Usability of a Novel Hounsfield Units Measurement Procedure to Quantify Intercorporal Bone Graft Remodeling in Patients After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: a Case Series

Overview

Journal J Med Case Rep

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Jul 23

PMID 39044212

Authors

Joey F H Reijmer

Job L C van Susante

Moyo C Kruijt

Maarten J van Gorp

Lex D de Jong

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: There is a lack of knowledge about the biological process of intercorporal bone graft remodeling after posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery and whether this process is associated with changes in back pain and intercorporal fusion status. As an alternative to the commonly used but unreliable fusion criteria, Hounsfield units can be used to quantify biological activity and changes in bone mineral content. However, studies assessing Hounsfield units conducted to date do not provide sufficient details about how the bone grafts were segmented to measure the Hounsfield units to allow for replication, and did not assess individual patient trends in graft changes over time. Using the data of nine patients after posterior lumbar interbody fusion, a novel Hounsfield units measurement procedure was developed and used to explore its usability to quantify the bone graft remodeling process.

Case Details: We report a case series of nine patients (six male, three female, mean age 64 years, all Caucasian) who all had computed tomography scans performed at 1 and 2 years after posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Overall, seven out of the nine (78%) cases had a 3-41% increase in their bone grafts' Hounsfield units between 1 and 2 years after surgery. The cases showed large interindividual variability in their Hounsfield units values over time, which coincided with varying levels of back pain and intercorporal fusion status.

Conclusion: The Hounsfield units measurement procedure used for this case series may be useful to quantify intercorporal bone graft remodeling in patients after posterior lumbar interbody fusion, and may be used as an adjunct diagnostic measure to monitor bone graft remodeling over time. Future research is warranted to explore how to interpret bone graft Hounsfield units-values and Hounsfield units trajectories in light of clinical variables or intercorporal fusion status.

References

Song J, Taghavi C, Hsu D, Song K, Song J, Lee K . Radiological changes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with cage and plate construct: the significance of the anterior spur formation sign. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011; 37(4):272-9. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31821c3cbf. View

Martin B, Mirza S, Comstock B, Gray D, Kreuter W, Deyo R . Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(3):382-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.brs.0000254104.55716.46. View

Brantigan J . Pseudarthrosis rate after allograft posterior lumbar interbody fusion with pedicle screw and plate fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994; 19(11):1271-9; discussion 1280. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199405310-00014. View

Duits A, van Urk P, Lehr A, Nutzinger D, Reijnders M, Weinans H . Radiologic Assessment of Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review on the Use, Reliability, and Accuracy of Current Fusion Criteria. JBJS Rev. 2024; 12(1). DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00065. View

Lehr A, Oner F, Delawi D, Stellato R, Hoebink E, Kempen D . Efficacy of a Standalone Microporous Ceramic Versus Autograft in Instrumented Posterolateral Spinal Fusion: A Multicenter, Randomized, Intrapatient Controlled, Noninferiority Trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020; 45(14):944-951. PMC: 7337108. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003440. View

Brantigan J, Steffee A . A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1993; 18(14):2106-7. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199310001-00030. View

Diedrich O, Perlick L, Schmitt O, Kraft C . Radiographic characteristics on conventional radiographs after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparative study between radiotranslucent and radiopaque cages. J Spinal Disord. 2001; 14(6):522-32. DOI: 10.1097/00002517-200112000-00012. View

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

Choudhri T, Mummaneni P, Dhall S, Eck J, Groff M, Ghogawala Z . Guideline update for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 4: radiographic assessment of fusion status. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 21(1):23-30. DOI: 10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14267. View

10.

De Stefano F, Elarjani T, Warner T, Lopez J, Shah S, Basil G . Hounsfield Unit as a Predictor of Adjacent-Level Disease in Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery. Neurosurgery. 2022; 91(1):146-149. DOI: 10.1227/neu.0000000000001949. View

11.

Cole C, McCall T, Schmidt M, Dailey A . Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2009; 2(2):118-26. PMC: 2697340. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-009-9053-8. View

12.

Kenneth Burkus J, Dorchak J, Sanders D . Radiographic assessment of interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein type 2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003; 28(4):372-7. DOI: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000048469.45035.B9. View

13.

Christensen F, Laursen M, Gelineck J, Eiskjaer S, Thomsen K, Bunger C . Interobserver and intraobserver agreement of radiograph interpretation with and without pedicle screw implants: the need for a detailed classification system in posterolateral spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001; 26(5):538-43; discussion 543-4. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-200103010-00018. View

14.

BRODSKY A, Kovalsky E, Khalil M . Correlation of radiologic assessment of lumbar spine fusions with surgical exploration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991; 16(6 Suppl):S261-5. DOI: 10.1097/00007632-199106001-00017. View

15.

Pinto E, Neves J, Teixeira A, Frada R, Atilano P, Oliveira F . Efficacy of Hounsfield Units Measured by Lumbar Computer Tomography on Bone Density Assessment: A Systematic Review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021; 47(9):702-710. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004211. View

16.

Gupta A, Kukkar N, Sharif K, Main B, Albers C, El-Amin Iii S . Bone graft substitutes for spine fusion: A brief review. World J Orthop. 2015; 6(6):449-56. PMC: 4501930. DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v6.i6.449. View

17.

Spiro A, Hoang T, Shakir M . ARTIFACTS AFFECTING DUAL-ENERGY X-RAY ABSORPTIOMETRY MEASUREMENTS. AACE Clin Case Rep. 2020; 5(4):e263-e266. PMC: 6873828. DOI: 10.4158/ACCR-2019-0031. View

18.

Chun D, Baker K, Hsu W . Lumbar pseudarthrosis: a review of current diagnosis and treatment. Neurosurg Focus. 2015; 39(4):E10. DOI: 10.3171/2015.7.FOCUS15292. View

19.

Aggarwal A, Garg K . Lumbar Facet Fluid-Does It Correlate with Dynamic Instability in Degenerative Spondylolisthesis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2021; 149:53-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.02.029. View

20.

Zaidi Q, Danisa O, Cheng W . Measurement Techniques and Utility of Hounsfield Unit Values for Assessment of Bone Quality Prior to Spinal Instrumentation: A Review of Current Literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 44(4):E239-E244. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002813. View