Mapping the Structural Properties of the Lumbosacral Vertebral Endplates

Grant, J. Pamela; Oxland, Thomas R.; Dvorak, Marcel F.

doi:10.1097/00007632-200104150-00012

Cited by 299 publications

(238 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

208

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They also provided mechanical data proving that the anterior site of the endplate is weaker than the posterior site. Grant et al 16) demonstrated the mechanical weakness of the central region of the endplate using indentation tests. In addition, they showed that the superior endplate was mechanically weaker than the inferior endplate.…”

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

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

show abstract

“…The initial advice for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was to place the intervertebral cage in the middle/posterior third of the disc space [25]. Posterolateral placement within the intervertebral space, where the endplate is thicker [8] and stronger [8,26], has been suggested following a biomechanical study assessing the risk of cage subsidence [14], whereas central placement has shown greater subsidence in a clinical study [15]. With regard to anterior placement, both a cadaveric [27] and a clinical study [28] involving TLIF found no difference in intervertebral lordosis when cages were placed in the anterior half of the disc space.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To examine monosegmental lordosis after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) surgery and relate lordosis to cage size, shape, and placement. Methods Eighty-three consecutive patients underwent single-level PLIF with paired identical lordotic cages involving a wide decompression and bilateral facetectomies. Cage parameters relating to size (height, lordosis, and length) and placement (expressed as a ratio relative to the length of the inferior vertebral endplate) were recorded. Centre point ratio (CPR) was the distance to the centre of both cages and indicated mean position of both cages. Posterior gap ratio (PGR) was the distance to the most posterior cage and indicated position and cage length indirectly. Relationships between lordosis and cage parameters were explored. Results Mean lordosis increased by 5.98°(SD 6.86°). The cages used varied in length from 20 to 27 mm, in lordosis from 10°to 18°, and in anterior cage height from 10 to 17 mm. The mean cage placement as determined by CPR was 0.54 and by PGR was 0.16. The significant correlations were: both CPR and PGR with lordosis gain at surgery (r = 0.597 and 0.537, respectively, p \ 0.001 both), cage lordosis with the final lordosis (r = 0.234, p \ 0.05), and anterior cage height was negatively correlated with a change in lordosis (r = -0.297, p \ 0.01).Conclusion Cage size, shape, and position, in addition to surgical technique, determine lordosis during PLIF surgery. Anterior placement with sufficient ''clear space'' behind the cages is recommended. In addition, cages should be of moderate height and length, so that they act as an effective pivot for lordosis.

show abstract

“…8,25 Lastfogel et al have speculated that a combination of forces on inferior screws may be one of the factors predisposing to failure of this device. 15 In mapping the structural properties of lumbosacral vertebral endplates, Grant et al 9 discovered that lateral margins were stronger than central areas, both anteriorly and posteriorly. Likewise, inferior lumbar endplates were significantly stronger and stiffer than their superior counterparts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture of the L-4 vertebral body after use of a stand-alone interbody fusion device in degenerative spondylolisthesis for anterior L3–4 fixation

Y¹,

Jang

Lee³

et al. 2014

SPI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies attest to the excellent results achieved using anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis. The purpose of this report is to document a rare instance of L-4 vertebral body fracture following use of a stand-alone interbody fusion device for L3–4 ALIF. The patient, a 55-year-old man, had suffered intractable pain of the back, right buttock, and left leg for several weeks. Initial radiographs showed Grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis, with instability in the sagittal plane (upon 15° rotation) and stenosis of central and both lateral recesses at the L3–4 level. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion of the affected vertebrae was subsequently conducted using a stand-alone cage/plate system. Postoperatively, the severity of spondylolisthesis diminished, with resolution of symptoms. However, the patient returned 2 months later with both leg weakness and back pain. Plain radiographs and CT indicated device failure due to anterior fracture of the L-4 vertebral body, and the spondylolisthesis had recurred. At this point, bilateral facetectomies were performed, with reduction/fixation of L3–4 by pedicle screws. Again, degenerative spondylolisthesis improved postsurgically and symptoms eased, with eventual healing of the vertebral body fracture. This report documents a rare instance of L-4 vertebral body fracture following use of a stand-alone device for ALIF at L3–4, likely as a consequence of angular instability in degenerative spondylolisthesis. Under such conditions, additional pedicle screw fixation is advised.

show abstract

Mapping the Structural Properties of the Lumbosacral Vertebral Endplates

Abstract: Highly significant regional strength and stiffness variations were identified in the lumbar and sacral endplates. The center of the bone, where implants are currently placed, is the weakest part of the lumbar endplates and is not the strongest region of the sacral endplate.

Cited by 299 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction

Fracture of the L-4 vertebral body after use of a stand-alone interbody fusion device in degenerative spondylolisthesis for anterior L3–4 fixation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About