Evolution of Titanium Interbody Cages and Current Uses of 3D Printed Titanium in Spine Fusion Surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the history of titanium implants in spine fusion surgery and its evolution over time. RECENT FINDINGS: Titanium interbody cages used in spine fusion surgery have evolved from solid metal blocks to porous structures with varying shapes and sizes in order to provide stability while minimizing adverse side effects. Advancements in technology, especially 3D printing, have allowed for the creation of highly customizable spinal implants to fit patient specific needs. Recent evidence suggests that customizing shape and density of the implants may improve patient outcomes compared to current industry standards. Future work is warranted to determine the practical feasibility and long-term clinical outcomes of patients using 3D printed spine fusion implants. Outcomes in spine fusion surgery have improved greatly due to technological advancements. 3D printed spinal implants, in particular, may improve outcomes in patients undergoing spine fusion surgery when compared to current industry standards. Long term follow up and direct comparison between implant characteristics is required for the adoption of 3D printed implants as the standard of care.

Interbody cages versus structural bone grafts in lumbar arthrodesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The role of interbodies in lumbar arthrodesis has been insufficiently supported by evidence, impacting clinical decision-making and occasionally insurance coverage. This study aimed to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between lumbar arthrodesis with a synthetic interbody spacer (cage) versus structural bone graft alone (autograft or allograft) in patients with degenerative spine disease. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies directly comparing outcomes of lumbar interbody arthrodesis with and without interbody cage use. The outcomes of individual studies were synthesized in meta-analyses using random-effects models. RESULTS: Twenty studies with 1508 patients (769 with an interbody cage and 739 without an interbody cage) were included. Interbody cage placement was associated with a significantly greater increase in disc height after surgery (4.0 mm vs 3.4 mm, p < 0.01). There was a significantly greater reduction of back pain (visual analog scale [VAS] score) in cases in which an interbody cage was used (5.4 vs 4.7, p = 0.03). Fusion rates were 5.5% higher in the cage group (96.3% vs 90.8%) and reached statistical significance (p = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups regarding all-cause reoperation rates, complication rates, or improvement in Oswestry Disability Index score or leg pain (VAS score). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that implantation of an interbody cage is associated with higher rates of fusion, more effective maintenance of disc height, and greater improvement of back pain. This study underlines the clinical value of interbody cages in lumbar arthrodesis for patients with degenerative spine disease.

Development of End-to-End Artificial Intelligence Models for Surgical Planning in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a commonly used technique for treating lumbar degenerative diseases. In this study, we developed a fully computer-supported pipeline to predict both the cage height and the degree of lumbar lordosis subtraction from the pelvic incidence (PI-LL) after TLIF surgery, utilizing preoperative X-ray images. The automated pipeline comprised two primary stages. First, the pretrained BiLuNet deep learning model was employed to extract essential features from X-ray images. Subsequently, five machine learning algorithms were trained using a five-fold cross-validation technique on a dataset of 311 patients to identify the optimal models to predict interbody cage height and postoperative PI-LL. LASSO regression and support vector regression demonstrated superior performance in predicting interbody cage height and postoperative PI-LL, respectively. For cage height prediction, the root mean square error (RMSE) was calculated as 1.01, and the model achieved the highest accuracy at a height of 12 mm, with exact prediction achieved in 54.43% (43/79) of cases. In most of the remaining cases, the prediction error of the model was within 1 mm. Additionally, the model demonstrated satisfactory performance in predicting PI-LL, with an RMSE of 5.19 and an accuracy of 0.81 for PI-LL stratification. In conclusion, our results indicate that machine learning models can reliably predict interbody cage height and postoperative PI-LL.

Comparing the osteogenesis outcomes of different lumbar interbody fusions (A/O/X/T/PLIF) by evaluating their mechano-driven fusion processes.

