Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

01-02-2013 | Original Article

An analysis of fusion cage migration in unilateral and bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Authors: Jan William Duncan, Richard Anthony Bailey

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 2/2013

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate if instrumentation (unilateral vs. bilateral fixation) has an effect on the rate of fusion cage migration.

Methods

This clinical study of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion involved a prospective group of 116 patients who were randomly assigned to either unilateral (n = 57) or bilateral (n = 59) fixation. Fourteen were lost to follow-up (11 from the unilateral group and 3 from the bilateral group).

Results

The unilateral fixation group consisted of 20 male and 26 female patients. In the unilateral group, the mean age was 53.5 years (range, 18–77), and the preoperative diagnosis consisted of degenerative disc disease, with or without herniated disc (n = 44), and degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis (n = 2). The bilateral fixation group consisted of 20 male and 36 female patients. In the bilateral group, the mean age was 55.7 years (range, 26–82), and the preoperative diagnosis consisted of degenerative disc disease, with or without herniated disc (n = 40), and degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis (n = 16). A total of 17 cases of cage migration were found; of these, 11 were from the unilateral group and 6 from the bilateral group, resulting in rates of cage migration of 23 and 11 % (p = 0.03), respectively. In regard to migration cases, 5 were male and 12 were female. Ages ranged from 27 to 79 years (mean age, 55 years).

Conclusion

We conclude that unilateral fixation is not stable enough to prevent fusion cage migration in some patients who undergo TLIF.

Suk K, Lee H, Kim N et al (2000) Unilateral versus bilateral pedicle screw fixation in lumbar spinal fusion. Spine 25:1843–1847PubMedCrossRef

Bridwell K, Sedgewick TA, O’Brien M et al (1993) The role of fusion and instrumentation in the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. J Spinal Disord 6:461–472PubMedCrossRef

Mardjetko S, Connolly P, Shott S (1994) Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a metaanalysis of literature 1970–1993. Spine 19(20):2256–2265CrossRef

Yaun H, Garfin S, Dickman C et al (1994) A historical cohort study of pedicle screw fixation in thoracic, lumbar, and sacral spinal fusions. Spine 19(20):2279–2296CrossRef

Becker P, Bretschneider W, Tuschel A et al (2010) Life quality after instrumented lumbar fusion in the elderly. Spine 35:1478–1481PubMedCrossRef

Fischgrund J (2004) The argument for instrumented decompressive posterolateral fusion for patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and spinal stenosis. Spine 29:173–174PubMedCrossRef

Kabins M, Weinstein J, Spratt K et al (1992) Isolated L4–L5 fusions using the variable screw placement system: unilateral versus bilateral. J Spinal Disord 5:39–49PubMedCrossRef

Fernandez-Fairen M, Sala P, Ramirez H et al (2007) A prospective randomized study of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented posterolateral lumbar fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Spine 32:395–401PubMedCrossRef

Feng ZZ, Cao YW, Jiang C et al (2011) Short-term outcome of bilateral decompression via a unilateral paramedian approach for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with unilateral pedicle screw fixation. Orthopedics 34(5):364PubMed

10.

Xue H, Tu Y, Cai M (2012) Comparison of unilateral versus bilateral instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar diseases. Spine J 12(3):209–215PubMedCrossRef

11.

Lauber S, Schulte T, Liljenqvist U et al (2006) Clinical and radiological 2–4 year results of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis grades 1 and 2. Spine 31:1693–1698PubMedCrossRef

12.

Zdeblick T, Phillips F (2003) Interbody cage devices. Spine 28:52–57CrossRef

13.

McAfee P, DeVine J, Chaput C et al (2005) The indications for interbody fusion cages in the treatment of spondylolisthesis: analysis of 120 cases. Spine 30(6):S60–S65PubMedCrossRef

14.

Uzi E, Dabby D, Tolessa E et al (2001) Early retropulsion of titanium-threaded cages after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a report of two cases. Spine 26:1073–1075PubMedCrossRef

15.

Yucesoy K, Yuksel KZ, Baek S et al (2008) Biomechanics of unilateral compared with bilateral lumbar pedicle screw fixation for stabilization of unilateral vertebral disease. J Neurosurg Spine 8:44–51PubMedCrossRef

16.

Chen H, Cheung H, Wang W et al (2005) Biomechanical analysis of unilateral fixation with interbody cages. Spine 30:E92–E96PubMedCrossRef

17.

