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