Morphological Changes of Contralateral Intervertebral Foramen Induced by Cage Insertion Orientation After Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Overview

Journal J Orthop Surg Res

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2019 Mar 15

PMID 30866988

Citations 5

Authors

Kai Zhu

Shuaifeng Yan

Song Guo

Jinyu Tong

Cong Li

Jun Tan

Weiping Wan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: This study was performed to investigate the morphological changes of contralateral intervertebral foramen (IVF) based on computed tomography images of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis after unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and to compare the influence of different orientation of cage insertion on these changes.

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study. Sixty-nine patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who had undergone single-level unilateral TLIF were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the cage insertion orientation: the oblique group (o-group, 39 cases) and the transverse group (t-group, 30 cases). The morphological parameters of contralateral IVF were measured before and 6 months after the operation. Changes in these parameters were compared and analyzed between the two groups. The 6-month clinical outcomes of the two groups were also collected and analyzed.

Results: There was a significant difference in the rate of increase in the segmental angle (p < 0.01) between the two groups, the mean value of segmental angle increased by an average of 29.08% ± 14.93% in the o-group and 48.63% ± 12.01% in the t-group. Overall, the posterior disc height had a significant positive correlation with the foraminal height and area. In the o-group, however, an increase in the segmental angle resulted in a decrease in the foraminal area. No significant difference in clinical outcomes was found between the two groups.

Conclusions: Compared with oblique cage insertion, transverse cage insertion could achieve greater restoration of segmental lumbar lordosis without decreasing contralateral foraminal dimensions.

Citing Articles

Exploring Pathways for Pain Relief in Treatment and Management of Lumbar Foraminal Stenosis: A Review of the Literature.

Nurmukhametov R, Encarnacion Ramirez M, Dosanov M, Medetbek A, Kudryakov S, Reyes Soto G Brain Sci. 2024; 14(8).

PMID: 39199435 PMC: 11352478. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14080740.

Effects of Cage Implantation Depth on Sagittal Parameters and Functional Outcomes in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for the Treatment of L4-L5 Lumbar Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

Deng L, Wang C, Sun H, Lv N, Shen Y, Qian Z Orthop Surg. 2024; 16(6):1327-1335.

PMID: 38650172 PMC: 11144510. DOI: 10.1111/os.14071.

Gender differences in spinal mobility during postural changes: a detailed analysis using upright CT.

Mizukoshi R, Yagi M, Yamada Y, Yokoyama Y, Yamada M, Watanabe K Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):9154.

PMID: 38644423 PMC: 11033253. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-59840-8.

Iatrogenic contralateral foraminal stenosis following lumbar spine fusion surgery: illustrative cases.

Konbaz F, Aldakhil S, Alhelal F, Abalkhail M, Bourghli A, Ateeq K J Neurosurg Case Lessons. 2023; 5(12).

PMID: 36941201 PMC: 10550679. DOI: 10.3171/CASE2317.

Do Radiographic Results of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Vary with Cage Position in Patients with Degenerative Lumbar Diseases?.

Ding Q, Tang X, Zhang R, Wu H, Liu C Orthop Surg. 2022; 14(4):730-741.

PMID: 35302296 PMC: 9002072. DOI: 10.1111/os.13224.

References

Diedrich O, Perlick L, Schmitt O, Kraft C . Radiographic spinal profile changes induced by cage design after posterior lumbar interbody fusion preliminary report of a study with wedged implants. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(12):E274-80. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200106150-00019. View

Hackenberg L, Halm H, Bullmann V, Vieth V, Schneider M, Liljenqvist U . Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results. Eur Spine J. 2005; 14(6):551-8. PMC: 3489237. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-004-0830-1. View

Hunt T, Shen F, Shaffrey C, Arlet V . Contralateral radiculopathy after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2007; 16 Suppl 3:311-4. PMC: 2148093. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-007-0387-x. View

Xiao Y, Chen Q, Li F . Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a review of the technique, indications and graft materials. J Int Med Res. 2009; 37(3):908-17. DOI: 10.1177/147323000903700337. View

Iwata T, Miyamoto K, Hioki A, Fushimi K, Ohno T, Shimizu K . Morphologic Changes in Contralateral Lumbar Foramen in Unilateral Cantilever Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Kidney-type Intervertebral Spacers. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013; 28(5):E270-6. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318286bb14. View

Kim M, Park J, Kim W, Lee H, Chung H, Kim M . Can unilateral-approach minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion attain indirect contralateral decompression? A preliminary report of 66 MRI analysis. Eur Spine J. 2014; 23(5):1144-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3192-3. View

Min S, Yoo J, Lee J . Usefulness of Contralateral Indirect Decompression through Minimally Invasive Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Asian Spine J. 2014; 8(4):453-61. PMC: 4149988. DOI: 10.4184/asj.2014.8.4.453. View

Kim J, Shin M, Lee H, Choi D . Restoration of lumbopelvic sagittal alignment and its maintenance following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): comparison between straight type versus curvilinear type cage. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(11):2588-96. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-3899-9. View

Cho P, Park S, Kim K, Ha Y, Yoon D, Shin D . A morphometric analysis of contralateral neural foramen in TLIF. Eur Spine J. 2015; 24(4):783-90. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-015-3783-7. View

10.

Castellvi A, Thampi S, Cook D, Yeager M, Yao Y, Zou Q . Effect of TLIF Cage Placement on In Vivo Kinematics. Int J Spine Surg. 2015; 9:38. PMC: 4528506. DOI: 10.14444/2038. View

11.

Wang S, Han Y, Pan F, Ma B, Tan J . Single transverse-orientation cage via MIS-TLIF approach for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a technical note. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015; 8(8):14154-60. PMC: 4613072. View

12.

Jang K, Park S, Kim Y, Park Y, Nam T, Lee Y . Acute Contralateral Radiculopathy after Unilateral Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2015; 58(4):350-6. PMC: 4651996. DOI: 10.3340/jkns.2015.58.4.350. View

13.

Comer G, Behn A, Ravi S, Cheng I . A Biomechanical Comparison of Shape Design and Positioning of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages. Global Spine J. 2016; 6(5):432-8. PMC: 4947403. DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1564568. View

14.

Mobbs R, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao P . Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg. 2016; 1(1):2-18. PMC: 5039869. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05. View

15.

Rickert M, Fleege C, Tarhan T, Schreiner S, Makowski M, Rauschmann M . Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone oblique cages with and without a titanium coating: a randomised clinical pilot study. Bone Joint J. 2017; 99-B(10):1366-1372. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B10.BJJ-2016-1292.R2. View

16.

Yang Y, Liu Z, Zhang L, Dong J, Xie P, Chen R . Risk factor of contralateral radiculopathy following microendoscopy-assisted minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2017; 27(8):1925-1932. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-017-5417-8. View

17.

Massie L, Zakaria H, Schultz L, Basheer A, Buraimoh M, Chang V . Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 2018; 44(1):E8. DOI: 10.3171/2017.10.FOCUS17562. View

18.

Harms J, Rolinger H . [A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl)]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982; 120(3):343-7. DOI: 10.1055/s-2008-1051624. View