration of hospital stay were similar to previously published results; the fusion rate (85.2%) was decreased and the migration rate (5.8%) was increased, compared with prior reports. CONCLUSIONS: Although microsurgery has some advantages, migration and pseudoarthrosis remain challenges to achieving adequate lumbar interbody fusion.