Influence of Cage Design on Radiological and Clinical Outcomes in Dorsal Lumbar Spinal Fusions: A Comparison of Lordotic and Non‐Lordotic Cages

Objectives To evaluate the comparison between lordotic and non‐lordotic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages in degenerative lumbar spine surgery and analyze radiological as well as clinical outcome parameters in long‐term follow up. Methods In a retrospective study design, we compare...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Christian Walter, Tobias Baumgärtner, Dominik Trappe, Sandra Frantz, Lisanne Exner, Moritz Mederake
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2021-05-01
Series:Orthopaedic Surgery
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12872
id doaj-c31a82aff18d40bead8618903b82ed68
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c31a82aff18d40bead8618903b82ed682021-05-17T07:20:40ZengWileyOrthopaedic Surgery1757-78531757-78612021-05-0113386387510.1111/os.12872Influence of Cage Design on Radiological and Clinical Outcomes in Dorsal Lumbar Spinal Fusions: A Comparison of Lordotic and Non‐Lordotic CagesChristian Walter0Tobias Baumgärtner1Dominik Trappe2Sandra Frantz3Lisanne Exner4Moritz Mederake5University Hospital Tübingen Tübingen GermanyUniversity Hospital Tübingen Tübingen GermanyUniversity Hospital Tübingen Tübingen GermanyUniversity Hospital Tübingen Tübingen GermanyUniversity Hospital Tübingen Tübingen GermanyUniversity Hospital Tübingen Tübingen GermanyObjectives To evaluate the comparison between lordotic and non‐lordotic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages in degenerative lumbar spine surgery and analyze radiological as well as clinical outcome parameters in long‐term follow up. Methods In a retrospective study design, we compared 37 patients with non‐lordotic cage (NL‐group) and 40 with a 5° lordotic cage (L‐group) implanted mono‐ or bi‐segmental in TLIF‐technique from 2013 to 2016 and analyzed radiological parameters of pre‐ and postoperative (Lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), and pelvic tilt (PT), as well as clinical parameters in a follow‐up physical examination using the Oswestry disability index (ODI), Roland–Morris Score (RMS), and visual analog scale (VAS). Results Surgery was mainly performed in lower lumbar spine with a peak in L4/5 (mono‐segmental) and L4 to S1 (bi‐segmental), long‐term follow‐up was on average 4 years postoperative. According to the literature, we found significantly better results in radiological outcome in the L‐group compared to the NL‐group: LL increased 6° in L‐group (51° preoperative to 57° postoperative) and decreased 1° in NL‐group (50° to 49° (P < 0.001). Regarding SL, we found an increase of 5° in L‐group (13° to 18°) and no difference in NL‐group (15°)(P < 0.001). In PT, we found a clear benefit with a decrease of 2° in L‐group (21° to 19°) and no difference in NL‐group (P = 0.008). In direct group comparison, ODI in NL‐group was 23% vs 28% in L‐group (P = 0.25), RMS in NL‐group was 8 points vs 9 points in L‐group (P = 0.48), and VAS was in NL‐group 2.7 vs 3.2 in L‐group (P = 0.27) without significant differences. However, the clinical outcome in multivariate analysis indicated a significant multivariate influence across ODI and RMS of BMI (Wilks λ = 0.57, F [4, 44] = 3.61, P = 0.012) and preoperative SS (Wilks λ = 0.66, F [4, 44] = 2.54, P = 0.048). Age, gender, cage type and postoperative PT had no significant influence (P > 0.05). Intraoperatively, we saw three dura injuries that could be sutured without problems and had no consequences for the patient. In the follow‐up, we did not find any material‐related problems, such as broken screws or cage loosening, also no pseudarthrosis. Conclusion In conclusion, we think it's not cage design but other influenceable factors such as correct indication and adequate decompression that lead to surgical success and the minimal difference in the LL therefore seemed to be of subordinate importance.https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12872CageInterbody fusionLumbar lordosisSagittal alignmentSpine surgery
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Christian Walter
Tobias Baumgärtner
Dominik Trappe
Sandra Frantz
Lisanne Exner
Moritz Mederake
spellingShingle Christian Walter
Tobias Baumgärtner
Dominik Trappe
Sandra Frantz
Lisanne Exner
Moritz Mederake
Influence of Cage Design on Radiological and Clinical Outcomes in Dorsal Lumbar Spinal Fusions: A Comparison of Lordotic and Non‐Lordotic Cages
Orthopaedic Surgery
Cage
Interbody fusion
Lumbar lordosis
Sagittal alignment
Spine surgery
author_facet Christian Walter
Tobias Baumgärtner
