Top

European Spine Journal

Published in:

Open Access 01-11-2017 | Original Article

Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction

Authors: Priyan R. Landham, Angus S. Don, Peter A. Robertson

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 11/2017

Abstract

Purpose

To examine monosegmental lordosis after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery and relate lordosis to cage size, shape, and placement.

Methods

Eighty-three consecutive patients underwent single-level PLIF with paired identical lordotic cages involving a wide decompression and bilateral facetectomies. Cage parameters relating to size (height, lordosis, and length) and placement (expressed as a ratio relative to the length of the inferior vertebral endplate) were recorded. Centre point ratio (CPR) was the distance to the centre of both cages and indicated mean position of both cages. Posterior gap ratio (PGR) was the distance to the most posterior cage and indicated position and cage length indirectly. Relationships between lordosis and cage parameters were explored.

Results

Mean lordosis increased by 5.98° (SD 6.86°). The cages used varied in length from 20 to 27 mm, in lordosis from 10° to 18°, and in anterior cage height from 10 to 17 mm. The mean cage placement as determined by CPR was 0.54 and by PGR was 0.16. The significant correlations were: both CPR and PGR with lordosis gain at surgery (r = 0.597 and 0.537, respectively, p < 0.001 both), cage lordosis with the final lordosis (r = 0.234, p < 0.05), and anterior cage height was negatively correlated with a change in lordosis (r = −0.297, p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Cage size, shape, and position, in addition to surgical technique, determine lordosis during PLIF surgery. Anterior placement with sufficient “clear space” behind the cages is recommended. In addition, cages should be of moderate height and length, so that they act as an effective pivot for lordosis.

Roussouly P, Gollogly S, Berthonnaud E, Dimnet J (2005) Classification of the normal variation in the sagittal alignment of the human lumbar spine and pelvis in the standing position. Spine 30:346–353CrossRefPubMed

Smith JS, Klineberg E, Schwab F et al (2013) Change in classification grade by the SRS-Schwab Adult Spinal Deformity Classification predicts impact on health-related quality of life measures: prospective analysis of operative and nonoperative treatment. Spine 38:1663–1671. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31829ec563 CrossRefPubMed

Schwab F, Ungar B, Blondel B et al (2012) Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab adult spinal deformity classification: a validation study. Spine 37:1077–1082. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31823e15e2 CrossRefPubMed

Nakashima H, Kawakami N, Tsuji T et al (2015) Adjacent segment disease after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: based on cases with a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. Spine 40:E831–E841. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000000917 CrossRefPubMed

Bourghli A, Aunoble S, Reebye O, Le Huec JC (2011) Correlation of clinical outcome and spinopelvic sagittal alignment after surgical treatment of low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 20(suppl 5):663–668. doi:10.1007/s00586-011-1934-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Vialle R, Dauzac C, Khouri N et al (2007) Sacral and lumbar-pelvic morphology in high-grade spondylolisthesis. Orthopedics 30:642–649PubMed

Kawakami M, Tamaki T, Ando M et al (2002) Lumbar sagittal balance influences the clinical outcome after decompression and posterolateral spinal fusion for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine 27:59–64CrossRefPubMed

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

Rothenfluh DA, Mueller DA, Rothenfluh E, Min K (2015) Pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch predisposes to adjacent segment disease after lumbar spinal fusion. Eur Spine J 24:1251–1258. doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3454-0 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Lazennec JY, Ramaré S, Arafati N et al (2000) Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion: relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine J 9:47–55CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Shin M-H, Ryu K-S, Hur J-W et al (2013) Comparative study of lumbopelvic sagittal alignment between patients with and without sacroiliac joint pain after lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 38:E1334–E1341. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a0da47 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Damasceno LHF, Catarin SRG, Campos AD, Defino HLA (2006) Lumbar lordosis: a study of angle values and of vertebral bodies and intervertebral discs role. Acta Ortop Bras 14:193–198CrossRef

13.

Kumar MN, Baklanov A, Chopin D (2001) Correlation between sagittal plane changes and adjacent segment degeneration following lumbar spine fusion. Eur Spine J 10:314–319CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Labrom RD, Tan J-S, Reilly CW et al (2005) The effect of interbody cage positioning on lumbosacral vertebral endplate failure in compression. Spine 30:E556–E561CrossRefPubMed

15.

