Is there any advantage of using stand-alone cages? A numerical approach

Abstract

Background Segment fusion using interbody cages supplemented with pedicle screw fixation is the most common surgery for the treatment of low back pain. However, there is still much controversy regarding the use of cages in a stand-alone fashion. The goal of this work is to numerically compare the influence that each surgery has on lumbar biomechanics. Methods A non-linear FE model of the whole lumbar spine was developed to compare between two types of cages (OLYS and NEOLIF) with and without supplementary fixation. The motion of the whole spine was analysed and the biomechanical environment of the adjacent segments to the operated one was studied. Moreover, the risk of subsidence of the cages was qualitatively evaluated. Results A great ROM reduction occurred when supplementary fixation was used. This stiffening increased the stresses at the adjacent levels. It might be hypothesised that the overloading of these segments could be related with the clinically observed adjacent disc degeneration. Meanwhile, the stand-alone cages allowed for a wider movement, and therefore, the influence of the surgery on adjacent discs was much lower. Regarding the risk of subsidence, the contact pressure magnitude was similar for both intervertebral cage designs and near the value of the maximum tolerable pressure of the endplates. Conclusions A minimally invasive posterior insertion of an intervertebral cage (OLYS or NEOLIF) was compared using a stand-alone design or adding supplementary fixation. The outcomes of these two techniques were compared, and although stand-alone cage may diminish the risk of disease progression to the adjacent discs, the spinal movement in this case could compromise the vertebral fusion and might present a higher risk of cage subsidence. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12938-019-0684-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Biomechanical analysis of customized cage conforming to the endplate morphology in anterior cervical discectomy fusion: A finite element analysis

“…High stresses concentrated on the cage surface may lead to subsidence [ 12 , 36 ]. Therefore, effectively reducing the stress on the cage and stress concentrations, for a more uniform stress distribution on the cage to maintain a positive stimulation effect on bone growth, is a research hotspot [ [37] , [38] , [39] ]. In this experiment, the commercial cage showed the maximum von Mises stress peak under all working conditions compared to other cages, and a stress concentration zone in the contact area with the endplate was observed ( Fig.…”

Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center and Traditional Hospital Settings, Part 1: Multi-Center Assessment of Surgical Safety

“…There is a limited but growing body of clinical evidence supporting the clinical utility of minimally-invasive TLIF using a standalone expandable cage for the treatment of lumbar spinal disorders [ 7 , 22 , 23 ]. This is due, in large part, to the lack of FDA-approved implants for this indication with the VariLift ® cage having this rare distinction [ 12 ].…”

Comparison of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center and Traditional Hospital Settings, Part 2: Assessment of Surgical Safety in Medicare Beneficiaries

“…For older spine patients, it remains imperative to minimize the surgical invasiveness and impact of the procedure to achieve satisfactory clinical outcomes [ 22 ]. Minimally invasive TLIF with standalone expandable cages has been gaining increasing acceptance among spine surgeons seeking to offer patients the simplest arthrodesis procedure [ 23 , 24 , 25 ]. This “less is more” approach may be particularly appealing to older patients by prioritizing less instrumentation, anatomy preservation, and spinal longevity.…”