Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Research Articles

Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Bilateral Expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages: A Finite Element Analysis Study.

Expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages could offer an alternative to anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Bilateral cage insertion enhances endplate coverage, potentially improving stability and fusion rates and maximizing segmental lordosis. This study aims to compare the biomechanical properties of bilateral expandable TLIF cages to ALIF cages using finite element modeling. We used a validated 3-dimensional finite element model of the lumbar spine. ALIF and TLIF cages were created based on available product data. Our focus was on analyzing spinal motion in the sagittal plane, evaluating forces transmitted through the vertebrae, and comparing an ALIF model with various TLIF cage models. The largest TLIF cage model exhibited a 407.9% increase in flexion motion and a 42.1% decrease in extension motion compared with the ALIF cage. The second largest TLIF cages resulted in more flexion motion and less extension motion compared with ALIF, while smaller cages were inferior to ALIF. ALIF cages were associated with increased adjacent segment motion compared with TLIF cages, primarily in extension. Endplate stress analysis revealed higher stress in the ALIF cage model with a more uniform stress distribution. ALIF cages excel in stabilizing L5 to S1 during flexion, while largest TLIF cages offer superior stability in extension. Large bilateral TLIF cages may provide biomechanical stability comparable to ALIF, especially in extension and could potentially reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease with lower adjacent segment motion.

Increased cage angle effects on radiographic outcomes after stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion.

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a well-accepted surgical technique used to treat various lumbar degenerative pathologies. Recently, hyperlordotic cages have been introduced to create higher degrees of lordosis to the lumbar spine. There are little data currently available to define the radiographic benefits that these cages provide with stand-alone ALIF. The goal of the present study was to assess the effect of increasing cage angles on postoperative subsidence, sagittal alignment, and foraminal and disc height in patients who underwent single-level stand-alone ALIF surgery. A retrospective cohort study was performed of consecutive patients who underwent single-level ALIF by a single spine surgeon. Radiographic analysis included global lordosis, operative level of segmental lordosis, cage subsidence, sacral slope, pelvic tilt, pelvic incidence, pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch, edge loading, foraminal height, posterior disc height, anterior disc height, and adjacent-level lordosis. Multivariate linear and logistic regressions were performed to analyze the relationship between cage angle and radiographic outcomes. Seventy-two patients were included in the study and divided into three groups based on cage angle: < 10° (n = 17), 10°-15° (n = 36), and > 15° (n = 19). Within the entire study cohort, there were significant improvements in disc and foraminal height, as well as segmental and global lordosis, at the final follow-up after single-level ALIF. However, when stratified by cage angle groups, patients with > 15° cages did not have any additional significant changes in global or segmental lordosis compared with those patients with smaller cage angles, but patients with > 15° cages showed greater risk of subsidence while also having significantly less improvements in foraminal height, posterior disc height, and average disc height compared with the other groups. Patients with < 15° stand-alone ALIF cages showed improved average foraminal and disc (posterior, anterior, and average) height without sacrificing improvements in sagittal parameters or increasing risk of subsidence when compared to patients with hyperlordotic cages. The use of hyperlordotic cages > 15° did not provide spinal lordosis commensurate with the lordotic angle of the cage and had a greater risk of subsidence. Although this study was limited by a lack of patient-reported outcomes to correlate with radiographic results, these findings support the judicious use of hyperlordotic cages in stand-alone ALIF.

Radiographic comparison of L5-S1 lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage subsidence and displacement by fixation strategy: anterior plate versus integrated screws.

