Cargando…

Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study

Introduction Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is increasingly used to treat lumbar degenerative pathology. Its effect on sagittal parameters remains controversial. Static and expandable lordotic interbody devices (cages) were developed to improve segmental and over...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lawless, Michael H, Claus, Chad F, Tong, Doris, Jordan, Noah, Dosanjh, Amarpal, Hanson, Connor T, Carr, Daniel A, Houseman, Clifford M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8843108/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35178326
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.21273
_version_ 1784651182661173248
author Lawless, Michael H
Claus, Chad F
Tong, Doris
Jordan, Noah
Dosanjh, Amarpal
Hanson, Connor T
Carr, Daniel A
Houseman, Clifford M
author_facet Lawless, Michael H
Claus, Chad F
Tong, Doris
Jordan, Noah
Dosanjh, Amarpal
Hanson, Connor T
Carr, Daniel A
Houseman, Clifford M
author_sort Lawless, Michael H
collection PubMed
description Introduction Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is increasingly used to treat lumbar degenerative pathology. Its effect on sagittal parameters remains controversial. Static and expandable lordotic interbody devices (cages) were developed to improve segmental and overall lumbar lordosis. This study aimed to compare the radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between static lordotic and non-lordotic titanium cages in patients undergoing 1-2 level MI-TLIF for degenerative conditions.  Methods We reviewed consecutive eligible patients who underwent 1-2 level MI-TLIF (7/2017-11/2019) at a single institution by multiple surgeons. Standing X-rays and PROs were collected at preoperative, 1-month, and 6-month postoperative intervals. Using univariate analyses, we compared the two cohorts regarding confounders, radiographic parameters, and proportions of patients reaching minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROs. Results One-hundred-twenty-five patients were reviewed. Forty-seven had lordotic and seventy-eight non-lordotic cages. The lordotic cohort was significantly younger than the non-lordotic (55.9 years vs. 60.7 years, p= 0.042). The baseline radiographic parameters were not significantly different between cohorts. At the preoperative-6-month interval, the lordotic cohort had significant improvement in lumbar lordosis versus non-lordotic cohort (2.95° ± 7.2° vs. -0.3° ± 7.1°, p=0.024). Both cohorts showed improvement in segmental lordosis, anterior and posterior interspace height, and low subsidence grade with no significant difference between cohorts at all intervals. Overall, 69.1-83.8% of patients achieved MCID in all PROs with no significant difference between cohorts. Conclusions The use of a static lordotic titanium cage in 1-2 level MI-TLIF did not result in significantly different radiographic improvements or PROs compared with a non-lordotic cage.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8843108
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88431082022-02-16 Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study Lawless, Michael H Claus, Chad F Tong, Doris Jordan, Noah Dosanjh, Amarpal Hanson, Connor T Carr, Daniel A Houseman, Clifford M Cureus Neurosurgery Introduction Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is increasingly used to treat lumbar degenerative pathology. Its effect on sagittal parameters remains controversial. Static and expandable lordotic interbody devices (cages) were developed to improve segmental and overall lumbar lordosis. This study aimed to compare the radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between static lordotic and non-lordotic titanium cages in patients undergoing 1-2 level MI-TLIF for degenerative conditions.  Methods We reviewed consecutive eligible patients who underwent 1-2 level MI-TLIF (7/2017-11/2019) at a single institution by multiple surgeons. Standing X-rays and PROs were collected at preoperative, 1-month, and 6-month postoperative intervals. Using univariate analyses, we compared the two cohorts regarding confounders, radiographic parameters, and proportions of patients reaching minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROs. Results One-hundred-twenty-five patients were reviewed. Forty-seven had lordotic and seventy-eight non-lordotic cages. The lordotic cohort was significantly younger than the non-lordotic (55.9 years vs. 60.7 years, p= 0.042). The baseline radiographic parameters were not significantly different between cohorts. At the preoperative-6-month interval, the lordotic cohort had significant improvement in lumbar lordosis versus non-lordotic cohort (2.95° ± 7.2° vs. -0.3° ± 7.1°, p=0.024). Both cohorts showed improvement in segmental lordosis, anterior and posterior interspace height, and low subsidence grade with no significant difference between cohorts at all intervals. Overall, 69.1-83.8% of patients achieved MCID in all PROs with no significant difference between cohorts. Conclusions The use of a static lordotic titanium cage in 1-2 level MI-TLIF did not result in significantly different radiographic improvements or PROs compared with a non-lordotic cage. Cureus 2022-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8843108/ /pubmed/35178326 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.21273 Text en Copyright © 2022, Lawless et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Neurosurgery
Lawless, Michael H
Claus, Chad F
Tong, Doris
Jordan, Noah
Dosanjh, Amarpal
Hanson, Connor T
Carr, Daniel A
Houseman, Clifford M
Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study
title Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study
title_full Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study
title_fullStr Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study
title_full_unstemmed Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study
title_short Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study
title_sort radiographic and patient-reported outcomes of lordotic versus non-lordotic static interbody devices in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a longitudinal comparative cohort study
topic Neurosurgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8843108/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35178326
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.21273
work_keys_str_mv AT lawlessmichaelh radiographicandpatientreportedoutcomesoflordoticversusnonlordoticstaticinterbodydevicesinminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionalongitudinalcomparativecohortstudy
AT clauschadf radiographicandpatientreportedoutcomesoflordoticversusnonlordoticstaticinterbodydevicesinminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionalongitudinalcomparativecohortstudy
AT tongdoris radiographicandpatientreportedoutcomesoflordoticversusnonlordoticstaticinterbodydevicesinminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionalongitudinalcomparativecohortstudy
AT jordannoah radiographicandpatientreportedoutcomesoflordoticversusnonlordoticstaticinterbodydevicesinminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionalongitudinalcomparativecohortstudy
AT dosanjhamarpal radiographicandpatientreportedoutcomesoflordoticversusnonlordoticstaticinterbodydevicesinminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionalongitudinalcomparativecohortstudy
AT hansonconnort radiographicandpatientreportedoutcomesoflordoticversusnonlordoticstaticinterbodydevicesinminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionalongitudinalcomparativecohortstudy
AT carrdaniela radiographicandpatientreportedoutcomesoflordoticversusnonlordoticstaticinterbodydevicesinminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionalongitudinalcomparativecohortstudy
AT housemancliffordm radiographicandpatientreportedoutcomesoflordoticversusnonlordoticstaticinterbodydevicesinminimallyinvasivetransforaminallumbarinterbodyfusionalongitudinalcomparativecohortstudy