BACKGROUND: In lumbar interbody fusion (LIF), achieving proper fusion status requires osteogenesis to occur in the disc space. Current LIF techniques, including anterior, oblique, lateral, transforaminal, and posterior LIF (A/O/X/T/PLIF), may result in varying osteogenesis outcomes due to differences in biomechanical characteristics. METHODS: A mechano-regulation algorithm was developed to predict the fusion processes of A/O/X/T/PLIF based on finite element modeling and iterative evaluations of the mechanobiological activities of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and their differentiated cells (osteoblasts, chondrocytes, and fibroblasts). Fusion occurred in the grafting region, and each differentiated cell type generated the corresponding tissue proportional to its concentration. The corresponding osteogenesis volume was calculated by multiplying the osteoblast concentration by the grafting volume. RESULTS: TLIF and ALIF achieved markedly greater osteogenesis volumes than did PLIF and O/XLIF (5.46, 5.12, 4.26, and 3.15 cm3, respectively). Grafting volume and cage size were the main factors influencing the osteogenesis outcome in patients treated with LIF. A large grafting volume allowed more osteoblasts (bone tissues) to be accommodated in the disc space. A small cage size reduced the cage/endplate ratio and therefore decreased the stiffness of the LIF. This led to a larger osteogenesis region to promote osteoblastic differentiation of MSCs and osteoblast proliferation (bone regeneration), which subsequently increased the bone fraction in the grafting space. CONCLUSION: TLIF and ALIF produced more favorable biomechanical environments for osteogenesis than did PLIF and O/XLIF. A small cage and a large grafting volume improve osteogenesis by facilitating osteogenesis-related cell activities driven by mechanical forces.

Comparing Outcomes of Banana-Shaped and Straight Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aims to refine the understanding of the optimal choice between different cage shapes in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by systematically comparing perioperative data, radiological outcomes, clinical results, and complications associated with banana-shaped and straight bullet cages. METHODS: A meticulous literature search encompassing PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, and Wanfang Data was executed up to October 5, 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on studies comparing banana-shaped and straight bullet cages in TLIF. The quality of included studies was assessed using appropriate tools such as the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for nonrandomized studies. Rigorous evaluations were performed for radiographic outcomes, including disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), subsidence, and fusion rates. Clinical outcomes were meticulously evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications. RESULTS: The analysis incorporated 7 studies, involving 573 patients (297 with banana-shaped cages, 276 with straight cages), all with NOS ratings exceeding 5 stars. No statistically significant differences were observed in operative time, blood loss, or hospitalization between the 2 cage shapes. Banana-shaped cages exhibited greater changes in DH (p = 0.001), SL (p = 0.02), and LL (p = 0.01). Despite statistically higher changes in ODI for straight cages (26.33, p < 0.0001), the actual value remained similar to banana-shaped cages (26.15). Both cage types demonstrated similar efficacy in VAS, complication rates, subsidence, and fusion rates. CONCLUSION: Although banana-shaped cages can excel in restoring DH, SL, and LL, straight bullet cages can provide comparable functional improvements, pain relief, and complication rates.

Risk Factors of Cage Subsidence Following Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the risk factors for cage subsidence (CS) after oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). METHODS: The cohort and case-control studies which reporting potential risk factors for CS following OLIF were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception to June 17, 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of the literature according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RevMan5.3 software was used for Meta analysis. χ2 statistics and I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity, and the analysis results were represented by forest plots. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies with 280 cases of CS from 832 patients who underwent OLIF met the inclusion criteria. Elderly patients over 60 years old (odds ratio [OR] 2.44, 95% CI 1.38-4.31, P = 0.002), osteoporosis (OR 4.18, 95% CI 2.30-7.61, P = 0.002), end plate injury (OR 5.72, 95% CI 2.32-14.11, P = 0.0002), and overdistraction of intervertebral space (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.3 2-2.11, P < 0.0001) were potential risk factors, while Hounsfield units value of the vertebral body (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, P = 0.02) is a protective factor. The number of operative segments did not increase the risk of CS. CONCLUSIONS: Older age, osteoporosis, endplate injury, and overdistraction of the intervertebral space may increase the risk of CS after OLIF. Although the incidence rate of CS is low, implementing effective preventions is a priority for clinicians based on these risk factors.

The Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion Using a Stand-Alone Implant Versus Traditional Interbody Polyetheretherketone Cage, Titanium Plate, and Screw Instrumentation.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) is the standard surgical procedure for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy, although ACDF includes risks of adjacent segment disease (ASD) and subsequent revision procedures. Various interbody cage, plate, and screw options can be utilized. Stand-alone devices were designed to overcome undesired complications of hardware prominence and associated dysphagia, soft tissue violation, and adjacent level encroachment. Implants include biomechanical structural support (cage) composed of various materials (polyetheretherketone (PEEK)/titanium) and integral fixation (screws/blades). The purpose was to compare intraoperative, short- and long-term outcomes of revision ACDF using a stand-alone implant (ACDF-ZP group) versus traditional interbody PEEK cage, titanium plate, and screw instrumentation (ACDF-CP group). METHODS: This was a retrospective, cohort study reviewing charts of patients who underwent revision ACDF. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of postoperative dysphagia. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative, short-term, and long-term outcomes and complications. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included (ACDF-ZP group = 50; ACDF-CP group = 11). In-hospital incidence of dysphagia was significantly less in the ACDF-CP group (P = 0.041). Thrity-one (62.0%) of the ACDF-ZP group reported dysphagia postoperatively, half resolved by 6 weeks, and two persisted for more than 6 months. Five (45.5%) of the ACDF-CP group reported dysphagia with most resolving within 6 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in short- or long-term complications, dysphonia, or reoperation rates. No statistical significance was seen in blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, local and global alignment, or cage subsidence. CONCLUSION: Rates of dysphagia were comparable between groups at short and long-term follow-up, despite a greater incidence of postoperative dysphagia in the ACDF-ZP group. All complications and occurrences of cage subsidence were observed in the ACDF-ZP group, which may be attributed to the larger sample size. Given these findings, zero-profile stand-alone implants and traditional interbody PEEK cage, titanium plate, and screw instrumentation appear to be both safe and effective options for revision ACDF.

A comparison of reoperation rates after single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) between the procedures with and without anterior plate fixation.

INTRODUCTION: The plate fixation for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has become increasingly widespread for facilitating early mobilization and improving fusion rate. However, apart from multilevel operations, there is still some controversy over its use for single-level ACDF. This retrospective study has compared the reoperation rates after single-level ACDFs performed at our institution between the procedures with and without plate fixation. METHODS: This retrospective study included a total of 131 patients with???1-year of follow-up after a single-level ACDF, consisting of 100 patients without plating (conventional ACDF) and 31 patients with plate fixation (plated ACDF). RESULTS: Eleven patients (8.4% of all patients):four conventional ACDFs (4% of the conventional ACDFs) and seven plated ACDFs (22.6% of the plated ACDFs), had reoperation surgeries. The incidence of reoperation was significantly higher in the plated ACDFs than in the conventional ACDFs (P=0.0037). The log-rank test revealed a significant difference (P=0.00003) in 5-year reoperation-free survival rates between the conventional (96.9%) and the plated groups (68.3%). CONCLUSION: Anterior cervical plating may have a negative impact on the adjacent segment integrity, resulting in an increased reoperation rate after a single-level ACDF at relatively shorter postoperative time points. J. Med. Invest. 70 : 334-342, August, 2023.

The influence of over-distraction on biomechanical response of cervical spine post anterior interbody fusion: a comprehensive finite element study.