The aim of this study was to radiographically compare cage subsidence and displacement between L5-S1 lateral anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages secured with an anterior buttress plate and cages secured with integrated screws. Consecutive patients who underwent L5-S1 lateral ALIF with supplemental posterior fixation by a single surgeon from June 2016 to January 2021 were reviewed. Radiographs were analyzed and compared between the two groups based on the type of fixation used to secure the L5-S1 lateral ALIF cage: 1) anterior buttress plate or 2) integrated screws. The following measurements at L5-S1 were analyzed on radiographs obtained preoperatively, before discharge, and at latest follow-up: 1) anterior disc height, 2) posterior disc height, and 3) segmental lordosis. Cage subsidence and anterior cage displacement were determined radiographically. One hundred thirty-nine patients (mean age 60.0 ± 14.3 years) were included for analysis. Sixty-eight patients were treated with an anterior buttress plate (mean follow-up 12 ± 5 months), and 71 were treated with integrated screws (mean follow-up 9 ± 3 months). Mean age, sex distribution, preoperative L5-S1 lordosis, preoperative L5-S1 anterior disc height, and preoperative L5-S1 posterior disc height were statistically similar between the two groups. After surgery, the segmental L5-S1 lordosis and L5-S1 anterior disc heights significantly improved for both groups, and each respective measurement was similar between the groups at final follow-up. Posterior disc heights significantly increased after surgery with integrated screws but not with the anterior buttress plate. As such, posterior disc heights were significantly greater at final follow-up for integrated screws. Compared with patients who received integrated screws, significantly more patients who received the anterior buttress plate had cage subsidence cranially through the L5 endplate (20.6% vs 2.8%, p < 0.01), cage subsidence caudally through the S1 endplate (27.9% vs 0%, p < 0.01), and anterior cage displacement (22.1% vs 0%, p < 0.01). In this radiographic analysis of 139 patients who underwent lateral L5-S1 ALIF supplemented by posterior fixation, L5-S1 cages secured with an anterior buttress plate demonstrated significantly higher rates of cage subsidence and anterior cage displacement compared with cages secured with integrated screws. While the more durable stability afforded by cages secured with integrated screws suggests that they may be a more viable fixation strategy for L5-S1 lateral ALIFs, there are multiple factors that can contribute to cage subsidence, and, thus, definitive presumption cannot be made that the findings of this study are directly related to the buttress plate.

Biomechanical analysis of stand-alone lumbar interbody cages versus 360° constructs: an in vitro and finite element investigation.

Low fusion rates and cage subsidence are limitations of lumbar fixation with stand-alone interbody cages. Various approaches to interbody cage placement exist, yet the need for supplemental posterior fixation is not clear from clinical studies. Therefore, as prospective clinical studies are lacking, a comparison of segmental kinematics, cage properties, and load sharing on vertebral endplates is needed. This laboratory investigation evaluates the mechanical stability and biomechanical properties of various interbody fixation techniques by performing cadaveric and finite element (FE) modeling studies. An in vitro experiment using 7 fresh-frozen human cadavers was designed to test intact spines with 1) stand-alone lateral interbody cage constructs (lateral interbody fusion, LIF) and 2) LIF supplemented with posterior pedicle screw-rod fixation (360° constructs). FE and kinematic data were used to validate a ligamentous FE model of the lumbopelvic spine. The validated model was then used to evaluate the stability of stand-alone LIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages with and without supplemental posterior fixation at the L4-5 level. The FE models of intact and instrumented cases were subjected to a 400-N compressive preload followed by an 8-Nm bending moment to simulate physiological flexion, extension, bending, and axial rotation. Segmental kinematics and load sharing at the inferior endplate were compared. The FE kinematic predictions were consistent with cadaveric data. The range of motion (ROM) in LIF was significantly lower than intact spines for both stand-alone and 360° constructs. The calculated reduction in motion with respect to intact spines for stand-alone constructs ranged from 43% to 66% for TLIF, 67%-82% for LIF, and 69%-86% for ALIF in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. In flexion and extension, the maximum reduction in motion was 70% for ALIF versus 81% in LIF for stand-alone cases. When supplemented with posterior fixation, the corresponding reduction in ROM was 76%-87% for TLIF, 86%-91% for LIF, and 90%-92% for ALIF. The addition of posterior instrumentation resulted in a significant reduction in peak stress at the superior endplate of the inferior segment in all scenarios. Stand-alone ALIF and LIF cages are most effective in providing stability in lateral bending and axial rotation and less so in flexion and extension. Supplemental posterior instrumentation improves stability for all interbody techniques. Comparative clinical data are needed to further define the indications for stand-alone cages in lumbar fusion surgery.

Multicenter assessment of outcomes and complications associated with transforaminal versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion for fractional curve correction.

