This is a discussion on The influence of cage positioning & cage type on cage migration & fusion rates within the Education, Research and Spine Publications forums, part of the General Spine Discussion Forums category; European Spine Journal . Volume 18, Number 11 / November, 2009, pgs 1621–1628 The influence of cage positioning and cage ...
European Spine Journal. Volume 18, Number 11 / November, 2009, pgs 1621–1628
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
Alexander Abbushi1, Mario Čabraja1, Ulrich-Wilhelm Thomale1, Christian Woiciechowsky1 and Stefan Nikolaus Kroppenstedt1. (1) Department of Neurosurgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany. Copyright: Springer-Verlag 2009
Abstract 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 ≥3 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.
Keywords Titanium cage - Cage position - Cage migration - Fusion
Justin Averna
Founder & President, Spine Patient Society™
www.SpinePatientSociety.org
A 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Nonprofit & Charitable Organization
I'm here to help.
- 1994: Football Injury, Severe Hyperextension
- 1997: Snow Skiing Injury
- 3/7/1997: Laminotomy L4/L5
- 1999 & 2003: Motor Vehicle Accidents (not at fault both times) --> Grade V Annular Tears L4/L5 & L5/L6
- 11/15/2003: 2-Level ProDisc® L4/L5 & L5/L6*, *lumbosacral transitional vertebra --> Dr. Rudolf Bertagnoli
- 4/2008: 4.5 years pain-free before "new" leg pain
- 5/14/2009: Dynamic Stabilization System L4/L5, Dr. Rudolf Bertagnoli
Questions? Suggestions? Need help with registering, creating a signature, etc.?
justin (at) spinepatientsociety.org
Disclosure: I have no financial relationships with any surgeons, spine clinics, device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc. -- the SPS Board of Directors serve without compensation.
Bookmarks