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

被引:156
作者
Abbushi, Alexander [1 ]
Cabraja, Mario [1 ]
Thomale, Ulrich-Wilhelm [1 ]
Woiciechowsky, Christian [1 ]
Kroppenstedt, Stefan Nikolaus [1 ]
机构
[1] Charite, Dept Neurosurg, D-13353 Berlin, Germany
关键词
Titanium cage; Cage position; Cage migration; Fusion; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; BONE-GRAFT; BAGBY; SIZE;
D O I
10.1007/s00586-009-1036-3
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
100204 [神经病学];
摘要
In posterior lumbar interbody fusion, cage migrations and lower fusion rates compared to autologous bone graft used in the anterior lumbar interbody fusion procedure are documented. Anatomical and biomechanical data have shown that the cage positioning and cage type seem to play an important role. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of cage positioning and cage type on cage migration and fusion. We created a grid system for the endplates to analyze different cage positions. To analyze the influence of the cage type, we compared "closed" box titanium cages with "open" box titanium cages. This study included 40 patients with 80 implanted cages. After pedicle screw fixation, 23 patients were treated with a "closed box" cage and 17 patients with an "open box" cage. The follow-up period averaged 25 months. Twenty cages (25%) showed a migration into one vertebral endplate of < 3 mm and four cages (5%) showed a migration of a parts per thousand yen3 mm. Cage migration was highest in the medio-medial position (84.6%), followed by the postero-lateral (42.9%), and the postero-medial (16%) cage position. Closed box cages had a significantly higher migration rate than open box cages, but fusion rates did not differ. In conclusion, cage positioning and cage type influence cage migration. The medio-medial cage position showed the highest migration rate. Regarding the cage type, open box cages seem to be associated with lower migration rates compared to closed box cages. However, the cage type did not influence bone fusion.
引用
收藏
页码:1621 / 1628
页数:8
相关论文
共 24 条
[1]
ABBUSHI A, 2007, KLIN RADIOLOGISCHE E, P1
[2]
Posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cages: an independent review of 71 cases [J].
Agazzi, S ;
Reverdin, A ;
May, D .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 1999, 91 (02) :186-192
[3]
Arai Yasuhisa, 2002, J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong), V10, P1
[4]
Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F Cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system - Two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration Investigational Device Exemption Clinical Trial [J].
Brantigan, JW ;
Steffee, AD ;
Lewis, ML ;
Quinn, LM ;
Persenaire, JM .
SPINE, 2000, 25 (11) :1437-1446
[5]
Cage migration in spondylolisthesis treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using BAK cages [J].
Chen, L ;
Yang, HL ;
Tang, TS .
SPINE, 2005, 30 (19) :2171-2175
[6]
Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation -: A prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients [J].
Christensen, FB ;
Hansen, ES ;
Eiskjær, SP ;
Hoy, K ;
Helmig, P ;
Neumann, P ;
Niedermann, B ;
Bünger, CE .
SPINE, 2002, 27 (23) :2674-2683
[7]
MECHANICS OF INTERBODY SPINAL-FUSION - ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL BONE-GRAFT AREA [J].
CLOSKEY, RF ;
PARSONS, JR ;
LEE, CK ;
BLACKSIN, MF ;
ZIMMERMAN, MC .
SPINE, 1993, 18 (08) :1011-1015
[8]
Analysis of titanium mesh cages in adults with minimum two-year follow-up [J].
Eck, KR ;
Bridwell, KH ;
Ungacta, FF ;
Lapp, MA ;
Lenke, LG ;
Riew, KD .
SPINE, 2000, 25 (18) :2407-2415
[9]
Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device [J].
Elias, WJ ;
Simmons, NE ;
Kaptain, GJ ;
Chadduck, JB ;
Whitehill, R .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2000, 93 (01) :45-52
[10]
Influence of PLIF cage size on lumbar spine stability [J].
Goh, JCH ;
Wong, HK ;
Thambyah, A ;
Yu, CS .
SPINE, 2000, 25 (01) :35-39