Does Interbody Cage Lordosis and Position Affect Radiographic Outcomes After Single-level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine if the degree of interbody cage lordosis and cage positioning are associated with changes in postoperative sagittal alignment after single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Ideal sagittal alignment and lumbopelvic alignment have been shown to correlate with postoperative clinical outcomes. TLIF is one technique that may improve these parameters, but whether the amount of cage lordosis improves either segmental or lumbar lordosis (LL) is unknown. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent single-level TLIF with either a 5-degree or a 12-degree lordotic cage. LL, segmental lordosis (SL), disk height, center point ratio, cage position, and cage subsidence were evaluated. Correlation between center point ratio and change in lordosis was assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Secondary analysis included multiple linear regression to determine independent predictors of change in SL. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients were included in the final analysis, with 51 patients receiving a 5-degree cage and 75 patients receiving a 12-degree cage. There were no differences in the postoperative minus preoperative LL (∆LL) (12-degree cage: -1.66 degrees vs. 5-degree cage: -2.88 degrees, P =0.528) or ∆SL (12-degree cage: -0.79 degrees vs. 5-degree cage: -1.68 degrees, P =0.513) at 1-month follow-up. Furthermore, no differences were found in ∆LL (12-degree cage: 2.40 degrees vs. 5-degree cage: 1.00 degrees, P =0.497) or ∆SL (12-degree cage: 1.24 degrees vs. 5-degree cage: 0.35 degrees, P =0.541) at final follow-up. Regression analysis failed to show demographic factors, cage positioning, or cage lordosis to be independent predictors of change in SL. No difference in subsidence was found between groups (12-degree cage: 25.5% vs. 5-degree cage: 32%, P =0.431). CONCLUSION: Lordotic cage angle and cage positioning were not associated with perioperative changes in LL, SL, or cage subsidence after single-level TLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Static Versus Expandable Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK) Interbody Cages: A Comparison of One-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for One-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of static versus expandable polyether ether ketone (PEEK) cages on both clinical and radiographic outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with either a static or expandable PEEK cage. Patient outcomes were obtained from chart review and radiographic outcomes were measured using standing, lateral radiographs. Recovery ratios and the proportion of patients achieving the minimally clinically important difference were calculated for Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Physical Component Score-12, Mental Component Score-12, visual analogue scale for back, and visual analogue scale for leg at 1 year and compared between groups. Multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to determine the effect of cage type on the change in patient-reported outcome measures, controlling for demographic factors. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients (137 static, 103 expandable) were included in the final analysis. ΔPhysical Component Score-12 scores at 3 months were significantly greater for the static group (16.0 vs. 10.0, P = 0.043) compared with the expandable group. Multivariate regression demonstrated that use of an expandable cage was associated with greater improvements in ΔODI (ß: -7.82, P = 0.048) at 1 year. No differences were found in the perioperative change in sagittal spinal alignment within or between groups at 1 year. Subsidence rates failed to show any statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with an expandable PEEK cage is an independent predictor of improved ODI scores at 1 year. Our study showed no significant differences in subsidence rates or changes in sagittal spinal alignment between static and expandable PEEK cages.