18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Authors - did you know SICOT-J has been awarded the DOAJ Seal for "best practice in open access publishing"?

      • Indexed in Scopus
      • 30% discount on article processing charges (APCs) for members of SICOT

      Instructions for authors, online submissions and free e-mail alerts all available here 

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Safety of a novel modular cage for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion − clinical cohort study in 20 patients with degenerative disc disease

      research-article
      1 , 2 , * , 2 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 1
      SICOT-J
      EDP Sciences
      TLIF, Cage subsidence, Large footprint, Modular cage

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is used to reconstruct disc height and reduce degenerative deformity in spinal fusion. Patients with osteoporosis are at high risk of TLIF cage subsidence; possibly due to the relatively small footprint compared to anterior interbody devices. Recently, modular TLIF cage with an integral rail and slot system was developed to reduce cage subsidence and allow early rehabilitation.

          Objective: To study the safety of a modular TLIF device in patients with degenerative disc disorders (DDD) with regard to surgical complications, non-union, and subsidence.

          Methods: Patients with DDD treated with a modular TLIF cage (Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), VTI interfuse S) were analysed retrospectively with one-year follow-up. Lumbar sagittal parameters were collected preoperatively, postoperatively and at one year follow-up. Cage subsidence, fusion rate, screw loosening and proportion of endplate coverage were assessed in computed tomography scan.

          Results: 20 patients (age 66 ± 10 years, 65% female, BMI 28 ± 5 kg/m 2) with a total of 37 fusion levels were included. 15 patients had degenerative spondylosis and 5 patients had degenerative scoliosis. The cages covered >60% of the vertebral body diameters. Lumbar lordosis angle and segmental disc angle increased from 45.2 ± 14.5 and 7.3 ± 3.6 to 52.7 ± 9.1 and 10.5 ± 3.5 ( p =  0.029 and 0.0002) postoperatively for each parameter respectively without loss of correction at one year follow up. One case of deep postoperative infection occurred (5%). No cage subsidence occurred. No non-union or screw loosening occurred.

          Conclusions: The modular TLIF cage was safe with regard to subsidence and union-rate. It restored and maintained lumbar lordosis angle, segmental disc angle and disc height, which can be attributed to the large footprint of this modular cage.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl)].

          On account of 41 cases of spondylolisthesis a one-stage operation for repositioning and stabilisation using Harrington's instrumentation with anterior intercorporal spine fusion is recommended. The advantage of this procedure is a secure fusion and a short hospitalisation. After 6 months the patient usually is rehabilitated.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Biomechanical analysis and review of lateral lumbar fusion constructs.

            Biomechanical study and the review of literature on lumbar interbody fusion constructs. To demonstrate the comparative stabilizing effects of lateral interbody fusion with various supplemental internal fixation options. Lumbar interbody fusion procedures are regularly performed using anterior, posterior, and more recently, lateral approaches. The biomechanical profile of each is determined by the extent of resection of local supportive structures, implant size and orientation, and the type of supplemental internal fixation used. Pure moment flexibility testing was performed using a custom-built 6 degree-of-freedom system to apply a moment of ±7.5 Nm in each motion plane, while motion segment kinematics were evaluated using an optoelectronic motion system. Constructs tested included the intact spine, stand-alone extreme lateral interbody implant, interbody implant with lateral plate, unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation. These results were evaluated against those from literature-reported biomechanical studies of other lumbar interbody constructs. All conditions demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in range of motion (ROM) as a percentage of intact. In flexion-extension, ROM was 31.6% stand-alone, 32.5% lateral fixation, and 20.4% and 13.0% unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation, respectively. In lateral bending, the trend was similar with greater reduction with lateral fixation than in flexion-extension; ROM was 32.5% stand-alone, 15.9% lateral fixation, and 21.6% and 14.4% unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation. ROM was greatest in axial rotation; 69.4% stand-alone, 53.4% lateral fixation, and 51.3% and 41.7% unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation, respectively. The extreme lateral interbody construct provided the largest stand-alone reduction in ROM compared with literature-reported ALIF and TLIF constructs. Supplemental bilateral pedicle screw-based fixation provided the overall greatest reduction in ROM, similar among all interbody approach techniques. Lateral fixation and unilateral pedicle screw fixation provided intermediate reductions in ROM. Clinically, surgeons may evaluate these comparative results to choose fixation options commensurate with the stability requirements of individual patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support.

              An in vitro biomechanical investigation to quantify the endplates resistance to compressive loads, in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Comparisons were made to determine the regional strength of the endplate, the optimal size and geometry of interbody support, and the effects of endplate removal on structural strength. To biomechanically assess the regional variation of endplate strength in the thoracic and lumbar spine, the optimal geometry and cross-sectional area for structural interbody support, and endplate preparation techniques with respect to endplate failure or subsidence. Anterior column interbody support plays an important role in spinal reconstruction. Subsidence of interbody structural support is a common problem and may be related to regional weakness of the endplate, the size and/or geometry of structural support, and the preparation of the endplate. Biomechanical data related to these issues should be of importance to spine surgeons and reduce the risk of subsidence and its inherent complications. The indentation tests were performed in three subgroups, each with a different set of test variables. The first test consisted of 65 vertebrae at six different endplate test positions using a 9.53-mm diameter indenter. The second test was performed on 48 vertebrae at a central endplate test site using three hollow and two solid cylindrical indenters of varying diameter. The third test was done using 24 vertebrae with the endplate intact, partially removed, or fully removed. All tests were run using human cadaveric specimen using both the superior and inferior endplates. The maximum load to failure (MLF) was determined for each test performed. For all levels tested, the highest MLF occurred in the posterolateral region of the endplate. The lowest value occurred in the central and anterocentral regions for levels T7-L5 and T1-T6, respectively. Hollow indenters with a small diameter had the lowest MLF, whereas solid large-diameter indenters had the highest MLF. The ultimate compressive strength for all hollow indenters was significantly higher than all solid indenters. There was a significant reduction in the endplate strength with the complete removal of the endplate. The posterolateral region of the endplate provides the greatest resistance to subsidence while the central region provides the least resistance. A larger-diameter solid support has the greater MLF and the lower the risk of subsidence, suggesting a more efficient transfer of force to the endplate with the hollow indenters. Parameters such as the geometry of structural support and the position and preparation of the endplate can influence the resistance of an interbody support to subside. Partial removal of the endplate may provide both, for adequate mechanical advantage and a highly vascular site for fusion.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                SICOT J
                SICOT J
                sicotj
                SICOT-J
                EDP Sciences
                2426-8887
                2018
                29 June 2018
                : 4
                : ( publisher-idID: sicotj/2018/01 )
                : 24
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala Sweden
                [2 ] Orthopedic and Traumatology Department, Tanta University, Tanta Egypt
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author: melmekaty@ 123456yahoo.com
                Article
                sicotj170131 10.1051/sicotj/2018019
                10.1051/sicotj/2018019
                6024593
                29956661
                fbcbfec1-e846-4e7b-b94c-4df792efda79
                © The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2018

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 30 October 2017
                : 6 April 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Equations: 0, References: 25, Pages: 8
                Categories
                Spine
                Original Article

                tlif,cage subsidence,large footprint,modular cage
                tlif, cage subsidence, large footprint, modular cage

                Comments

                Comment on this article