Introduction: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been considered as the gold standard surgical treatment for cervical degenerative pathologies. Some surgeons tend to use larger-sized interbody cages during ACDF to restore the index intervertebral disc height, hence, this study evaluated the effect of larger-sized interbody cages on the cervical spine with ACDF under both static and cyclic loading. Method: Twenty pre-operative personalized poro-hyperelastic finite element (FE) models were developed. ACDF post-operative models were then constructed and four clinical scenarios (i.e., 1) No-distraction; 2) 1 mm distraction; 3) 2 mm distraction; and 4) 3 mm distraction) were predicted for each patient. The biomechanical responses at adjacent spinal levels were studied subject to static and cyclic loading. Non-parametric Friedman statistical comparative tests were performed and the p values less than 0.05 were reflected as significant. Results: The calculated intersegmental range of motion (ROM) and intradiscal pressure (IDP) from 20 pre-operative FE models were within the overall ranges compared to the available data from literature. Under static loading, greater ROM, IDP, facet joint force (FJF) values were detected post ACDF, as compared with pre-op. Over-distraction induced significantly higher IDP and FJF in both upper and lower adjacent levels in extension. Higher annulus fibrosus stress and strain values, and increased disc height and fluid loss at the adjacent levels were observed in ACDF group which significantly increased for over-distraction groups. Discussion: it was concluded that using larger-sized interbody cages (the height of ≥2 mm of the index disc height) can result in remarkable variations in biomechanical responses of adjacent levels, which may indicate as risk factor for adjacent segment disease. The results of this comprehensive FE investigation using personalized modeling technique highlight the importance of selecting the appropriate height of interbody cage in ACDF surgery.

Biomechanical analysis of functionally graded porous interbody cage for lumbar spinal fusion.

Functionally graded porous (FGP) interbody cage might offer a trade-off between porosity-based reduction of stiffness and mechanical properties. Using finite element models of intact and implanted lumbar functional spinal unit (FSU), the study investigated the quantitative deviations in load transfer and adaptive changes in bone density distributions around FGP interbody cages. The cage had three graded porosities: FGP-A, -B, and -C corresponded to a maximum porosity levels of 48%, 65% and 78%, respectively. Efficacy of the FGP cages were evaluated by comparing the numerically predicted results of solid-Ti and uniformly porous 78% porosity (P78) cage. Variations in stiffness and interface condition affected the strain distribution and bone remodelling around the cages. Peak strains of 0.5-1% were observed in less number of peri-prosthetic bone elements for the FGP cages as compared to the solid-Ti cage. Strains and bone apposition were considerably higher for the bonded implant-bone interface condition than the debonded case. For the FGP-C with bonded interface condition, bone apposition of 11-20% was predicted in the L4 and L5 regions of interest (ROIs); whereas the debonded model exhibited 6-10% increase in bone density. The deviations in bone density change between FGP-C and P78 model were 3-8% for L4 and L5 ROIs. FGP resulted in a reduced average micromotion (∼70-106 µm) as compared to solid-Ti (116 µm), for all physiologic movements. Compared to solid-Ti and uniformly porous cages, the FGP cage seems to be a viable alternative considering the conflicting nature of strength and porosity.

Finite element analysis of lattice designed lumbar interbody cage based on the additive manufacturing.

Additive manufacturing (AM) methods, which facilitate the production of complex structures with different geometries, have been used in producing interbody cages in recent years. In this study, the effects of Ti6Al4V alloy interbody lattice designed fusion cages between the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae where degenerative disc diseases occur were investigated using the finite element method. Face centered cubic (FCC), body centered cubic (BCC), and diamond structures were selected as the lattice structure suitable for the interbody cage. A kidney shaped interbody lumbar cage was designed. The designated lattice structures were selected by adjusting the cell sizes suitable for the designed geometry, and the mesh configuration was made by the lumbar lattice structure. 400 N Axial force and 7.5 N.m moments were applied to the spine according to lateral bending, flexion, and torsion. 400 N axial force and 7.5 N.m flexion moment is shown high strain and total deformation then lateral bending and torsion on BCC FCC and diamond lattice structured interbody cages. In addition, the effects of lattice structures under high compression forces were investigated by applying 1000 N force to the lattice structures. When von Mises stresses were examined, lower von Mises stress and strains were observed in the BCC structure. However, a lower total deformation was observed in the FCC. Due to the design of the BCC and the diamond structure, it is assumed that bone implant adhesion will increase. In the finite element analysis (FEA), the best results were shown in BCC structures.