Few studies have compared fractional curve correction after long fusion between transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for adult symptomatic thoracolumbar/lumbar scoliosis (ASLS). The objective of this study was to compare fractional correction, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and complications associated with L4-S1 TLIF versus those of ALIF as an operative treatment of ASLS. The authors retrospectively analyzed a prospective multicenter adult spinal deformity database. Inclusion required a fractional curve ≥ 10°, a thoracolumbar/lumbar curve ≥ 30°, index TLIF or ALIF performed at L4-5 and/or L5-S1, and a minimum 2-year follow-up. TLIF and ALIF patients were propensity matched according to the number and type of interbody fusion at L4-S1. Of 135 potentially eligible consecutive patients, 106 (78.5%) achieved the minimum 2-year follow-up (mean ± SD age 60.6 ± 9.3 years, 85% women, 44.3% underwent TLIF, and 55.7% underwent ALIF). Index operations had mean ± SD 12.2 ± 3.6 posterior levels, 86.6% of patients underwent iliac fixation, 67.0% underwent TLIF/ALIF at L4-5, and 84.0% underwent TLIF/ALIF at L5-S1. Compared with TLIF patients, ALIF patients had greater cage height (10.9 ± 2.1 mm for TLIF patients vs 14.5 ± 3.0 mm for ALIF patients, p = 0.001) and lordosis (6.3° ± 1.6° for TLIF patients vs 17.0° ± 9.9° for ALIF patients, p = 0.001) and longer operative duration (6.7 ± 1.5 hours for TLIF patients vs 8.9 ± 2.5 hours for ALIF patients, p < 0.001). In all patients, final alignment improved significantly in terms of the fractional curve (20.2° ± 7.0° to 6.9° ± 5.2°), maximum coronal Cobb angle (55.0° ± 14.8° to 23.9° ± 14.3°), C7 sagittal vertical axis (5.1 ± 6.2 cm to 2.3 ± 5.4 cm), pelvic tilt (24.6° ± 8.1° to 22.7° ± 9.5°), and lumbar lordosis (32.3° ± 18.8° to 51.4° ± 14.1°) (all p < 0.05). Matched analysis demonstrated comparable fractional correction (-13.6° ± 6.7° for TLIF patients vs -13.6° ± 8.1° for ALIF patients, p = 0.982). In all patients, final HRQL improved significantly in terms of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (42.4 ± 16.3 to 24.2 ± 19.9), physical component summary (PCS) score of the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (32.6 ± 9.3 to 41.3 ± 11.7), and Scoliosis Research Society-22r score (2.9 ± 0.6 to 3.7 ± 0.7) (all p < 0.05). Matched analysis demonstrated worse ODI (30.9 ± 21.1 for TLIF patients vs 17.9 ± 17.1 for ALIF patients, p = 0.017) and PCS (38.3 ± 12.0 for TLIF patients vs 45.3 ± 10.1 for ALIF patients, p = 0.020) scores for TLIF patients at the last follow-up (despite no differences in these parameters at baseline). The rates of total complications were similar (76.6% for TLIF patients vs 71.2% for ALIF patients, p = 0.530), but significantly more TLIF patients had rod fracture (28.6% of TLIF patients vs 7.1% of ALIF patients, p = 0.036). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that a 1-mm increase in L4-5 TLIF cage height led to a 2.2° reduction in L4 coronal tilt (p = 0.011), and a 1° increase in L5-S1 ALIF cage lordosis led to a 0.4° increase in L5-S1 segmental lordosis (p = 0.045). Operative treatment of ASLS with L4-S1 TLIF versus ALIF demonstrated comparable mean fractional curve correction (66.7% vs 64.8%), despite use of significantly larger, more lordotic ALIF cages. TLIF cage height had a significant impact on leveling L4 coronal tilt, whereas ALIF cage lordosis had a significant impact on restoration of lumbosacral lordosis. The advantages of TLIF may include reduced operative duration and hospitalization; however, associated HRQL was inferior and more rod fractures were detected in the TLIF patients included in this study.

