» Articles » PMID: 32472823

Risk Factors of Cage Subsidence in Patients Received Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Overview
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2020 May 31
PMID 32472823
Citations 46
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Study Design: A retrospective cohort study.

Objective: To determine the risk factors of cage subsidence in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) and its correlation with patient-reported outcomes.

Summary Of Background Data: Cage subsidence is among the cage-related complications after TLIF and may lead to poor outcomes. Few studies have addressed the incidence of cage subsidence in MI-TLIF.

Methods: This retrospective study of a prospectively collected database was conducted from October 2015 to October 2017. All patients received MI-TLIF with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. All levels were separated into the cage subsidence (CS group) and no cage subsidence (non-CS group) groups. Cage subsidence was evaluated using lateral radiographs and defined as more than 2 mm migration of the cage into the endplate of adjacent vertebral body. Patient demographics, perioperative details, and radiographic parameters were recorded. Cage-related parameters were cage height, cage insertion level, and cage position. Cage position was recorded using central point ration (CPR). Patient-reported outcome was analyzed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) questionnaire and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively.

Results: Ninety-three patients (126 levels) were included. Mean age was 66.5 years with an average follow-up of 36.9 months. Overall incidence of cage subsidence was 34.1%. The CS group had significantly higher body mass index, less bone mineral density (BMD), shorter disc height, and higher CPR than the non-CS group. BMD, disc height, and CPR were significantly negatively correlated with depth of cage subsidence. ODI improvement was significantly lesser in the CS group than in the non-CS group. Fusion rate and complications were unrelated to cage subsidence.

Conclusion: The BMD, disc height, and cage position were the most significant risk factors that were negatively correlated with depth of cage subsidence. Placing a TLIF cage anteriorly if possible may reduce the risk of cage subsidence.

Level Of Evidence: 3.

Citing Articles

Is lumbar spondylolisthesis a risk factor of cage subsidence after oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral screw fixation?.

Peng X, Wang X, Xie T, Hu X, Zeng J J Orthop Surg Res. 2025; 20(1):230.

PMID: 40033419 PMC: 11877892. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-025-05624-3.


Rare Complications in Endoscopic Spinal Surgery: A Narrative Review of Unique Cases.

Stadler R, Shrestha N, Dara G, Yu A, Kurapatti M, Etigunta S Global Spine J. 2025; :21925682251319542.

PMID: 39963940 PMC: 11836960. DOI: 10.1177/21925682251319542.


Comparative analysis of MRI-based VBQ and EBQ score for predicting cage subsidence in PILF surgery.

Zhang F, Liang J, Shi D, Tuo C, Wu Y, Yang Z J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):839.

PMID: 39696447 PMC: 11657832. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05332-4.


Comparison of Clinical Efficacy in the Treatment of Lumbar Degenerative Disease: Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Posterior Lumbar Fusion, and Hybrid Surgery.

Zhu Z, Xuan A, Xu C, Wang C, He Q, Tang L Int J Spine Surg. 2024; .

PMID: 39667791 PMC: 11687063. DOI: 10.14444/8659.


Minimally-invasive trans-facet lumbar interbody fusion using a dual-dimension expandable cage: preliminary results of a multi-institutional retrospective study.

Huang C, Brena K, Tabarestani T, Bardeesi A, Paturu M, Spears H J Spine Surg. 2024; 10(3):403-415.

PMID: 39399073 PMC: 11467274. DOI: 10.21037/jss-24-29.