Full-Endoscopic Removal of Migrated and Pseudoarthrotic Lumbar Interbody Cages: Case Reports and Technical Note.

BACKGROUND: The removal of a lumbar interbody cage in revision spine surgery can be challenging, as there is an increased risk of nerve injury and a protracted outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary results of uniportal full-endoscopic surgery for the removal of migrated and/or pseudarthrotic lumbar interbody cages. METHODS: Three complex revision surgery cases with migrated and pseudarthrotic lumbar interbody cages are presented, and the endoscopic surgical technique is described. The clinical outcome was assessed with a visual analog scale and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up, while the radiologic outcome was assessed with pre- and postoperative x-ray and computed tomographic images. Full-endoscopic surgery was performed to extract the interbody cage, bypassing scar tissue of previous surgeries with the trans-Kambin approach. Foraminoplasty with manual reamers and/or a high-speed burr under direct endoscopic vision was performed to ensure the safety of the exiting nerve root during cage extraction. The retrieved cage was replaced with a large footprint, expandable titanium cage using the trans-Kambin approach. RESULTS: In all 3 cases, different types of interbody cages (1 titanium, 2 polyetheretherketone, and 1 expandable titanium cage) were removed under direct endoscopic view. In 1 case, we were only able to partially remove an impacted polyetheretherketone cage from the interbody disc endoscopically. The postoperative outcome significantly (P < 0.05) improved compared with preoperative scores in all 3 cases with a follow-up of 6 and 12 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: In most cases, lumbar interbody cages can be safely removed with endoscopic surgery with good preliminary clinical outcome. Nonetheless, further clinical research with long-term follow-up is required. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results indicate the feasibility of full-endoscopic removal of migrated and pseudoarthrotic lumbar interbody cages.

The effect of expandable versus static lordotic interbody implants in minimally invasive spine surgery: patient reported outcomes, sagittal alignment, and restoration of disc height and foraminal height.

Background: Pain and disability due to age-related spinal disorders are increasing due to a more active population placing greater demands on their musculoskeletal system. For patients requiring surgery, spinal fusion is typically indicated. Interbody fusion cages improve fusion rates and restore lordosis, disc height, and foraminal height. Static cages are offered in multiple conformations to account for anatomic variability; however, they have issues related to implant subsidence and loss of lordosis. Expandable cages were developed to address these drawbacks. Methods: Patients treated with either static or expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion devices (ProLift® Expandable Spacer System) for the treatment of spondylolisthesis, degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, disc herniation, or degenerative scoliosis at L4-L5 or L5-S1 were chosen from retrospective data. Outcomes included radiographic and spinopelvic changes, patient-reported outcomes, and incidence of non-union and revision surgery. Results: One hundred patients were included (Static: 50; Expandable: 50). Demographics between groups were similar, with some differences in comorbidities and spinal disease diagnosis. Radiographically, changes in disc height, foraminal height, and lordosis were significantly improved in the Expandable group up to 2 years (P<0.001). Improvements in patient reported outcomes were more favorable in the Expandable group. Conclusions: In patients who underwent transforaminal lumbar spinal fusion via minimally invasive surgery, the Expandable device group demonstrated significantly improved radiographic and patient reported outcomes compared to a static cage over 2 years.

Recent advancement in finite element analysis of spinal interbody cages: A review.

