ObjectiveTo compare the clinical and radiological effectiveness of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in the treatment of Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery.MethodsThe clinical data of 40 patients who underwent revision surgery due to Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery betweem April 2013 and March 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 18 patients underwent OLIF (OLIF group) and 22 patients underwent PLIF (PLIF group) for revision. There was no significant difference between the two groups in age, gender, body mass index, intervals between primary surgery and revision surgery, number of primary fused levels, disc spaces of Cage dislodgement, and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores of low back pain and leg pain, Oswestry disability index (ODI), the segmental lordosis (SL) and disc height (DH) of the disc space of Cage dislodgement, and the lumbar lordosis (LL) before revision (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and complications of the two groups were recorded and compared. The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain were evaluated at 3 days, 3, 6, and 12 months after operation, and the ODI scores were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation. The SL and DH of the disc space of Cage dislodgement and LL were measured at 12 months after operation and compared with those before operation. CT examination was performed at 12 months after operation, and the fusion of the disc space implanted with new Cage was judged by Bridwell grading standard.ResultsThe intraoperative blood loss in the OLIF group was significantly less than that in the PLIF group (t=−12.425, P=0.000); there was no significant difference between the two groups in the operation time and hospital stay (P>0.05). Both groups were followed up 12-30 months, with an average of 18 months. In the OLIF group, 2 patients (11.1%) had thigh numbness and 1 patient (5.6%) had hip flexor weakness after operation; 2 patients (9.1%) in the PLIF group had intraoperative dural sac tear. The other patients’ incisions healed by first intention without early postoperative complications. There was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups (χ2=0.519, P=0.642). The VAS scores of low back pain and leg pain, and the ODI score of the two groups at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between the two groups at each time point after operation (P>0.05). At 12 months after operation, SL, LL, and DH in the two groups were significantly increased when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05); SL and DH in the OLIF group were significantly improved when compared with those in the PLIF group (P<0.05), and there was no significant difference in LL between the two groups (P>0.05). CT examination at 12 months after operation showed that all the operated disc spaces achieved bony fusion. According to the Bridwell grading standard, 12 cases were grade Ⅰ and 6 cases were grade Ⅱ in the OLIF group, and 13 cases were grade Ⅰ and 9 cases were grade Ⅱ in the PLIF group; there was no significant difference between the two groups (Z=–0.486, P=0.627). During follow-up, neither re-displacement or sinking of Cage, nor loosening or fracture of internal fixation occurred.ConclusionOLIF and PLIF can achieve similar effectiveness in the treatment of Cage dislodgement after lumbar surgery. OLIF can further reduce intraoperative blood loss and restore the SL and DH of the disc space of Cage dislodgement better.
Spinal fusion is a standard operation for treating moderate and severe intervertebral disc diseases. In recent years, the proportion of three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage in spinal fusion surgery has gradually increased. In this paper, the research progress of molding technology and materials used in three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage at present is summarized. Then, according to structure layout, three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cages are classified into five types: solid-porous-solid (SPS) type, solid-porous-frame (SPF) type, frame-porous-frame (FPF) type, whole porous cage (WPC) type and others. The optimization process of three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage and the advantages and disadvantages of each type are analyzed and summarized in depth. The clinical application of various types of 3D printed interbody fusion cage was introduced and summarized later. Lastly, combined with the latest research progress and achievements, the future research direction of three-dimensional printing interbody fusion cage in molding technology, application materials and coating materials is prospected in order to provide some reference for scholars engaged in interbody fusion cage research and application.