Glazer P, Colliou O, Klisch S et al (1997) Biomechanical analysis of multilevel fixation methods in the lumbar spine. Spine 22:171–182PubMedCrossRef

18.

Lund T, Oxland T, Jost B et al (1998) Interbody cage stabilization in the lumbar spine: biomechanical evaluation of cage design, posterior instrumentation and bone density. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:351–359PubMedCrossRef

19.

Wang S, Goel V, Fu C et al (2005) Posterior instrumentation reduces differences in spine stability as a result of different cage orientations an in vitro study. Spine 30:62–67PubMedCrossRef

20.

Chen L, Yang H, Tang T (2005) Cage migration in spondylolisthesis treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using BAK cages. Spine 30:2171–2175PubMedCrossRef

21.

Aoki Y, Yamagata M, Nakajima F et al (2009) Posterior migration of fusion cages in degenerative lumbar disease treated with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 34:E54–E58PubMedCrossRef

22.

Aoki Y, Yamagata M, Nakajima F et al (2010) Examining risk factors for posterior migration of fusion cages following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a possible limitation of unilateral pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 13:381–387PubMedCrossRef

23.

Lee KH, Yue WM, Yeo W, Soeharno H, Tan SB (2012) Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J (epub ahead of print)

24.

Rihn JA (2012) Commentary: is bilateral pedicle screw fixation necessary when performing a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? An analysis of clinical outcomes, radiographic outcomes, and cost. Spine J 12(3):216–217PubMedCrossRef

25.

Beringer W, Mobasser J (2006) Unilateral pedicle screw instrumentation for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurg Focus 20:E4PubMed

26.

Burton D, McIff T, Fox T et al (2005) Biomechanical analysis of posterior fixation techniques in a 360° arthrodesis model. Spine 30:2765–2771PubMedCrossRef

27.

Knox J, Dai J, Orchowski J (2011) Osteoloysis in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bone morphogenic protein-2. Spine 36:672–676PubMedCrossRef

28.

Mroz T, Wang J, Hashimoto R (2010) Complications related to osteobiologics use in spine surgery. Spine 35:S86–S104PubMedCrossRef

29.

Abbushi A, Cabraja M, Thomale UW, Woiciechowsky C, Kroppenstedt SN (2009) The influence of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion rates in patients with monosegmental posterior lumbar interbody fusion and posterior fixation. Eur Spine J 18(11):1621–1628PubMedCrossRef

30.

Boden S, Zdeblick T, Sandhu H et al (2000) The use of rhBMP-2 in interbody fusion cages. Definitive evidence of osteoinduction in humans: a preliminary report. Spine 25:376–381PubMedCrossRef

31.

Haid R, Branch C, Alexander J et al (2004) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenic protein type 2 with cylindrical interbody cages. Spine J 4:527–538PubMedCrossRef

32.

Vaidya R, Seth A, Bartol S et al (2008) Complications in the use of rhBMP-2 in PEEK cages for interbody spinal fusions. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:557–562PubMedCrossRef

33.

Kimura H, Shikata J, Odate S et al (2012) Risk factors for cage retropulsion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of 1,070 cases. Spine 37:1164–1169PubMedCrossRef

34.

Kuslich S, Ulstrom C, Griffith S et al (1998) The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion: history, techniques, and 2 year follow-up results of a United States prospective, multicenter trial. Spine 23:1267–1278PubMedCrossRef

35.

Le T, Baaj A, Dakwar E et al (2012) Subsidence of polyetheretherketone intervertebral cages in minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 37:1268–1273PubMedCrossRef

36.

Lowe T, Hashim S, Wilson L et al (2004) A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support. Spine 29:2389–2394PubMedCrossRef

37.

Closkey R, Parsons J, Lee C et al (1993) Mechanics of interbody spinal fusion. Analysis of critical bone graft area. Spine 18:1011–1015PubMedCrossRef

Title: An analysis of fusion cage migration in unilateral and bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Authors: Jan William Duncan
Richard Anthony Bailey
Publication date: 01-02-2013
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2458-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

An analysis of fusion cage migration in unilateral and bilateral fixation with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2013

Sagittal alignment of the cervical spine in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated by posteromedial translation

Announcements for issue 22-2-2013

Prevalence of low back pain and factors associated with chronic disabling back pain in Japan

Short-term alendronate treatment does not maintain a residual effect on spinal fusion with interbody devices and bone graft after treatment withdrawal: an experimental study on spinal fusion in pigs

Motion characteristics of the vertebral segments with lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis in elderly patients

Apical vertebral derotation in the posterior treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: myth or reality?