Finite element analysis (FEA) is a widely used tool in a variety of industries and research endeavors. With its application to spine biomechanics, FEA has contributed to a better understanding of the spine, its components, and its behavior in physiological and pathological conditions, as well as assisting in the design and application of spinal instrumentation, particularly spinal interbody cages (ICs). IC is a highly effective instrumentation for achieving spinal fusion that has been used to treat a variety of spinal disorders, including degenerative disc disease, trauma, tumor reconstruction, and scoliosis. The application of FEA lets new designs be thoroughly "tested" before a cage is even manufactured, allowing bio-mechanical responses and spinal fusion processes that cannot easily be experimented upon in vivo to be examined and "diagnosis" to be performed, which is an important addition to clinical and in vitro experimental studies. This paper reviews the recent progress of FEA in spinal ICs over the last six years. It demonstrates how modeling can aid in evaluating the biomechanical response of cage materials, cage design, and fixation devices, understanding bone formation mechanisms, comparing the benefits of various fusion techniques, and investigating the impact of pathological structures. It also summarizes the various limitations brought about by modeling simplification and looks forward to the significant advancement of spine FEA research as computing efficiency and software capabilities increase. In conclusion, in such a fast-paced field, the FEA is critical for spinal IC studies. It helps in quantitatively and visually demonstrating the cage characteristics after implanting, lowering surgeons' learning costs for new cage products, and probably assisting them in determining the best IC for patients.

Risk Factors for the Aggravation of Sagittal Balance After L5-S1 Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk factors for the aggravation of sagittal alignment after single-level L5-S1 PLIF. METHODS: Eighty-six patients who underwent L5-S1 PLIF were divided into 2 groups according to the postoperative changes in the segmental angle (SA; group I: increase; group D: decrease). The 2 groups were compared in terms of demographic, clinical, and radiological outcomes. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the risk factors for aggravation of sagittal alignment. RESULTS: Of the study patients, 39 (45%) were categorized as group I and 47 (55%) as group D. The demographic and clinical parameters were not significantly different between the 2 groups. Group D showed postoperative deteriorations in the local sagittal parameters, including lumbar lordosis (LL; P = 0.034), sacral slope (P = 0.012), and pelvic tilt (P = 0.003). In contrast, group I showed improved LL after surgery (P = 0.021). Large preoperative values of lumbosacral angle (LSA; odds ratio [OR], 1.287; P = 0.001), SA (OR, 1.448; P < 0.001), and flexion LSA (OR, 1.173; P = 0.011) were independent risk factors for the aggravation of sagittal balance. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons treating patients with large preoperative SA, LSA, and flexion LSA at L5-S1 level should be cautious of the possible aggravation of sagittal balance after L5-S1 PLIF and may consider different surgical approaches such as anterior or oblique lumbar interbody fusion.

Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Double Banana Cages: Clinical Evaluations and Finite Element Model Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Clinical and basic study. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate whether transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using 2 banana-shaped cages leads to good clinical outcomes. METHODS: First, we conducted a clinical study to compare outcomes among patients who underwent TLIF using different types or numbers of cages. Propensity matched patients in each group were reviewed. Thirty-four patients who underwent surgery with 2 bullet-shaped cages (group A), 34 with a banana-shaped cage (group B), and 34 with 2 banana-shaped cages (group C) were compared. Twelve months after the surgery, bony fusion and cage subsidence were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean amount of cage subsidence was 14.9% in group A, 19.9% in group B, and 11.8% in group C. Subsidence in group B was significantly greater than that in group C (P < .01). Radiological bony fusion was not achieved in 2 cases in group B. Second, we performed a finite element model (FEM) analysis to determine the biomechanical stress of the vertebral endplate by comparing the single-banana cage construct with a double banana-shaped cage construct. FEM analysis showed that the maximum stress of the endplate in the single-cage model was 1.72-times greater than the maximum stress in the double-cage model. Furthermore, the maximal stress in the single-cage model was significantly higher than in the double-cage model during lumbar extension and side bending. CONCLUSION: This study showed that TLIF with double banana-shaped cages led to good clinical outcomes with less cage subsidence, probably because of decreased mechanical stress on the vertebral endplate.

