Vertebral Endplate Cyst as a Predictor of Nonunion After Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Tanida, Seiichi; Fujibayashi, Shunsuke; Otsuki, Bungo; Masamoto, Kazutaka; Takahashi, Yoshimitsu; Nakayama, Takeo; Matsuda, Shuichi

doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000001605

Cited by 48 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eight singlecenter studies were retrospective, observational, and 3 singlecenter studies were prospective studies of which, 1 study was a randomized clinical pilot study. Four studies were carried out in Germany, 17,20,27,28 4 studies in Japan, 13,16,18,19 1 study in Italy, 12 1 study in China, 15 1 study in the United Kingdom (Table 1). 14 The data of 1,094 patients was analyzed in this meta-analysis, of which 673 (61.5%) had lumbar interbody fusion using a Ti Full-text articles excluded, with reasons (n = 56)…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, Parkinson disease, treatment with hemodialysis, long-term steroid use for rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus, were reported only in one study (p = 0.64). 19…”

Section: Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lumbar fusion was performed for a total of 1,094 patients (Ti-421, PEEK-673). PLIF was performed in 5 studies 13,15,18,27,28 for 390 patients (35.64%) (Ti-165, PEEK-225) and transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) in 6 studies 12,14,16,17,19,20,29 for 704 patients (64.36%) (Ti-256, PEEK-448). The different types of interbody cages used were summarized in Table 1, revealing 3 studies us-ing Ti-coated PEEK cages.…”

Section: Posterior Lumbar Fusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8,9 Despite that, PEEK is chemically inert with limited cell adhesion and fixation to bone. 10 The characteristics and clinical outcomes of Ti and PEEK cages for lumbar spinal fusion were explored in several studies, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] but the findings were largely inconsistent regarding fusion and subsidence rates. Hence, this study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical outcomes of interbody cages in posterior lumbar fusion surgery.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Lumbar fusion with implantation of interbody cage is a common procedure for treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. This study aims to compare the fusion and subsidence rates of titanium (Ti) versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody cages after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and investigate the effect of clinical and radiological outcomes following fusion on patient-reported outcomes. Methods: A systematic search strategy of 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane) was conducted using different MeSH (medical subject headings) terms until January 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed and random-effect models based upon the heterogeneity (I 2 ) to estimate the association between interbody cages and the measured outcomes. Results: A total of 1,094 patients from 11 studies were reviewed. The final analysis included 421 patients (38.5%) who had lumbar surgery using a Ti and/or a Ti-coated interbody cage and 673 patient (61.5%) who had lumbar surgery using a PEEK cage. Overall, PEEK interbody devices were associated with a significantly lower fusion rate compared with Ti interbody devices (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.93; p = 0.02). There was no difference in subsidence rates between Ti and PEEK groups (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.54-1.52; p = 0.71). Also, there were no statistically significant differences in visual analogue scale (VAS)-low back pain (p = 0.14) and Japanese Orthopedic Association scale (p = 0.86) between the 2 groups. However, the PEEK group had lower odds of leg pain after surgery compared to the Ti group (OR [VAS-leg], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.28-0.94; p = 0.003). Conclusion: Ti and Ti-coated PEEK cages used for posterior lumbar interbody fusion are associated with similar rates of subsidence, but a higher rate of fusion compared to PEEK interbody cages. Randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess the effect of cage materials and potential factors that could influence the outcomes of interbody lumbar fusion.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Posterior Lumbar Fusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Steffen et al reported that large micromotion at the interface between graft and host bone should be avoided to achieve fusion 22) . Tanida et al hypothesized that the repetitive local mechanical stress caused by insufficient initial stability between the cage and the endplate may lead to endplate microfracture 23) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cage subsidence in lateral interbody fusion with transpsoas approach: intraoperative endplate injury or late-onset settling

Satake

Kanemura

Nakashima

et al. 2017

Spine Surg Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Introduction: Few studies have investigated the influence of cage subsidence patterns (intraoperative endplate injury or late-onset cage settling) on bony fusion and clinical outcomes in lateral interbody fusion (LIF). This retrospective study was performed to compare the fusion rate and clinical outcomes of cage subsidence patterns in LIF at one year after surgery.Methods: Participants included 93 patients (aged 69.0±0.8 years; 184 segments) who underwent LIF with bilateral pedicle screw fixation. All segments were evaluated by computed tomography and classified into three groups: Segment E (intraoperative endplate injury, identified immediately postoperatively); Segment S (late-onset settling, identified at 3 months or later); or Segment N (no subsidence). We compared patient characteristics, surgical parameters and fusion status at 1 year for the three subsidence groups. Patients were classified into four groups: Group E (at least one Segment E), Group S (at least one Segment S), Group ES (both Segments E and S), or Group N (Segment N alone). Visual analog scales (VASs) and the Japanese Orthopedic Association Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ) were compared for the four patient groups.Results: 184 segments were classified: 31 as Segment E (16.8%), 21 as Segment S (11.4%), and 132 as Segment N (71.7%). Segment E demonstrated significantly lower bone mineral density (-1.7 SD of T-score, p=0.003). Segment S demonstrated a significantly higher rate of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages (100%, p=0.03) and a significantly lower fusion rate (23.8%, p=0.01). There were no significant differences in VAS or in any of the JOABPEQ domains among the four patient groups.Conclusions: Intraoperative endplate injury was significantly related to bone quality, and late-onset settling was related to PEEK cages. Late-onset settling demonstrated a worse fusion rate. However, there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes among the subsidence patterns.

show abstract

Custom design and biomechanical clinical trials of 3D‐printed polyether ether ketone femoral shaft prosthesis

Zeng

Deng

et al. 2022

J Biomed Mater Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the surgical resection and reconstruction of a pathological femoral fracture, the removal of the femoral tumor leaves a large bone defect. Thus, it is necessary to reconstruct the defect and perform internal fixation. Polyether ether ketone (PEEK) has been widely used in spinal fusion and cranioplasty given its excellent biomechanical properties, biocompatibility, and stability. The typical design method of femoral prosthesis is based on the contralateral mirror image model (M-model), and we propose a novel method for designing femoral prosthesis, which is based on the cross section and centerline of the mirrored femur (C-model). In this study, the femoral shaft prostheses based on two models were manufactured using fused deposition modeling technology, and we use mechanical test and finite element analysis (FEA) to reveal the differences in mechanical properties of the two models. The mechanical results showed that the maximum loading force and yield strength were increased by 3% and 6% in the C-model prosthesis compared with the M-model prosthesis, respectively. In FEA, the results indicate that the C-model prosthesis could reduce the stress concentration by 5.4%-10.9% compared to the M-model prosthesis.Finally, the 3D-printed PEEK femoral shaft prosthesis based on C-model was implanted, no early complications occurred. Postoperative radiological examination indicated that the prosthesis and the femoral osteotomy end were closely matched and fixed well.

show abstract

Vertebral Endplate Cyst as a Predictor of Nonunion After Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Abstract: 3.

Cited by 48 publications

References 20 publications

Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature

Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature

Cage subsidence in lateral interbody fusion with transpsoas approach: intraoperative endplate injury or late-onset settling

Custom design and biomechanical clinical trials of 3D‐printed polyether ether ketone femoral shaft prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About