Dominik Trappe
Sandra Frantz
Lisanne Exner
Moritz Mederake
author_sort Christian Walter
title Influence of Cage Design on Radiological and Clinical Outcomes in Dorsal Lumbar Spinal Fusions: A Comparison of Lordotic and Non‐Lordotic Cages
title_short Influence of Cage Design on Radiological and Clinical Outcomes in Dorsal Lumbar Spinal Fusions: A Comparison of Lordotic and Non‐Lordotic Cages
title_full Influence of Cage Design on Radiological and Clinical Outcomes in Dorsal Lumbar Spinal Fusions: A Comparison of Lordotic and Non‐Lordotic Cages
title_fullStr Influence of Cage Design on Radiological and Clinical Outcomes in Dorsal Lumbar Spinal Fusions: A Comparison of Lordotic and Non‐Lordotic Cages
title_full_unstemmed Influence of Cage Design on Radiological and Clinical Outcomes in Dorsal Lumbar Spinal Fusions: A Comparison of Lordotic and Non‐Lordotic Cages
title_sort influence of cage design on radiological and clinical outcomes in dorsal lumbar spinal fusions: a comparison of lordotic and non‐lordotic cages
publisher Wiley
series Orthopaedic Surgery
issn 1757-7853
1757-7861
publishDate 2021-05-01
description Objectives To evaluate the comparison between lordotic and non‐lordotic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages in degenerative lumbar spine surgery and analyze radiological as well as clinical outcome parameters in long‐term follow up. Methods In a retrospective study design, we compared 37 patients with non‐lordotic cage (NL‐group) and 40 with a 5° lordotic cage (L‐group) implanted mono‐ or bi‐segmental in TLIF‐technique from 2013 to 2016 and analyzed radiological parameters of pre‐ and postoperative (Lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), and pelvic tilt (PT), as well as clinical parameters in a follow‐up physical examination using the Oswestry disability index (ODI), Roland–Morris Score (RMS), and visual analog scale (VAS). Results Surgery was mainly performed in lower lumbar spine with a peak in L4/5 (mono‐segmental) and L4 to S1 (bi‐segmental), long‐term follow‐up was on average 4 years postoperative. According to the literature, we found significantly better results in radiological outcome in the L‐group compared to the NL‐group: LL increased 6° in L‐group (51° preoperative to 57° postoperative) and decreased 1° in NL‐group (50° to 49° (P < 0.001). Regarding SL, we found an increase of 5° in L‐group (13° to 18°) and no difference in NL‐group (15°)(P < 0.001). In PT, we found a clear benefit with a decrease of 2° in L‐group (21° to 19°) and no difference in NL‐group (P = 0.008). In direct group comparison, ODI in NL‐group was 23% vs 28% in L‐group (P = 0.25), RMS in NL‐group was 8 points vs 9 points in L‐group (P = 0.48), and VAS was in NL‐group 2.7 vs 3.2 in L‐group (P = 0.27) without significant differences. However, the clinical outcome in multivariate analysis indicated a significant multivariate influence across ODI and RMS of BMI (Wilks λ = 0.57, F [4, 44] = 3.61, P = 0.012) and preoperative SS (Wilks λ = 0.66, F [4, 44] = 2.54, P = 0.048). Age, gender, cage type and postoperative PT had no significant influence (P > 0.05). Intraoperatively, we saw three dura injuries that could be sutured without problems and had no consequences for the patient. In the follow‐up, we did not find any material‐related problems, such as broken screws or cage loosening, also no pseudarthrosis. Conclusion In conclusion, we think it's not cage design but other influenceable factors such as correct indication and adequate decompression that lead to surgical success and the minimal difference in the LL therefore seemed to be of subordinate importance.
topic Cage
Interbody fusion
Lumbar lordosis
Sagittal alignment
Spine surgery
url https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12872
work_keys_str_mv AT christianwalter influenceofcagedesignonradiologicalandclinicaloutcomesindorsallumbarspinalfusionsacomparisonoflordoticandnonlordoticcages
AT tobiasbaumgartner influenceofcagedesignonradiologicalandclinicaloutcomesindorsallumbarspinalfusionsacomparisonoflordoticandnonlordoticcages
AT dominiktrappe influenceofcagedesignonradiologicalandclinicaloutcomesindorsallumbarspinalfusionsacomparisonoflordoticandnonlordoticcages
AT sandrafrantz influenceofcagedesignonradiologicalandclinicaloutcomesindorsallumbarspinalfusionsacomparisonoflordoticandnonlordoticcages
AT lisanneexner influenceofcagedesignonradiologicalandclinicaloutcomesindorsallumbarspinalfusionsacomparisonoflordoticandnonlordoticcages
AT moritzmederake influenceofcagedesignonradiologicalandclinicaloutcomesindorsallumbarspinalfusionsacomparisonoflordoticandnonlordoticcages
_version_ 1721438558748672000