The impact of cage positioning on lumbar lordosis and disc space restoration following minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate patient and surgical factors that predict increased overall lumbar lordosis (LL) and segmental lordosis correction following a minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedure. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent one- or two-level LLIF. Preoperative, initial postoperative, and 6-month postoperative measurements of LL, segmental lordosis, anterior disc height, and posterior disc height were collected from standing lateral radiographs for each patient. Cage placement was measured utilizing the center point ratio (CPR) on immediate postoperative radiographs. Spearman correlations were used to assess associations between cage lordosis and radiographic parameters. Multivariate linear regression was performed to assess independent predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 106 levels in 78 unique patients were included. Most procedures involved fusion of one level (n = 50, 64.1%), most commonly L3-4 (46.2%). Despite no differences in baseline segmental lordosis, patients with anteriorly or centrally placed cages experienced the greatest segmental lordosis correction immediately (mean anterior 4.81° and central 4.46° vs posterior 2.47°, p = 0.0315) and at 6 months postoperatively, and patients with anteriorly placed cages had greater overall lordosis correction postoperatively (mean 6.30°, p = 0.0338). At the 6-month follow-up, patients with anteriorly placed cages experienced the greatest increase in anterior disc height (mean anterior 6.24 mm vs posterior 3.69 mm, p = 0.0122). Cages placed more posteriorly increased the change in posterior disc height postoperatively (mean posterior 4.91 mm vs anterior 1.80 mm, p = 0.0001) and at 6 months (mean posterior 4.18 mm vs anterior 2.06 mm, p = 0.0255). There were no correlations between cage lordotic angle and outcomes. On multivariate regression, anterior cage placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in segmental lordosis, while posterior placement predicted greater 6-month improvement in posterior disc height. Percutaneous screw placement, cage lordotic angle, and cage height did not independently predict any radiographic outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: LLIF procedures reliably improve LL and increase intervertebral disc space. Anterior cage placement improves the lordosis angle greater than posterior placement, which better corrects sagittal alignment, but there is still a significant improvement in lordosis even with a posteriorly placed cage. Posterior cage placement provides greater restoration in posterior disc space height, maximizing indirect decompression, but even the anteriorly placed cages provided indirect decompression. Cage parameters including cage height, lordosis angle, and material do not impact radiographic improvement.

Measuring compressive loads on a 'smart' lumbar interbody fusion cage: Proof of concept.

There are several complications associated with lumbar interbody fusion surgery however, pseudarthrosis (non-union) presents a multifaceted challenge in the postoperative management of the patient. Rates of pseudarthrosis range from 3 to 20 % in patients with healthy bone and 20 to 30 % in patients with osteoporosis. The current methods in post-operative follow-up - radiographs and CT, have high false positive rates and poor agreement between them. The aim of this study was to develop and test a proof-of-concept load-sensing interbody cage that may be used to monitor fusion progression. Piezoresistive pressure sensors were calibrated and embedded within a polyether ether ketone (PEEK) interbody cage. Silicone and poly (methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) were inserted in the graft regions to simulate early and solid fusion. The load-sensing cage was subjected to distributed and eccentric compressive loads up to 900 N between synthetic lumbar vertebral bodies. Under maximum load, the anterior sensors recorded a 56-58 % reduction in pressure in the full fusion state compared to early fusion. Lateral regions measured a 36-37 % stress reduction while the central location reduced by 45 %. The two graft states were distinguishable by sensor-recorded pressure at lower loads. The sensors more effectively detected left and right eccentric loads compared to anterior and posterior. Further, the load-sensing cage was able to detect changes in endplate stiffness. The proof-of-concept 'smart' cage could detect differences in fusion state, endplate stiffness, and loading conditions in this in vitro experimental setup.

