Parisien Ariane, Wai Eugene K, ElSayed Mostafa S A, Frei Hanspeter
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Orthopeadic Surgery, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Int J Spine Surg. 2022 Dec;16(6):1103-1118. doi: 10.14444/8363. Epub 2022 Oct 26.
Although many research studies investigating subsidence of intervertebral fusion cages have been published, to our knowledge, no study has comprehensively compared cage subsidence among all lumbar intervertebral fusion (LIF) techniques. This study aimed to review the literature reporting evidence of cage subsidence linked to LIF. The amount of subsidence was compared and associated with the procedures and corresponding implants used, and the effect of cage subsidence on clinical outcomes was investigated.
For this systematic review, the MEDLINE and PubMed databases were used to identify relevant studies. Search terms included lumbar, lumbar vertebrae, lumbar spine, cage, spinal fusion, prosthesis, prosthesis implantation, implantation, implants, interbody, spacer, and subsidence. Studies included in this review were those having more than 10 patients and reporting the amount of subsidence observed using computed tomography or x-ray imaging after surgery and at follow-up visits after a minimum of 6 weeks postsurgery. Data and scale definitions related to subsidence were extracted from articles for comparison of subsidence prevalence between the 5 LIF surgical procedures.
Forty articles were identified for inclusion. The review included data from 390 anterior lumbar intervertebral fusions (ALIFs), 2130 lateral lumbar intervertebral fusions (LLIFs), 560 posterior lumbar intervertebral fusions (PLIFs), 245 oblique lumbar intervertebral fusions (OLIFs), and 1634 transverse lumbar intervertebral fusions (TLIFs) for a total of 4959 patients who underwent LIF surgery. The minimum and maximum percentages of the number of patients having subsidence for each procedure in the included studies were as follows: ALIF stand-alone, 6% and 23.1%; LLIF stand-alone, 8.7% and 39.6%; LLIF with posterior fixation, 3.3% and 20.7%; OLIF with posterior fixation, 4.4% and 36.9%; PLIF with posterior fixation, 7.4% and 31.8%; and TLIF, 0.0% and 51.2%.
The number of patients experiencing subsidence varied between studies within each fusion procedure. Our findings indicate that all 5 surgical methods are at risk of subsidence. Overall, ALIF without posterior fixation resulted in the lowest reported subsidence occurrence among the 5 surgical approaches. There is conflicting evidence on the association between subsidence and negative clinical outcomes.
This review defines and compares subsidence incidence between all LIF procedures and investigates the risk of symptomatic clinical outcomes.
尽管已经发表了许多关于椎间融合器沉降的研究,但据我们所知,尚无研究全面比较所有腰椎椎间融合术(LIF)技术中的融合器沉降情况。本研究旨在回顾报告与LIF相关的融合器沉降证据的文献。比较沉降量,并将其与所使用的手术程序和相应植入物相关联,同时研究融合器沉降对临床结果的影响。
对于本系统评价,使用MEDLINE和PubMed数据库识别相关研究。检索词包括腰椎、腰椎椎体、腰椎脊柱、融合器、脊柱融合、假体、假体植入、植入、植入物、椎间、间隔器和沉降。纳入本评价的研究为患者人数超过10例,并报告了术后及术后至少6周随访时使用计算机断层扫描或X线成像观察到的沉降量的研究。从文章中提取与沉降相关的数据和量表定义,以比较5种LIF手术程序之间的沉降发生率。
确定40篇文章纳入。该评价纳入了390例前路腰椎椎间融合术(ALIF)、2130例侧路腰椎椎间融合术(LLIF)、560例后路腰椎椎间融合术(PLIF)、245例斜路腰椎椎间融合术(OLIF)和1634例经椎间孔腰椎椎间融合术(TLIF)的数据,共有4959例患者接受了LIF手术。纳入研究中每种手术患者沉降人数的最小和最大百分比如下:单纯ALIF,6%和23.1%;单纯LLIF,8.7%和39.6%;LLIF联合后路固定,3.3%和20.7%;OLIF联合后路固定,4.4%和36.9%;PLIF联合后路固定,7.4%和31.8%;TLIF,0.0%和51.2%。
每种融合手术中不同研究之间经历沉降的患者人数各不相同。我们的研究结果表明,所有5种手术方法都有沉降风险。总体而言,在5种手术方法中,未联合后路固定的ALIF报告的沉降发生率最低。关于沉降与不良临床结果之间的关联,证据存在冲突。
本评价定义并比较了所有LIF手术之间的沉降发生率,并研究了有症状临床结果的风险。