DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Stand-Alone Interbody Cage in Treatment of Lumbar Intervertebral Foraminal Stenosis : Comparative Study of Two Different Types of Cages

  • Cho, Chul-Bum (Department of Neurosurgery, St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Ryu, Kyeong-Sik (Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Park, Chun-Kun (Department of Neurosurgery, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2010.01.24
  • Accepted : 2010.05.10
  • Published : 2010.05.28

Abstract

Objective : This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) using two different stand-alone cages in the treatment of lumbar intervertebral foraminal stenosis (IFS). Methods : A total of 28 patients who underwent ALIF at L5-S1 using stand-alone cage were studied [Stabilis$^{(R)}$ (Stryker, Kalamazoo, MI, USA); 13, SynFix-LR$^{(R)}$ (Synthes Bettlach, Switzerland); 15]. Mean follow-up period was 27.3 ${\pm}$ 4.9 months. Visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) were assessed. Radiologically, the change of disc height, intervertebral foraminal (IVF) height and width at the operated segment were measured, and fusion status was defined. Results : Final mean VAS (back and leg) and ODI scores were significantly decreased from preoperative values (5.6 ${\pm}$ 2.3 ${\rightarrow}$ 2.3 ${\pm}$ 2.2, 6.3 ${\pm}$ 3.2 ${\rightarrow}$1.6 ${\pm}$ 1.6, and 53.7 ${\pm}$ 18.6 ${\rightarrow}$ 28.3 ${\pm}$ 13.1, respectively), which were not different between the two devices groups. In Stabilis$^{(R)}$ group, postoperative immediately increased disc and IVF heights (10.09 ${\pm}$ 4.15 mm ${\rightarrow}$ 14.99 ${\pm}$ 1.73 mm, 13.00 ${\pm}$ 2.44 mm ${\rightarrow}$ 16.28 ${\pm}$ 2.23 mm, respectively) were gradually decreased, and finally returned to preoperative value (11.29 ${\pm}$ 1.67 mm, 13.59 ${\pm}$ 2.01 mm, respectively). In SynFix-LR$^{(R)}$ group, immediately increased disc and IVF heights (9.60 ${\pm}$ 2.82 mm ${\rightarrow}$ 15.61 ${\pm}$ 0.62 mm, 14.01 ${\pm}$ 2.53 mm ${\rightarrow}$ 21.27 ${\pm}$ 1.93 mm, respectively) were maintained until the last follow up (13.72 ${\pm}$ 1.21 mm, 17.87 ${\pm}$ 2.02 mm, respectively). The changes of IVF width of each group was minimal pre- and postoperatively. Solid arthrodesis was observed in 11 patients in Stabilis group (11/13, 84.6%) and 13 in SynFix-LR$^{(R)}$ group (13/15, 86.7%). Conclusion : ALIF using stand-alone cage could assure good clinical results in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar IFS in the mid-term follow up. A degree of subsidence at the operated segment was different depending on the device type, which was higher in Stabilis$^{(R)}$ group.

