Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable vs Static Titanium Interbody Cages: A Prospective Cohort Study of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

被引:10
作者
Huo, Cecilia W. [1 ]
Malham, Gregory M. [2 ,3 ]
Biddau, Dean T. [2 ,3 ]
Chung, Timothy [4 ]
Wang, Yi Yuen [2 ,5 ,6 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Epworth Med Fdn, Neurosci Inst, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Swinburne Univ Technol, Spine Surg Res, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Dept Orthoped Surg, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[5] St Vincents Hosp, Dept Neurosurg, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[6] Univ Melbourne, Dept Surg, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[7] Epworth Med Fdn, Neurosci Inst, POB 586, Camberwell, Vic 3124, Australia
关键词
expandable cage; radiographic outcomes; fusion rate; subsidence; lateral Lumbar interbody fusion; spine surgery; STAND-ALONE; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; SUBSIDENCE; ANTERIOR; ARTHRODESIS; PARAMETERS; MIGRATION; DISC;
D O I
10.14444/8422
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Expandable cages are a recent development employed to reduce subsidence and improve fusion compared with static cages as they alleviate the need for repeated trialing or overdistraction of the disc space. This study aimed to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with either an expandable or static titanium cage.Methods: This was a prospective study of 98 consecutive patients undergoing LLIF performed over a 2 -year period, with the first 50 patients receiving static cages and the following 48 receiving expandable cages. Radiographic evaluation included interbody fusion status, cage subsidence, and change in segmental lordosis and disc height. Clinical evaluation assessed patient -reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain, and short form -12 physical and mental health survey scores collected at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively.Results: The 98 patients had 169 cages impacted (84 expandable vs 85 static). Mean age was 69.2 years, and 53.1% were women. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, or smoking status. The expandable cage group had higher rates of interbody fusion (94.0% vs 82.9%, P = 0.039) at 12 months as well as significantly reduced implant subsidence rates at all follow -up timepoints (4% vs 18% at 3 months; 4% vs 20% at 6 and 12 months). Patients from the expandable cage group showed a mean 1.9 more points of reduction in VAS back pain (P = 0.006) and 2.49 points greater reduction in VAS leg pain (P = 0.023) at 12 -month follow -up. Conclusions: Expandable lateral interbody spacers resulted in significantly improved fusion rates with reduced subsidence risks and statistically significant improvement in PROMs up to 12 months postoperatively compared with impacted lateral static cages. Clinical Relevance: The data provide clinical relevance in favoring expandable cages over static cages for enhanced fusion outcomes in lumbar fusions.Level of Evidence: 2. Lumbar Spine
引用
收藏
页码:265 / 275
页数:12
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]   Assessing the Difference in Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Expandable Cage and Nonexpandable Cage Among Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [J].
Alvi, Mohammed Ali ;
Kurian, Shyam J. ;
Wahood, Waseem ;
Goyal, Anshit ;
Elder, Benjamin D. ;
Bydon, Mohamad .
WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2019, 127 :596-+
[2]   Examining risk factors for posterior migration of fusion cages following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a possible limitation of unilateral pedicle screw fixation Clinical article [J].
Aoki, Yasuchika ;
Yamagata, Masatsune ;
Nakajima, Fumitake ;
Ikeda, Yoshikazu ;
Smmizu, Koh ;
Yoshihara, Masakazu ;
Iwasaki, Junichi ;
Toyone, Tomoaki ;
Nakagawa, Koichi ;
Nakajima, Arata ;
Takahashi, Kazuhisa ;
Ohtori, Seiji .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2010, 13 (03) :381-387
[3]   Vertebral body replacement systems with expandable cages in the treatment of various spinal pathologies: A prospectively followed case series of 60 patients [J].
Arts, Mark P. ;
Peul, Wilco C. .
NEUROSURGERY, 2008, 63 (03) :537-544
[4]   The expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - Two years follow-up [J].
Boktor, Joseph Gamal ;
Pockett, Rhys D. ;
Verghese, Navin .
JOURNAL OF CRANIOVERTEBRAL JUNCTION AND SPINE, 2018, 9 (01) :50-55
[5]   Long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [J].
Chang, Chih-Chang ;
Chou, Dean ;
Pennicooke, Brenton ;
Rivera, Joshua ;
Tan, Lee A. ;
Berven, Sigurd ;
Mummaneni, Praveen V. .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2021, 34 (03) :471-480
[6]   Cage migration in spondylolisthesis treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using BAK cages [J].
Chen, L ;
Yang, HL ;
Tang, TS .
SPINE, 2005, 30 (19) :2171-2175
[7]   Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages [J].
Choi, JY ;
Sung, KH .
EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2006, 15 (01) :16-22
[8]   Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Banana-Shaped and Straight Cages: Radiological and Clinical Results from a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial [J].
Choi, Won-Suh ;
Kim, Jin-Sung ;
Hur, Jung-Woo ;
Seong, Ji-Hoon .
NEUROSURGERY, 2018, 82 (03) :289-297
[9]  
Crandall DG, 2017, Spine J, V17, pS188, DOI 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.08.030
[10]   Purified bovine BMP extract and collagen for spine arthrodesis - Preclinical safety and efficacy [J].
Damien, CJ ;
Grob, D ;
Boden, SD ;
Benedict, JJ .
SPINE, 2002, 27 (16) :S50-S58