P83. Fractional curve correction using TLIF vs ALIF in adult scoliosis

<h3>BACKGROUND CONTEXT</h3> Few studies investigate fractional curve correction after long fusion with transforaminal (TLIF) vs anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for adult symptomatic thoracolumbar/lumbar scoliosis (ASLS). <h3>PURPOSE</h3> Our objective was to compare fractional correction, health-related quality-of-life (HRQL), and complications associated with L4-S1 TLIF vs ALIF in ASLS operative treatment. <h3>STUDY DESIGN/SETTING</h3> Retrospective review of a prospectively collected multicenter consecutive case registry. <h3>PATIENT SAMPLE</h3> Database enrollment required age ≥18 years, scoliosis ≥20º, sagittal vertical axis (SVA) ≥5cm, pelvic tilt ≥25º, or thoracic kyphosis ≥60º. <h3>OUTCOME MEASURES</h3> Radiographic correction (including L4-S1 fractional curve), HRQL (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Short Form-36 [SF-36] scores, Scoliosis Research Society-22 [SRS-22r] scores), and complications. <h3>METHODS</h3> Prospective multicenter data was reviewed. Study inclusion required fractional curve ≥10°, thoracolumbar/lumbar curve ≥30°, index TLIF vs ALIF at L4-L5 and/or L5-S1, and minimum 2-year follow-up. TLIF and ALIF patients were propensity-matched using number and type of interbody fusion at L4-S1. <h3>RESULTS</h3> Of 135 potentially eligible consecutive patients, 106 (78.5%) achieved minimum 2-year follow-up (age=60.6±9.3years, women=85.8%, TLIF=44.3%, ALIF=55.7%). Index operations had 12.2±3.6 posterior levels, iliac fixation=86.8%, and TLIF/ALIF at L4-L5 (67.0%) and L5-S1 (84.0%). ALIF had greater cage height (10.9±2.1 vs 14.5±3.0mm, p=0.001) and lordosis (6.3°±1.6° vs 17.0°±9.9°, p=0.001) and longer operative duration (6.7±1.5 vs 8.9±2.5hrs, p<0.001). Final alignment improved significantly (p<0.05): fractional curve (20.2°±7.0° to 6.9°±5.2°), maximum coronal Cobb (55.0°±14.8° to 23.9°±14.3°), C7-sagittal vertical axis (5.1±6.2 to 2.3±5.4cm), pelvic tilt (24.6°±8.1° to 22.7°±9.5°), and lumbar lordosis (32.3°±18.8° to 51.4°±14.1°). Matched analysis demonstrated comparable fractional correction (TLIF=–13.6°±6.7° vs ALIF=–13.6°±8.1°, p=0.982). Final HRQL improved significantly (p<0.05): ODI (42.4±16.3 to 24.2±19.9), SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS, 32.6±9.3 to 41.3±11.7), SRS-22r (2.9±0.6 to 3.7±0.7). Matched analysis demonstrated worse ODI (30.9±21.1 vs 17.9±17.1, p=0.017) and PCS (38.3±12.0 vs 45.3±10.1, p=0.020) for TLIF at last follow-up (despite no difference in these parameters at baseline). Total complication rate per patient was not different (TLIF=76.6% vs ALIF=71.2%, p=0.530), but significantly more TLIF patients had rod fractures (RF) (TLIF=28.6% vs ALIF=7.1%, p=0.036). Multiple regression demonstrated 1-mm increase in L4-L5 TLIF cage height lead to 2.2° reduction in L4 coronal tilt (p=0.011), and 1° increase in L5-S1 ALIF cage lordosis lead to 0.4° increase in L5-S1 segmental lordosis (p=0.045). <h3>CONCLUSIONS</h3> Operative ASLS treatment with L4-S1 TLIF vs ALIF demonstrated comparable fractional curve correction (66.7% vs 64.8%) despite significantly larger, more lordotic ALIF cages. TLIF cage height had significant impact on leveling L4 coronal tilt, whereas ALIF cage lordosis had significant impact on lumbosacral lordosis restoration. Advantages of TLIF may include reduced operative duration; however, associated HRQL was inferior and more RFs were detected in this study. <h3>FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS</h3> This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs.

Expandable Cage Technology-Transforaminal, Anterior, and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

This review of the literature will focus on the indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes for expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF), and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) operations. The expandable TLIF cage has become a workhorse for common degenerative pathology, whereas expandable ALIF cages carry the promise of greater lordotic correction while evading the diseased posterior elements. Expandable LLIF cages call upon minimally invasive techniques for a retroperitoneal, transpsoas approach to the disc space, obviating the need for an access surgeon and decreasing risk of injury to the critical neurovascular structures. Nuances between expandable and static cages for all 3 TLIF, ALIF, and LLIF operations are discussed in this review.

Clinical Outcome After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a New Osteoinductive Bone Substitute Material: A Randomized Clinical Pilot Study.

Pilot, single-center, single-blinded, parallel-group, randomized clinical study. The aim of this study was to pilot a randomized clinical study to evaluate whether instrumented anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with a new nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite embedded in a silica gel matrix (NH-SiO2) leads to superior radiologic and clinical outcomes at 12-month follow-up compared with instrumented ALIF with homologous bone. ALIF completed with interbody cages is an established technique for performing arthrodesis of the lumbar spine. There is ongoing discussion about which cage-filling material is most appropriate. This is the first study to assess the efficacy of NH-SiO2 in ALIF surgery. This randomized, clinical, pilot trial included 2 groups of 20 patients with monosegmental or multisegmental degenerative disease of the lumbar spine who were suitable to undergo monosegmental or bisegmental ALIF fusion at the level L4/L5 and L5/S1 with a carbon fiber reinforced polymer ALIF cage filled with either NH-SiO2 or homogenous bone. Primary outcome was postoperative disability as measured by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcomes were postoperative radiographic outcomes, pain, and quality of life. Patients were followed 12 months postoperatively. Mean (±SD) 12-month ODI was 24±17 in the NH-SiO2 group and 27±19 in the homologous bone group (P=0.582). Postoperative radiography, functional outcomes, and quality-of-life indices did not differ significantly between groups at any of the regularly scheduled follow-up visits. This clinical study showed similar functional, radiologic, and clinical outcomes 12 months postoperatively for instrumented ALIF procedures with the use of NH-SiO2 or homologous bone as cage filling. In the absence of any relevant differences in outcome, we postulate that the pivotal clinical study should be designed as an equivalence trial.