ObjectiveTo summarize the advances in research on Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion, and provide reference for its prevention.MethodsThe definition, development, clinical significance, and related risk factors of Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion were throughout reviewed by referring to relevant domestic and doreign literature in recent years.ResultsAt present, there is no consensus on the definition of Cage subsidence, and mostly accepted as the disk height reduction greater than 2 mm. Cage subsidence mainly occurs in the early postoperative stage, which weakens the radiological surgical outcome, and may further damage the effectiveness or even lead to surgical failure. Cage subsidence is closely related to the Cage size and its placement location, intraoperative endplate preparation, morphological matching of disk space to Cage, bone mineral density, body mass index, and so on.ConclusionThe appropriate size and shape of the Cage usage, the posterolateral Cage placed, the gentle endplate operation to prevent injury, the active perioperative anti-osteoporosis treatment, and the education of patients to control body weight may help to prevent Cage subsidence and ensure good surgical results.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of stand-alone MC+polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) Cage (single blade type) in anterior cervical double-level fusion for more than 2 years follow-up.Methods A clinical data of 30 patients who were treated with anterior cervical fusion surgery with stand-alone MC+PEEK Cage (single blade type) between January 2013 and December 2016 and followed up for more than 2 years, was retrospectively analyzed. There were 16 males and 14 females, aged from 34 to 72 years with an average of 52.2 years. There were 16 cases of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, 8 cases of cervical spondylotic myelopathy, and 6 cases of traumatic cervical disc herniation. The continuous double segments were C4, 5, C5, 6 in 12 cases and C5, 6, C6, 7 in 18 cases; and the disease duration ranged from3 days to 24 months (mean, 12 months). Postoperative neck hematoma and wound healing were observed; dysphagia was assessed by Bazaz system; and bone fusion was assessed by Suk method. Before operation, at 1 week after operation, and at last follow-up, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score was used to evaluate the neurological recovery; the cervical X-ray film was performed to record the cervical curvature (C2-C7 Cobb angle), the height of the intervertebral space of the fusion segment, and to judge the occurrence of the fusion Cage subsidence.ResultsNo complication such as neck hematoma, incision infection, or esophageal fistula was found, primary healing of incisions was obtained in all cases. All patients were followed up 24-72 months (mean, 46 months). Neurological symptoms such as limb numbness and pain gradually disappeared after operation; during the follow-up period, the cervical curvature could be effectively maintained; dysphagia and internal fixation related complications such as displacement of Cages were not found. All patients obtained bony fusion from 3 to 8 months with an average time of 4.3 months. Compared with preoperative ones, the JOA score, intervertebral space height, and Cobb angle of cervical spine were significantly improved at 1 week after operation and at last follow-up (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between 1 week after operation and last follow-up (P>0.05).ConclusionThe application of stand-alone MC+PEEK Cage (single card type) in anterior cervical fusion can provide early cervical stability, effectively maintain the physiological curvature of cervical spine and the height of fusion intervertebral space.
Zero profile cervical interbody cage is an improvement of traditional fusion products and necessary supplement of emerging artificial intervertebral disc products. When applied in Anterior Cervical Decompression Fusion (ACDF), zero profile cervical interbody cage can preserve the advantages of traditional fusion and reduce the incidence of postoperative complications. Moreover, zero profile cervical interbody cage can be applied under the tabu symptoms of Artificial Cervical Disc Replacement (ACDR). This article summarizes zero profile interbody cage products that are commonly recognized and widely used in clinical practice in recent years, and reviews the progress of structure design and material research of zero profile cervical interbody cage products. Based on the latest clinical demands and research progress, this paper also discusses the future development directions of zero profile interbody cage.
ObjectiveTo review the research progress and clinical application of allograft bone spacer in cervical and lumbar interbody fusion. MethodsLiterature about allograft bone spacer in cervical and lumbar degenerative disease was reviewed and analyzed, including the advantages and disadvantages of allograft material, fusion rate, effectiveness, and complications. ResultsFusion rate and effectiveness of allograft bone spacers were similar to those of autograft and polyetheretherketone spacers, and they were recommended by many orthopedists. However, indications, long-term effectiveness, and complications were not clear. ConclusionFurther study on allograft bone spacer in cervical and lumbar interbody fusion should be focused on optimal indications and long-term effectiveness.
Objective To analyze the therapeutic effect of the posterior pedicle screw system combined with interbody fusion cage on lumbarspondylolisthesis. Methods From February 2003 to March 2006, 37 lumbar spondylolisthesis patients were treated with this operation, including21 males and 16 females and aging 3969 years.The affected lumbars were L3(3cases)，L4(23 cases), and L5(11 cases). According to the Meyerdingevaluating system, 12 cases were lassified as degree Ⅰ, 20 cases as degree Ⅱ,and 5 cases as degree Ⅲ. Taillard index, Boxall index, slipping angle, lumbar lordosis angle and intervertebral height index were measured before operation, and 2 weeks and 3 months after operation. Results All patients were followed up 336 months. There were statistically significant differences in Taillard index, Boxall index, slipping angle, lumbar lordosis angle and intervertebral height index between before operation and 2 weeks after operation (P＜0.05),and no statistically significant differences between 2 weeks and 3 months afteroperation(P＞0.05). According to Dewei Zhou’s creterior for scoring, the results were excellent in 27 cases， good in 8 cases，and fair in 2 cases. Theexcellent and good rate was 94.6%. All of the embedded osseous were fused. Thefusing time was from 3 to 8 months (mean 3-9 months). There were no breakageof screw and rod. The position and configuration of the whole cages were good. Conclusion Applying the posterior pedicle screw system combined with interbody fusion cage may achieve synergism in the treatment of lumbar vertebral spondylolisthesis. Above procedure is served as solid internal fixationand offers a satisfactory reduction, and can improve the fusion rate of the spine. So it is an ideal procedure and worthily recommended method for treatment oflumbar vertebral spondylolisthesis.
