Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study

被引:3
|
作者
Lawless, Michael H. [1 ]
Claus, Chad F. [1 ]
Tong, Doris [1 ]
Jordan, Noah [2 ]
Dosanjh, Amarpal [3 ]
Hanson, Connor T. [1 ]
Carr, Daniel A. [1 ]
Houseman, Clifford M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Michigan State Univ, Coll Human Med, Ascension Providence Hosp, Div Neurosurg, Southfield, MI 48075 USA
[2] Univ Kentucky, Coll Med, Surg, Lexington, KY USA
[3] Michigan State Univ, Coll Osteopath Med, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
关键词
tlif; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; lordotic interbody device; lordotic cage; minimally invasive; lumbar osteoarthritis; DISABILITY; DIFFERENCE;
D O I
10.7759/cureus.21273
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is increasingly used to treat lumbar degenerative pathology. Its effect on sagittal parameters remains controversial. Static and expandable lordotic interbody devices (cages) were developed to improve segmental and overall lumbar lordosis. This study aimed to compare the radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between static lordotic and non-lordotic titanium cages in patients undergoing 1-2 level MI-TLIF for degenerative conditions. Methods We reviewed consecutive eligible patients who underwent 1-2 level MI-TLIF (7/2017-11/2019) at a single institution by multiple surgeons. Standing X-rays and PROs were collected at preoperative, 1-month, and 6-month postoperative intervals. Using univariate analyses, we compared the two cohorts regarding confounders, radiographic parameters, and proportions of patients reaching minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROs. Results One-hundred-twenty-five patients were reviewed. Forty-seven had lordotic and seventy-eight non-lordotic cages. The lordotic cohort was significantly younger than the non-lordotic (55.9 years vs. 60.7 years, p=0.042). The baseline radiographic parameters were not significantly different between cohorts. At the preoperative-6-month interval, the lordotic cohort had significant improvement in lumbar lordosis versus non-lordotic cohort (2.95 degrees +/- 7.2 degrees vs. -0.3 degrees +/- 7.1 degrees, p=0.024). Both cohorts showed improvement in segmental lordosis, anterior and posterior interspace height, and low subsidence grade with no significant difference between cohorts at all intervals. Overall, 69.1-83.8% of patients achieved MCID in all PROs with no significant difference between cohorts. Conclusions The use of a static lordotic titanium cage in 1-2 level MI-TLIF did not result in significantly different radiographic improvements or PROs compared with a non-lordotic cage.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Clinical and Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Expandable Lordotic Devices
    McMordie, Joseph H.
    Schmidt, Kyle P.
    Gard, Andrew P.
    Gillis, Christopher C.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 86 (02) : E147 - E155
  • [3] Patient-reported and radiographic outcomes of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis with or without reduction: A comparative study
    Fan, Guoxin
    Zhang, Hailong
    Guan, Xiaofei
    Gu, Guangfei
    Wu, Xinbo
    Hu, Annan
    Gu, Xin
    He, Shisheng
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 33 : 111 - 118
  • [4] Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a novel minimally invasive expandable interbody cage: patient-reported outcomes and radiographic parameters
    Woodward, Josha
    Malone, Hani
    Witiw, Christopher D.
    Kolcun, John Paul G.
    Koro, Lacin
    Keegan, Kevin C.
    Ahmad, Shahjehan
    Kerolus, Mena G.
    David, Brian T.
    Fessler, R. David
    Fessler, Richard G.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2021, 35 (02) : 170 - 176
  • [5] Comparing Lordotic and Non-lordotic Cages for Achieving Segmental Lumbar Lordosis During Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery
    Mathew, Justin
    Cerpa, Meghan
    Lenke, Lawrence
    NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 67 : 243 - 243
  • [6] Patient-Reported Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disc Disease: A Prospective Comparative Cohort Study
    Jover-Mendiola, Antonio D.
    Lopez-Prats, Fernando A.
    Lizaur-Utrilla, Alejandro
    Vizcaya-Moreno, Maria -Flores
    CLINICS IN ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY, 2023, 15 (02) : 257 - 264
  • [7] Static versus Expandable Interbody Fusion Devices: A Comparison of 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Ledesma, Jonathan Andrew
    Lambrechts, Mark J.
    Dees, Azra
    Thomas, Terence
    Hiranaka, Cannon Greco
    Kurd, Mark Faisal
    Radcliff, Kris E.
    Anderson, David Greg
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2023, 17 (01)
  • [8] Comparative Effectiveness of Adjustable Lordotic Expandable Versus Static Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Devices: Two-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes
    Li, Yan M.
    Frisch, Richard F.
    Huang, Zheng
    Towner, James
    Li, Yan Icy
    Riggleman, Jessica
    Ledonio, Charles
    NEUROSURGERY, 2019, 66 : 173 - 173
  • [9] Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters
    Hawasli, Ammar H.
    Khalifeh, Jawad M.
    Chatrath, Ajay
    Yarbrough, Chester K.
    Ray, Wilson Z.
    NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2017, 43 (02)
  • [10] Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Anteriorly Placed Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Versus Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Posterior Instrumentation
    Lee, Yunsoo
    Heard, Jeremy C.
    McCurdy, Michael A.
    Lambrechts, Mark J.
    Fras, Sebastian I.
    Purtill, William
    Millar, Ben
    Kolowrat, Samantha
    Issa, Tariq Z.
    D'Antonio, Nicholas D.
    Rihn, Jeffrey A.
    Kurd, Mark F.
    Kaye, Ian David
    Canseco, Jose A.
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Hilibrand, Alan S.
    Kepler, Christopher K.
    Schroeder, Gregory D.
    SPINE, 2024, 49 (15) : 1078 - 1084