Detailed Information

Cited 109 time in webofscience Cited 120 time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Risk factors for cage migration and cage retropulsion following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

Authors
Park, Man-KyuKim, Kyoung-TaeBang, Woo-SeokCho, Dae-ChulSung, Joo-KyungLee, Young-SeokLee, Chang KyuKim, Chi HeonKwon, Brian K.Lee, Won-KeeHan, Inbo
Issue Date
Mar-2019
Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
Keywords
Cage migration; Cage retropulsion; Interbody cage; Osteoporosis; Risk factors; Subsidence; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
Citation
SPINE JOURNAL, v.19, no.3, pp 437 - 447
Pages
11
Indexed
SCIE
SCOPUS
Journal Title
SPINE JOURNAL
Volume
19
Number
3
Start Page
437
End Page
447
URI
https://scholarworks.gnu.ac.kr/handle/sw.gnu/73007
DOI
10.1016/j.spinee.2018.08.007
ISSN
1529-9430
1878-1632
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a widely accepted surgical procedure, but cage migration (CM) and cage retropulsion (CR) are associated with poor outcomes. PURPOSE: This study seeks to identify risk factors associated with these serious events. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective observational longitudinal study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Over a 5-year period, 881 lumbar levels in 784 patients were treated using TLIF at three spinal surgery centers. OUTCOME MEASURES: We evaluated the odds ratio of the risk factors for CM with and without subsidence and CR in multivariate analysis. METHODS: Our study classified CM into two subgroups: CM without subsidence and CM with subsidence. Cases of spinal canal and/or foramen intrusion of the cage was defined separately as CR. Patient records, operative notes, and radiographs were analyzed for factors potentially related to CM with subsidence, CM without subsidence, and CR. RESULTS: Of 881 lumbar levels treated with TLIFs, CM without subsidence was observed in 20 (2.3%) and CM with subsidence was observed in 36 (4.1%) patients. Among the CM cases, CR was observed in 17 (17/56, 30.4%). The risk factors of CM without subsidence were osteoporosis (OR 8.73, p < .001) and use of a unilateral single cage (OR 3.57, p < .001). Osteoporosis (OR 5.77, p <.001) and endplate injury (OR 26.87, p < .001) were found to be significant risk factors for CM with subsidence. Risk factors of CR were osteoporosis (OR 7.86, p < .001), pear-shaped disc (OR 8.28, p = .001), endplate injury (OR 18.70, p < .001), unilateral single cage use (OR 4.40, p = .03), and posterior cage position (OR 6.45, p = .04). A difference in overall fusion rates was identified, with a rate of 97.1% (801 of 825) for no CM, 55.0% (11 of 20) for CM without subsidence, 41.7% (15 of 36) for CM with subsidence, and 17.6% (3 of 17) for CR at 1.5 years postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that osteoporosis is a significant risk factor for both CM and CR. In addition, a pear-shaped disc, posterior positioning of the cage, the presence of endplate injury and the use of a single cage were correlated with the CM with and without subsidence and CR. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Files in This Item
There are no files associated with this item.
Appears in
Collections
ETC > Journal Articles

qrcode

Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Related Researcher

Altmetrics

Total Views & Downloads

BROWSE