Objective To compare the effectiveness between three-dimensional (3D) printed porous titanium alloy cage (3D Cage) and poly-ether-ether-ketone cage (PEEK Cage) in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods A total of 66 patients who were scheduled to undergo PLIF between January 2018 and June 2019 were selected as the research subjects, and were divided into the trial group (implantation of 3D Cage, n=33) and the control group (implantation of PEEK Cage, n=33) according to the random number table method. Among them, 1 case in the trial group did not complete the follow-up exclusion study, and finally 32 cases in the trial group and 33 cases in the control group were included in the statistical analysis. There was no significant difference in gender, age, etiology, disease duration, surgical segment, and preoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, JOA score, intervertebral height loss, and interbody fusion were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results The operations of two groups were completed successfully. There was 1 case of dural rupture complicated with cerebrospinal fluid leakage during operation in the trial group, and no complication occurred in the other patients of the two groups. All incisions healed by first intention. There was no significant difference in operation time and intraoperative blood loss between groups (P>0.05). All patients were followed up 12-24 months (mean, 16.7 months). The JOA scores at 1 year after operation in both groups significantly improved when compared with those before operation (P<0.05); there was no significant difference between groups (P>0.05) in the difference between pre- and post-operation and the improvement rate of JOA score at 1 year after operation. X-ray film reexamination showed that there was no screw loosening, screw rod fracture, Cage collapse, or immune rejection in the two groups during follow-up. At 3 months and 1 year after operation, the rate of intervertebral height loss was significantly lower in the trial group than in the control group (P<0.05). At 3 and 6 months after operation, the interbody fusion rating of trial group was significantly better in the trial group than in the control group (P<0.05); and at 1 year after operation, there was no significant difference between groups (P>0.05). ConclusionThere is no significant difference between 3D Cage and PEEK Cage in PLIF, in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, postoperative neurological recovery, and final intervertebral fusion. But the former can effectively reduce vertebral body subsidence and accelerate intervertebral fusion.
ObjectiveTo discuss the early effectiveness of polyaminoacid/nano-hydroxyapatite/calcium sulfate (PAA/HA/CS) Cage (PHC Cage) in lumbar fusion surgery. MethodsThirty cases undergoing lumbar fusion of single segment between March and September 2014 were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly divided into the trial group (n=20) and the control group (n=10). The PHC Cage was implanted in the trial group, while the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cage was implanted in the control group. The patients of 2 groups mainly presented lumbocrural pain and lower limb radiation pain or numbness. There was no significant difference in gender, age, type, affected segment, disease duration, preoperative intervertebral height, the lordosis angle of fusion segments, and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Lateral lumbar X-ray films and three dimensional CT were taken preoperatively and at 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. The intervertebral height and the lordosis angle of fusion segments at 1 week and 3, 6, and 12 months after operation and ODI at 3, 6, and 12 months after operation were measured; and the bone graft fusion rate was evaluated according to Brantigan criteria. ResultsThere was no significant difference in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and the amount of autologous blood transfusion between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Healing by first intention was obtained in 30 cases. All patients were followed up 12 months. The intervertebral height of fusion segments, the lordosis angle of fusion segments, and ODI at each time point after operation were significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones (P < 0.05). The ODI showed significant difference between 3 months and 6, 12 months (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the other time points after operation (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the intervertebral height and the lordosis angle of fusion segments between groups at different time points (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the above indexes between the trial group and the control group at each time point (P > 0.05). At last follow-up, 5 cases were rated as Brantigan grade E, 13 cases as grade D, and 2 cases as grade C in the trial group; 4 cases were rated grade E, 5 cases as grade D, and 1 case as grade C in the control group. The bone fusion rate was 90% in 2 groups. ConclusionThe PHC Cage can effectively restore and maintain the disc height of fusion segment, normal sequence and biomechanical stability of the lumbar spine. The PHC Cage is similar to the PEEK Cage and has good clinical outcome in short-term follow-up.