» Articles » PMID: 37012487

Cage Subsidence-A multifactorial Matter!

Overview
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2023 Apr 3
PMID 37012487
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study OBJECTIVE: Wider cages are associated with improved decompression and reduced subsidence, but variation in cage physical properties limits consistent outcome analysis after thoracolumbar interbody fusion. This study investigated cage subsidence and its relationship to lateral and posterior approaches with a focus on the hypothesis that the larger surface area of lateral cages results in lower subsidence rates.

Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed 194 patients who underwent interbody fusion between 2016 and 2019 with a primary outcome of cage subsidence. Secondary outcomes were cage distribution (patients, approaches, expandability), cage dimensions, t‑scores, length of hospital stay, blood loss, surgical time, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch.

Results: Medical records were reviewed for 194 patients receiving 387 cages at 379 disc levels. Subsidence was identified in 35.1% of lateral cages, 40.9% of posterior cages, and 36.3% of all cages. Lower surface area (p = 0.008) and cage expandability were associated with subsidence risk. Lower anteroposterior cage length proved to be a significant factor in the subsidence of posteriorly placed cages (p = 0.007). Osteopenic and osteoporotic patients experienced cage subsidence 36.8% of the time compared to 3.5% of patients with normal t‑scores (p = 0.001). Cage subsidence correlated with postoperative deterioration of the PI-LL mismatch (p = 0.03). Patients receiving fusion augmentation with bone morphogenic protein experienced higher fusion rates (p < 0.01).

Conclusion: Cage subsidence is a common complication that can significantly impact operative outcomes following thoracolumbar interbody fusion. Low t‑scores, smaller surface area, cage expandability, and lower cage length in posterior approaches contribute significantly to cage subsidence.

Citing Articles

3D-printed porous titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of subsidence.

Liu S, Zeng T, Chen C, He L, Feng A, Jhang S Front Med (Lausanne). 2025; 11:1389533.

PMID: 39744537 PMC: 11688201. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1389533.

References
1.
Godzik J, Haglin J, Alan N, Hlubek R, Walker C, Bach K . Retrospective Multicenter Assessment of Rod Fracture After Anterior Column Realignment in Minimally Invasive Adult Spinal Deformity Correction. World Neurosurg. 2019; 130:e400-e405. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.06.096. View

2.
Gupta A, Gupta R, White M, Reddy V, Chang Y, Agarwal P . Patient satisfaction reviews for 967 spine neurosurgeons on Healthgrades. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021; 36(5):869-875. DOI: 10.3171/2021.8.SPINE21661. View

3.
Lee S, Kim S, Lee S, Kim W, Choi W, Choi G . Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for migrated disc herniation: classification of disc migration and surgical approaches. Eur Spine J. 2006; 16(3):431-7. PMC: 2200706. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-006-0219-4. View

4.
Fogel G, Toohey J, Neidre A, Brantigan J . Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion. Spine J. 2007; 8(4):570-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.03.013. View

5.
Frisch R, Luna I, Brooks D, Joshua G, OBrien J . Clinical and radiographic analysis of expandable versus static lateral lumbar interbody fusion devices with two-year follow-up. J Spine Surg. 2018; 4(1):62-71. PMC: 5911767. DOI: 10.21037/jss.2018.03.16. View