Keywords

References

  1. Beaubien BP, Mehbod AA, Kallemeier PM, Lew WD, Buttermann GR, Transfeldt EE, et al. : Posterior augmentation of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion : minimally invasive fixation versus pedicle screws in vitro. Spine 29 : E406-E412, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000141187.53366.9b
  2. Cain CM, Schleicher P, Gerlach R, Pflugmacher R, Scholz M, Kandziora F : A new stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion device : biomechanical comparison with established fixation techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30 : 2631-2636, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000187897.25889.54
  3. Chen SH, Tai CL, Lin CY, Hsieh PH, Chen WP : Biomechanical comparison of a new stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with established fixation techniques - a three-dimensional finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9 : 88, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-9-88
  4. Christensen FB : Lumbar spinal fusion. Outcome in relation to surgical methods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 75 : 2-43, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470410001708010
  5. Commarmond J : [One-segment interbody lumbar arthrodesis using impacted cages : posterior unilateral approach versus posterior bilateral approach]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87 : 129-134, 2001
  6. Crandall DG, Revella J : Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion as an adjunct to posterior instrumented correction of degenerative lumbar scoliosis : three year clinical and radiographic outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34 : 2126-2133, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b612db
  7. El Masry MA, Badawy WS, Rajendran P, Chan D : Combined anterior interbody fusion and posterior pedicle screw fixation in patients with degenerative lumbar disc disease. Int Orthop 28 : 294-297, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-004-0587-5
  8. Gazzeri R, Tamorri M, Galarza M, Faiola A, Gazzeri G : Balloonassisted endoscopic retroperitoneal gasless approach (BERG) for lumbar interbody fusion : is it a valid alternative to the laparoscopic approach? Minim Invasive Neurosurg 50 : 150-154, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-985144
  9. Gerber M, Crawford NR, Chamberlain RH, Fifield MS, LeHuec JC, Dickman CA : Biomechanical assessment of anterior lumbar interbody fusion with an anterior lumbosacral fixation screw-plate : comparison to stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion and anterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screws in an unstable human cadaver model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31 : 762-768, 2006 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000206360.83728.d2
  10. Hee HT, Castro FP Jr, Majd ME, Holt RT, Myers L : Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion : analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord 14 : 533-540, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200112000-00013
  11. Inaoka M, Tada K, Yonenobu K : Problems of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) for the rheumatoid spondylitis of the lumbar spine. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 122 : 73-79, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1007/s004020100321
  12. Infusa A, An HS, Glover JM, McGrady L, Lim TH, Riley LH 3rd : The ideal amount of lumbar foraminal distraction for pedicle screw instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 21 : 2218-2223, 1996 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199610010-00008
  13. Jang JS, Lee SH, Lim SR : Guide device for percutaneous placement of translaminar facet screws after anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Technical note. J Neurosurg 98 : 100-103, 2003
  14. Kettler A, Wilke HJ, Dietl R, Krammer M, Lumenta C, Claes L : Stabilizing effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion cages before and after cyclic loading. J Neurosurg 92 : 87-92, 2000
  15. Lubbers T, Bentlage C, Sandvoss G : [Anterior lumbar interbody fusion as a treatment for chronic refractory lower back pain in disc degeneration and spondylolisthesis using carbon cages - stand alone]. Zentralbl Neurochir 63 : 12-17, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-31580
  16. Luczkiewicz P, Smoczy´nski A, Smoczynski M, Lorczynski A, Piotrowski M : [The long-term results of decompression and anterior lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.] Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 69 : 173-177, 2004
  17. Luczkiewicz P, Smoczynski A, Smoczynski M, Pankowski R, Piotrowski M : [The results of decompression and anterior lumbar interbody fusion with the use of interbody cages for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.] Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol 71 : 173-175, 2006
  18. Madan SS, Boeree NR : Comparison of instrumented anterior interbody fusion with instrumented circumferential lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J 12 : 567-575, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-002-0516-5
  19. Mayer HM : A new microsurgical technique for minimally invasive anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22 : 691- 699; discussion 700, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199703150-00023
  20. Mayer HM, Wiechert K : Microsurgical anterior approaches to the lumbar spine for interbody fusion and total disc replacement. Neurosurgery 51 : S159-S165, 2002
  21. Min JH, Jang JS, Jung B, Lee HY, Choi WC, Shim CS, et al. : The clinical characteristics and risk factors for the adjacent segment degeneration in instrumented lumbar fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 21 : 305-309, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318142b960
  22. Min JH, Jang JS, Lee SH : Comparison of anterior- and posteriorapproach instrumented lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 7 : 21-26, 2007 https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI-07/07/021
  23. Oxland TR, Hoffer Z, Nydegger T, Rathonyi GC, Nolte LP : A comparative biomechanical investigation of anterior lumbar interbody cages : central and bilateral approaches. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82 : 383-393, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.82B3.9887
  24. Pellise F, Puig O, Rivas A, Bagg J, Villanueva C : Low fusion rate after L5-S1 laparoscopic anterior lumbar interbody fusion using twin stand-alone carbon fiber cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 27 : 1665- 1669, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200208010-00015
  25. Pradhan BB, Nassar JA, Delamarter RB, Wang JC : Single-level lumbar spine fusion : a comparison of anterior and posterior approaches. J Spinal Disord Tech 15 : 355-361, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00024720-200210000-00003
  26. Schleicher P, Gerlach R, Schár B, Cain CM, Achatz W, Pflugmacher R, et al. : Biomechanical comparison of two different concepts for stand alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 17 : 1757- 1765, 2008 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-008-0797-4
  27. Shiraishi T, Crock HV : Re-exploration of the lumbar spine following simple discectomy : a review of 23 cases. Eur Spine J 4 : 84-87, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00278917
  28. Tsantrizos A, Andreou A, Aebi M, Steffen T : Biomechanical stability of five stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs. Eur Spine J 9 : 14-22, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1007/s005860050003
  29. Vamvanij V, Ferrara LA, Hai Y, Zhao J, Kolata R, Yuan HA : Quantitative changes in spinal canal dimensions using interbody distraction for spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26 : E13-E18, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200112151-00003
  30. Zdeblick TA, David SM : A prospective comparison of surgical approach for anterior L4-L5 fusion : laparoscopic versus mini anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25 : 2682-2687, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200010150-00023

Cited by

  1. Revisionsstrategien bei ventralem Implantatversagen an der LWS am Beispiel von „stand-alone cages“ vol.40, pp.2, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-010-1714-1
  2. Biomechanical comparison of three stand-alone lumbar cages — a three-dimensional finite element analysis vol.14, pp.None, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-281
  3. Successful Treatment of Severe Sympathetically Maintained Pain Following Anterior Spine Surgery vol.56, pp.1, 2010, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2014.56.1.66
  4. Stand-alone ALIF with integrated intracorporeal anchoring plates in the treatment of degenerative lumbar disc disease: a prospective study on 65 cases vol.23, pp.10, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3364-1
  5. Anterior stand-alone fusion revisited: a prospective clinical, X-ray and CT investigation vol.24, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3642-y
  6. L5/S1 Fusion Rates in Degenerative Spine Surgery : A Systematic Review Comparing ALIF, TLIF, and Axial Interbody Arthrodesis vol.29, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0000000000000356
  7. PEEK Cages in Lumbar Fusion : Mid-term Clinical Outcome and Radiologic Fusion vol.29, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0b013e31826eaf74
  8. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone oblique cages with and without a titanium coating : a randomised clinical pilot study vol.99, pp.10, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.99b10.bjj-2016-1292.r2
  9. Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion – complications and perioperative results vol.52, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2017.08.016
  10. Artrodese lombar intersomática anterior por via única - Complicações e resultados perioperatórios vol.52, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbo.2016.09.006
  11. The safe use of long screws in L5/S1 stand-alone anterior interbody fusion for olisthesis cases vol.32, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2018.1432750
  12. Comparative Measurements of Preoperative and Postoperative Radiological and Clinical Parameters of Direct Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Spinal Disease Patients vol.26, pp.4, 2010, https://doi.org/10.4184/jkss.2019.26.4.126
  13. Neural decompression in challenging cases: advantages and disadvantages vol.63, pp.5, 2010, https://doi.org/10.23736/s0390-5616.19.04705-2
  14. Biomechanical analysis of lumbar interbody fusion supplemented with various posterior stabilization systems vol.30, pp.8, 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06856-7