Implications of cage impactions in single-level OLIF treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Cage impactions (CI) of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion (OLIF) appear to be a frequent mechanical complication with a potential functional impact. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of CI occurrence, their risk factors and clinical implications in the case of combined single-level arthrodesis. METHOD: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed. All our patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis initially underwent OLIF combined with pedicle screw fixation (PSF). Intraoperative control with an image intensifier and a standard radiograph in the immediate postoperative period made it possible to assess the occurrence of CI, depending on the position of the implant. Secondary subsidence was sought on the standing radiological examination using EOS biplanar radiography during follow-up. The pelvic parameters were analyzed, as well as the occurrence of bone fusion. The clinical evaluation was made at≥1 year, by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the walking distance (WD) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: In all, 130 patients out of the 131 included were analyzed. A CI occurred in 25.3% (n=33) of cases and of these, 94% (n=32) occurred intraoperatively. Postmenopausal women had more CI with an odds ratio (OR) of 5.8 (P=0.034). The "CI" group had a 9.5% lower ODI score than the "non-CI" group (P=0.0040), but both provided excellent ODI gains of 30.8±16 and 32.9±15.5% (P<0.0001). An "anterior" position of the implant allowed a greater gain in lumbar lordosis (P<0.001) but was associated with greater CI occurrence (P<0.001), with an OR of 6.75 (P=0.0018). CONCLUSION: The occurrence of intraoperative cage impaction is a frequent event when performing OLIF. Postmenopausal women have an approximately 6 times greater risk of impaction than men, and patients with an "anterior" implant placement have a 7 times greater risk than with central placement. The negative impact of cage impactions on the clinical score (ODI) was significant after one year of follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, non-comparative cohort study.

Evaluation of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Performed Using a Stand-Alone, Integrated Fusion Cage.

BACKGROUND: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) has been performed for many years. Often, posterior supplemental fixation has been used to provide additional stability to the operated segment. Interbody implants have evolved to incorporate unique designs, polyetheretherketone, integrated screws, and surface texture. With these changes, the need for supplemental posterior fixation has been debated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of stand-alone ALIF. METHODS: A surgery log was reviewed to identify the consecutive series of 58 patients undergoing ALIF using a STALIF stand-alone cage from March 2011 (first case) to December 2018 (minimum 24 months postoperative) with a mean follow-up of 30.6 months. All patients were treated for symptomatic degenerative conditions. Charts were reviewed to collect general patient information, operative data, and patient-reported outcomes, including the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scales (VAS) separately assessing back pain and leg pain, and re-operations. For patients who were not seen recently in clinic for follow-up, current outcome data were collected through mailings. RESULTS: The mean operative blood loss was 52.1 mL. There was a statistically significant improvement in mean ODI scores from 41.7 preoperatively to 21.0 at follow-up (P < 0.01). There was also significant improvement (P < 0.01) in VAS back pain (6.0-2.5) and leg pain (4.1-1.3). Subsequent surgery was performed on 9 patients. Reasons for re-operation were pseudoarthrosis (n = 3), progressive cage subsidence (n = 1), foraminal stenosis at the index level (n = 1), metal allergy reaction (n = 2), adjacent segment degeneration (n = 1), and ongoing pain (n = 1). There were no cases of device failure, vertebral body fracture, or screws backing out of the implant. DISCUSSION: Stand-alone ALIF was associated with statistically significant improvements in ODI scores, back pain, and leg pain. The re-operation rate for clear pseudoarthrosis or cage subsidence was 6.8%. These results support that stand-alone ALIF produces good outcomes in patients treated for symptomatic disc degeneration while avoiding the use of posterior fixation and its complication risk and cost. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study support that stand-alone ALIF is a viable procedure for the treatment of symptomatic disc degeneration unresponsive in patients who have failed nonoperative care and who do not have specific indications for supplemental posterior instrumentation.