Treatment of L5-S1 spondyloptosis with stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion in a patient with neurofibromatosis

Background Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a multisystem disorder that causes multiple tumor formations throughout the nervous system. Common spinal dysplasias seen with NF1, such as dural ectasia (DE), often undergo modulation and predispose these patients to spondylolisthesis, making surgical treatment challenging. Case Description A patient with NF1 presented with a 12-year-history of back and left lower extremity radicular pain. Lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging revealed developmental anomalies with severe DE and associated scalloping of the L4-S1 vertebral bodies and severe L5-S1 Meyerding grade 4 spondylolisthesis. During surgery, post-positioning x-rays demonstrated a grade 5 spondyloptosis. The patient underwent an L5-S1 stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). The final construct was an ALIF cage with one screw into S1, without an anterior plate. By 3-months post-operative, there was complete resolution of preoperative symptoms and at 2 year follow-up the patient was asymptomatic with stable hardware and solid bony fusion. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first report of spondyloptosis treated with a stand-alone ALIF in a patient with NF1 and severe DE.

Endoscope-Assisted Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Computed Tomography–Guided, Image-Navigated Unilateral Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation in Managing Adjacent Segment Disease in L5/S1: Technical Note

We sought to describe a novel technique in managing a patient with adjacent segment disease at the L5/S1 level. We performed an endoscope-assisted anterior lumbar interbody fusion with computed tomography-guided, image-navigated unilateral cortical bone trajectory screw fixation to treat L5/S1 intervertebral disk pathology. Patient was successfully treated by a direct endoscopic decompression through the anterior access, interbody fusion using an anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage, unilateral cortical bone trajectory instrumentation under computed tomography-guided image navigation. This minimally invasive technique is effective in terms of decompression and fixation. It could be used as an alternative method to treat patients with L5/S1 adjacent segment disease.

Length of Lumbar Interbody Cage Using Radiological Measurements of Chinese Endplates and the Apophyseal Ring

To radiologically measure the parameters of endplates and the apophyseal ring and to suggest an applicable length for a lumbar interbody cage for Chinese patients. Twenty-four volunteers were enrolled to undergo lumbar computed tomography (CT). On the endplate plane, the diameters of the endplates (L1-S1) were measured along the axis of the cage with different lumbar interbody fusion procedures. Whereas the mid-oblique diameter (mid-OD) and maximum oblique diameter (max-OD) were defined as the minimal and maximal diameters of the endplates in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), side-sagittal diameter (side-SD), mid-sagittal diameter (mid-SD), and transverse diameter (TD) represented the diameters of endplates in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF); and oblique lateral interbody fusion (OLIF)/extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF), /direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF), respectively. R1-R10 were the widths of the apophyseal ring covered by diameters at both ends. We used the proposed formula to calculate the cage length: 1) minimal length of TLIF cage= mid-OD- ½ (R1+ R2), 2) maximal length of TLIF cage= max-OD- ½ (R3+ R4), 3) length of PLIF cage= side-SD- ½ (R5+ R6), 4) length of OLIF/XLIF/DLIF cage= TD- ½ (R7+ R8), and 5) length of ALIF cage= mid-SD- ½ (R9+ R10). The lengths of the TLIF cage were more than 30 mm for men and 26 mm for women in L1/2-L4/5, with a large range in L5-S1. For PLIF, the lengths were 28 to 30 mm for men and 24 to 26 mm for women in L1/2-L4/5, with 26 mm and 22 mm, respectively, in L5-S1. For the OLIF/XLIF/DLIF cage, the lengths were 38 mm in L1/2 and 41 to 43 mm in L2/3-L4/5 for men and 35 mm in L1/2-L2/3 and 38 mm in L3/4-L4/5 for women. The ALIF cage lengths were 27 mm in L1/2 and L5-S1 and 29 mm in L2/3-L4/5 for men and 23 mm in L1/2 and L5-S1 and 25 mm in L2/3-L4/5 for women. The choice of an appropriate length for a lumbar interbody cage should be based on the procedure and fusion level, which can match the endplates anatomically. The size of the lumbar interbody cage is affected by many factors, and a simple calculation may not be clinically relevant.