Abbushi A, Cabraja M, Thomale U-W et al (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 18:1621–1628. doi:10.1007/s00586-009-1036-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Watkins RG IV, Hanna R, Chang D, Watkins RG III (2014) Sagittal alignment after lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 27:253–256. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828a8447 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA et al (2007) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine 7:379–386. doi:10.3171/SPI-07/10/379 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Kim J-S, Kang BU, Lee S-H et al (2009) Mini-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion augmented by percutaneous pedicle screw fixation: a comparison of surgical outcomes in adult low-grade isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 22:114–121. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318169bff5 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Sears W (2005) Posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: restoration of sagittal balance using insert-and-rotate interbody spacers. Spine J 5:170–179. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2004.05.257 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Yang E-Z, Xu J-G, Liu X-K et al (2016) An RCT study comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes with the use of PLIF or TLIF after instrumented reduction in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Eur Spine J 25:1587–1594. doi:10.1007/s00586-015-4341-z CrossRefPubMed

21.

Mummaneni PV, Dhall SS, Eck JC et al (2014) Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: interbody techniques for lumbar fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 21:67–74. doi:10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14276 CrossRefPubMed

22.

Zhang Q, Yuan Z, Zhou M et al (2014) A comparison of posterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:367. doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-367 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Greenough CG, Fraser RD (1992) Assessment of outcome in patients with low-back pain. Spine 17:36–41CrossRefPubMed

24.

Roland M, Morris R (1983) A study of the natural history of back pain. Part I: development of a reliable and sensitive measure of disability in low-back pain. Spine 8:141–144CrossRefPubMed

25.

Harms JG, Jeszenszky D (1998) The unilateral transforaminal approach for posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Oper Orthop Traumatol 10:90–102. doi:10.1007/s00064-006-0112-7 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Grant JP, Oxland TR, Dvorak MF (2001) Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates. Spine 26:889–896CrossRefPubMed

27.

Faundez AA, Mehbod AA, Wu C et al (2008) Position of interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: effect on 3-dimensional stability and sagittal lumbar contour. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:175–180. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e318074bb7d CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kepler CK, Rihn JA, Radcliff KE et al (2012) Restoration of lordosis and disk height after single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Surg 4:15–20. doi:10.1111/j.1757-7861.2011.00165.x CrossRefPubMed

29.

Acosta FL, Liu J, Slimack N et al (2011) Changes in coronal and sagittal plane alignment following minimally invasive direct lateral interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease in adults: a radiographic study. J Neurosurg Spine 15:92–96. doi:10.3171/2011.3.SPINE10425 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Sharma AK, Kepler CK, Girardi FP et al (2011) Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic outcomes at 1 year: a preliminary report. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:242–250. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181ecf995 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Jagannathan J, Sansur CA, Oskouian RJ et al. (2009) Radiographic restoration of lumbar alignment after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 64:955–963. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000343544.77456.46 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Gödde S, Fritsch E, Dienst M, Kohn D (2003) Influence of cage geometry on sagittal alignment in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 28:1693–1699. doi:10.1097/01.BRS.0000083167.78853.D5 PubMed

33.

Takahashi H, Suguro T, Yokoyama Y et al (2010) Effect of cage geometry on sagittal alignment after posterior lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative disc disease. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 18:139–142CrossRef

34.

Groth AT, Kuklo TR, Klemme WR et al (2005) Comparison of sagittal contour and posterior disc height following interbody fusion: threaded cylindrical cages versus structural allograft versus vertical cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:332–336CrossRefPubMed

35.

Diedrich O, Perlick L, Schmitt O, Kraft CN (2001) Radiographic spinal profile changes induced by cage design after posterior lumbar interbody fusion preliminary report of a study with wedged implants. Spine 26:E274–E280CrossRefPubMed

36.

Evans JD (1996) Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove

37.

Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

Title: Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction
Authors: Priyan R. Landham
Angus S. Don
Peter A. Robertson
Publication date: 01-11-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: European Spine Journal / Issue 11/2017
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5170-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction

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 11/2017

12. Deutscher Wirbelsäulenkongress Jahrestagung der Deutschen Wirbelsäulengesellschaft 30. November – 2. Dezember 2017, Stuttgart

S2-AI screw placement with the aide of electronic conductivity device monitoring: a retrospective analysis

Accuracy of a new intraoperative cone beam CT imaging technique (Artis zeego II) compared to postoperative CT scan for assessment of pedicle screws placement and breaches detection

Screw perforation rates in 359 consecutive patients receiving computer-guided pedicle screw insertion along the cervical to lumbar spine

Radiation exposure to the patients in thoracic and lumbar spine fusion using a new intraoperative cone-beam computed tomography imaging technique: a preliminary study

Two-piece ALIF cage optimizes the bone–implant interface in a 360° setting