Lumbar Lordosis Correction With Interbody Hyperlordotic Cages: Initial Experience, Learning Curve, Technical Aspects, and Complication Incidence

Analysis of the initial experience on learning curve, technical differences and perioperative or early postoperative complications using lumbar hyperlordotic anterior and lateral interbody cages for the correction of lumbar lordosis as compared with the usage of regular lordotic cages. Initial 21 consecutive patients were treated with 13 hyperlordotic anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages and 8 hyperlordotic extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF) cages. The mean patient age was 64 years, and the mean lumbar hypolordosis was 23°. No significant procedure-related technical differences were found between the hyperlordotic and nonhyperlordotic ALIF cages. Slightly significant procedure-related technical differences were found between hyperlordotic and nonhyperlordotic XLIF cages. The complication type and occurrence were comparable. Sagittal balance correction of lumbar lordosis using hyperlordotic ALIF and XLIF cages is a relatively safe surgical procedure with a short learning curve for those surgeons already familiar with anterior and lateral retroperitoneal procedures.

Evaluating Outcomes of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is an effective surgical approach for selected spinal pathologies. It avoids the morbidity and complications associated with instrumented ALIF, such as plate fixation and the traditionally used posterior approach. Despite improved disc space visualization and clearance, the associated posterior instability and increased risk of nonfusion present major challenges to this approach. The integral cage design aims to address these challenges by providing the necessary stabilization through intracorporeal screws. However, there is limited and controversial data available for stand-alone ALIF and integral cage fixation. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to evaluate recent findings on outcomes of stand-alone ALIF devices to explore areas of controversy and identify directions for future research. Two reviewers conducted independent, systematic literature searches for appropriate studies in 5 electronic databases as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were filtered by the use of specified selection criteria, particularly exclusion of studies with supplementary fixation to ALIF and studies published before the year 2000. A total of 17 studies met the criteria, and their data were comprehensively extracted and analyzed. The current literature is supportive of stand-alone ALIF due to acceptable clinical outcomes, promising fusion rates and disc height restoration. However, data and outcomes remain preliminary, and there are numerous areas of controversy. There is evidence for the efficacy and safety of stand-alone ALIF. However, the extent of improvement based on specific indications for surgery remains unclear. Further investigation utilizing more methodologically rigorous studies of long-term outcomes is necessary to address these issues.

Evolution of Design of Interbody Cages for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is one of the surgical procedures for the relief of chronic back pain, radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease that is refractory to conservative therapy, low-grade spondylolisthesis and pseudo arthrosis. Over the past half century, both the surgical techniques and instrumentation required for ALIF have changed significantly. In particular, the designs of ALIF cage and the materials used have evolved dramatically, the common goal being to improve fusion rates and optimize clinical outcomes. The increasing popularity of ALIF is reflected by the increasing abundance of published studies reporting clinical outcomes, surgical techniques and grafting options for ALIF. Developments in cage designs include cylindrical Bagby and Kuslich, cylindrical ray, cylindrical mesh, lumbar-tapered, polyethyl-etherketone cage and integral fixation cages. Biologic implants include bone dowels and femoral ring allografts. Methods for optimization of cage design have included cage dimensions, use of novel composite cage materials and integral fixation technologies. However, the historical development and evolution of cages used for ALIF has not been extensively documented. This article therefore aims to provide an overview of the historical basis for the anterior approach, evolution in design of ALIF cage implants and potential future research directions.

Combination Ti/PEEK ALIF cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: Early clinical and radiological results

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a common procedure for patients with degenerative pathologies of the lumbar spine. In this study, the clinical and radiological outcomes of a combination titanium/polyetheretherketone (Ti/PEEK) ALIF cages in one, two and three-level surgery were evaluated. Over an 18-month time period, a prospective single surgeon series of 20 implants (15 patients) were included in the study, with minimum 10-months follow-up. From these 15 patients, two were supplemented with posterior percutaneous pedicle screw fixation for additional stability. Radiological follow-up with fine cut CT scan at 9–12months was performed to evaluate early fusion rates, and integration of the Titanium/PEEK cage at the endplate junction. 20 implants were followed for a minimum of 10months, and a mean of 15months. A 95% (19/20 implants) fusion rate with no implant related complications was achieved at the mean 15-month postoperative mark. Patients experienced statistically significant improvement in pain and functional outcomes (SF12 and ODI) compared to their pre-operative status. A single patient with a non-union at L5/S1 (smoker) did not experience any improvement in symptoms. A Ti–PEEK cage, with allograft and BMP-2 to achieve interbody fusion is an effective implant for use in anterior lumbar surgery with high fusion rates, no lucency around the titanium endplates at follow-up, and with promising early results.

MIS Expandable Interbody Spacers: A Literature Review and Biomechanical Comparison of an Expandable MIS TLIF With Conventional TLIF and ALIF.

Biomechanical study and review of literature on expandable lumbar interbody fusion constructs. To evaluate the biomechanical stability of expandable interbody devices. Lumbar interbody implants placed from an anterior or lateral approach are desirable due to their large size, providing a stable fusion environment. Posterior implants are typically limited by their access corridor. Expandable footprint transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) interbodies may allow for a minimally invasive TLIF approach with the biomechanical benefits of an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF)-sized graft; however, this requires experimental investigation. Six cadaveric L1-sacrum segments were tested intact with pure moments of ± 7.5 N m in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Specimens received at L4-5 either a medial-lateral expandable TLIF cage (MLX-TLIF) or a conventional polyether ether ketone (PEEK) banana-shaped TLIF cage (Conv-TLIF) first. Both were tested with unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw (PS) fixation. Testing was repeated with the alternate cage and fixation. Motion marker arrays were fixed to L4 and L5 to assess range of motion. Results were compared with published data for a PEEK ALIF cage with anterior plate and a PEEK ALIF cage with bilateral PS fixation, tested under the same conditions. The most rigid construct was ALIF with bilateral PS fixation in flexion-extension and axial rotation, whereas MLX with bilateral PS was most rigid in lateral bending. Conv-TLIF with unilateral PS was the least rigid construct. MLX-TLIF with unilateral PS provided similar range of motion to Conv-TLIF with bilateral PS in flexion-extension and lateral bending, and ALIF with anterior plate in lateral bending. The MLX-TLIF cage with unilateral PS fixation provided comparable stability to conventional TLIF with bilateral PS fixation and ALIF with anterior plate treatments. The large footprint of the expandable cage may reduce the TLIF supplemental fixation demands and facilitate minimally invasive single-position surgery. If needed, additional stability may be achieved by using bilateral PS. N/A.

Anterior lumbar interbody fusion with integrated fixation and adjunctive posterior stabilization: A comparative biomechanical analysis

BackgroundInterbody fusion cages with integrated fixation components have become of interest due to their ability to provide enhanced post-operative stability and mitigate device migration. A recently approved anterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with integrated fixation anchors has yet to be compared in vitro to a standard polyetheretherketone cage when used in combination with an interspinous process clamp. MethodsTwelve human cadaveric lumbar segments were implanted at L4–L5 with a Solus interbody cage (n=6) or standard polyetheretherketone cage (n=6) following Intact testing and discectomy. Each cage was subsequently evaluated in all primary modes of loading after supplementation with the following posterior constructs: interspinous process clamp, bilateral transfacet screws, unilateral transfacet screw with contralateral pedicle screws, and bilateral pedicle screws. Range of motion results were normalized to Intact, and a two-way mixed analysis of variance was utilized to detect statistical differences. FindingsThe Solus cage in combination with all posterior constructs provided significant fixation compared to Intact in all loading conditions. The polyetheretherketone cage also provided significant fixation when combined with all screw based treatments, however when used with the interspinous process clamp a significant reduction was not observed in lateral bending or axial torsion. InterpretationInterbody cages with integrated fixation components enhance post-operative stability within the intervertebral space, thus affording clinicians the potential to utilize less invasive methods of posterior stabilization when seeking circumferential fusion. Interspinous process clamps, in particular, may reduce peri-operative and post-operative comorbidities compared to screw based constructs. Further study is necessary to corroborate their effectiveness in vivo.

Analysis of spinal lumbar interbody fusion cage subsidence using Taguchi method, finite element analysis, and artificial neural network

Subsidence, when implant penetration induces failure of the vertebral body, occurs commonly after spinal reconstruction. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) cages may subside into the vertebral body and lead to kyphotic deformity. No previous studies have utilized an artificial neural network (ANN) for the design of a spinal interbody fusion cage. In this study, the neural network was applied after initiation from a Taguchi L18 orthogonal design array. Three-dimensional finite element analysis (FEA) was performed to address the resistance to subsidence based on the design changes of the material and cage contact region, including design of the ridges and size of the graft area. The calculated subsidence is derived from the ANN objective function which is defined as the resulting maximum von Mises stress (VMS) on the surface of a simulated bone body after axial compressive loading. The ANN was found to have minimized the bone surface VMS, thereby optimizing the ALIF cage given the design space. Therefore, the Taguchi-FEA-ANN approach can serve as an effective procedure for designing a spinal fusion cage and improving the biomechanical properties.

Direct Lateral Approach to Lumbar Fusion Is a Biomechanically Equivalent Alternative to the Anterior Approach

A human cadaveric biomechanical study of lumbar mobility before and after fusion and with or without supplemental instrumentation for 5 instrumentation configurations. To determine the biomechanical differences between anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and direct lateral interbody fusion (DLIF) with and without supplementary instrumentation. Some prior studies have compared various surgical approaches using the same interbody device whereas others have investigated the stabilizing effect of supplemental instrumentation. No published studies have performed a side-by-side comparison of standard and minimally invasive techniques with and without supplemental instrumentation. Eight human lumbosacral specimens (16 motion segments) were tested in each of the 5 following configurations: (1) intact, (2) with ALIF or DLIF cage, (3) with cage plus stabilizing plate, (4) with cage plus unilateral pedicle screw fixation (PSF), and (5) with cage plus bilateral PSF. Pure moments were applied to induce specimen flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Three-dimensional kinematic responses were measured and used to calculate range of motion, stiffness, and neutral zone. Compared to the intact state, DLIF significantly reduced range of motion in flexion, extension, and lateral bending (P = 0.0117, P = 0.0015, P = 0.0031). Supplemental instrumentation significantly increased fused-specimen stiffness for both DLIF and ALIF groups. For the ALIF group, bilateral PSF increased stiffness relative to stand-alone cage by 455% in flexion and 317% in lateral bending (P = 0.0009 and P < 0.0001). The plate increased ALIF group stiffness by 211% in extension and 256% in axial rotation (P = 0.0467 and P = 0.0303). For the DLIF group, bilateral PSF increased stiffness by 350% in flexion and 222% in extension (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0008). No differences were observed between ALIF and DLIF groups supplemented with bilateral PSF. Our data support that the direct lateral approach, when supplemented with bilateral PSF, is a minimally invasive and biomechanically stable alternative to the open, anterior approach to lumbar spine fusion.

A Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of a Stand-Alone Anterior Carbon I/F Cage for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Two-year prospective multicenter clinical trial. To determine the safety and efficacy of the anterior I/F Cage in the primary treatment of single-level degenerative disc disease. A carbon fiber-reinforced polymer cage was designed to replace the traditional allograft/autograft structural graft used in an anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). Although the outcomes of various types of ALIF cages have previously been reported, the safety and efficacy of the I/F cage are unknown. Between June 2000 and June 2004, 112 patients were prospectively enrolled at 12 study sites for the current study. Efficacy was evaluated clinically and radiographically. "Patient success" was declared only when the following 4 criteria were present at final follow-up: (1) "clinical success": improvement of 15 points on Oswestry Disability Index, (2) absence of a new neurologic abnormality, (3) successful radiographic fusion, and (4) no subsequent secondary surgical intervention at 24-month follow-up. Safety was inferred by way of an objective summary of complications and adverse events, as reported at regular intervals throughout the course of the study. A total of 112 patients (mean age: 41.7 years) underwent a single-level ALIF procedure (L5-S1: 95 patients, L4-L5: 17 patients). The mean surgical time was 126 minutes, the mean estimated blood loss was 134 mL, and the mean duration of hospitalization was 3.3 days. There were 80 patients available for 24-month follow-up. Overall patient success was 25% (20/80). Clinical success was present in 46.3% (37/80), fusion success was 57.5% (46/80), and 87.5% of patients (70/80) avoided a subsequent secondary surgical intervention. Disc space height had significantly increased after surgery, and this increase was maintained at 2 years follow-up period. Complications and adverse events included the following: 8 infections (7.1%) (7 superficial, 1 deep), 2 vascular injuries (1.8%) (left common iliac vein), and 12 secondary surgical interventions (15%). This safety and efficacy study suggests that the anterior I/F Cage is a safe surgical option in the treatment of single-level lumbar degenerative disc disease. As a stand-alone construct, the I/F Cage yields suboptimal radiographic and clinical outcomes. Additional benefit may be gained from adjunctive posterior stabilization.