Static vs. Expandable PEEK Interbody Cages: A Comparison of One-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for One-Level TLIF

Introduction: Degenerative spine disease is a disabling condition affecting many worldwide. Transoforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures help stabilize the spine, while improving back and/or leg pain. With the introduction of new implant designs and modifications, focus has shifted to optimizing spinopelvic alignment, fusion rates, and more. This study aims to explore the effect of static versus expandable polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages on patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) and radiographic outcomes (subsidence, disk height, and alignment parameters). Materials/Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a database of patients in a single, high volume academic center. Patient outcomes were obtained from charts and radiographic outcomes were measured using standing, lateral radiographs. Data were analyzed using mean sample t-tests or categorical chi-squared tests, and multiple linear regression where appropriate. Results: Our results showed improved Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores perioperatively in the expandable cage group compared to the static cage group at the three-month and one-year time periods. In addition, there were a significantly greater proportion of patients that reached minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the expandable group compared to the static cage group. There were no significant changes in subsidence or alignment parameters between the two groups at the one-year time period. Conclusion: Overall, our results show that TLIF patients treated with expandable PEEK cages had significantly greater improvement in one-year outcomes compared to patients with static cages. Expandable cages confer the advantage of more precise insertion into the intervertebral disk space, while providing a way to tailor the cage height for better distraction and spinal alignment. Further prospective studies are warranted to get a better idea of the impact of interbody design on clinical/radiographic outcomes

Static v. Expandable TLIF Cage Outcomes

Static cages were introduced in the 1990s as a solution to degenerative spondylolisthesis, recurrent disc herniation and spinal stenosis. As this procedure was popularized, a new class of expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion devices was introduced to further improve outcomes that will be studied in this project. It will be explored how expandable cages compare to static cages in TLIF procedures in patient-reported outcomes, complications and restoration of appropriate lumbar lordosis. We conducted a retrospective cohort review comparing those who received expandable and static cages. Eligible patients received TLIF procedure at the Rothman Institute, were ≥18 years of age and had radiographic follow-up at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Outcomes were measured in lumbar lordosis via calculating angles via radiographic images preoperatively and 3 month and 1 year postoperatively as well as pre- and post-operative SF-12 surveys. At this time, data acquisition is ongoing and no preliminary data has been generated. However, we anticipate better patient reported outcomes and greater and sustained restoration of Lumbar Lordosis in patients who received expandable cages. Data collection is scheduled to be completed shortly. Once completed, this will be a study of greater magnitude and will address the shortage of investigations into the surgical outcomes of static and expandable cages and clarify the theorized benefits of expandable cages. Recent emphasis has been placed on restoring appropriate lumbar lordosis in fusion surgeries and this project was designed to investigate lordosis at different time posts as compared to patient-reported outcomes

Neurologic improvement after thoracic, thoracolumbar, and lumbar spinal cord (conus medullaris) injuries

Study Design. Retrospective. Objective. With approximately 10,000 new spinal cord injury (SCI) patients in the United States each year, predicting public health outcomes is an important public health concern. Combining all regions of the spine in SCI trials may be misleading if the lumbar and sacral regions (conus) have a neurologic improvement at different rates than the thoracic or thoracolumbar spinal cord. Summary of Background Data. Over a 10-year period between January 1995 to 2005, 1746 consecutive spinal injured patients were seen, evaluated, and treated through a level 1 trauma referral center. A retrospective analysis was performed on 150 patients meeting the criteria of T4 to S5 injury, excluding gunshot wounds. One-year follow-up data were available on 95 of these patients. Methods. Contingency table analyses (chi-squared statistics) and multivariate logistic regression. Variables of interest included level of injury, initial American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA), age, race, and etiology. Results. A total of 92.9% of lumbar (conus) patients neurologically improved one ASIA level or more compared with 22.4% of thoracic or thoracolumbar spinal cord-injured patients. Only 7.7% of ASIA A patients showed neurologic improvement, compared with 95.2% of ASIA D patients; ASIA B patients demonstrated a 66.7% improvement rate, whereas ASIA C had a 84.6% improvement rate. When the two effects were considered jointly in a multivariate analysis, ASIA A and thoracic/thoracolumbar patients had only a 4.1% rate of improvement, compared with 96% for lumbar (conus) and incomplete patients (ASIA B-D) and 66.7% to 72.2% for the rest of the patients. All of these relationships were significant to P \u3c 0.001 (chi-square test). There was no link to age or gender, and race and etiology were secondary to region and severity of injury. Conclusion. Thoracic (T4-T9) SCIs have the least potential for neurologic improvement. Thoracolumbar (T10-T12) and lumbar (conus) spinal cord have a greater neurologic improvement rate, which might be related to a greater proportion of lower motor neurons. Thus, defining the exact region of injury and potential for neurologic improvement should be considered in future clinical trial design. Combining all anatomic regions of the spine in SCI trials may be misleading if different regions have neurologic improvement at different rates. Over a ten-year period, 95 complete thoracic/thoracolumbar SCI patients had only a 4.1% rate of neurologic improvement, compared with 96.0% for incomplete lumbar (conus) patients and 66.7% to 72.2% for all others

Is facet joint distraction a cause of postoperative axial neck pain after ACDF surgery?

Introduction: Intervertebral distraction in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has been postulated to injure the degenerative facet joints posteriorly and increase postoperative pain and disability. This study aims to determine if there is a correlation between the amount of facet distraction and postoperative patient reported outcomes. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing ACDF for degenerative pathologies was performed. Each patient received lateral cervical spine x-rays at the immediate postoperative time point and were split into groups based on the amount of facet distraction measured on these films: Group A: \u3c 1.5 mm; Group B: 1.5-2.0 mm; and Group C: \u3e 2.0 mm. Patients reported outcome measures were obtained preoperatively and at 1-year postoperatively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare outcomes between groups. Results: A total of 229 patients were included with an average follow-up of 19.8 [19.0, 20.7] months with a mean facet joint distraction of 1.7mm. There were 87 patients in Group A, 76 patients in Group B, and 66 patients in Group C. Patients significantly improved across all outcome measures from baseline to postoperatively (p \u3c 0.05). There was no difference between groups at any time point with respect to outcome scores (p \u3e 0.05). Multiple regression analysis did not identify increasing distraction as a predictor of patient outcomes. Conclusions: There were no significant differences between patient outcomes and the amount of facet distraction after ACDF surgery. Multivariate analysis did not find a correlation between facet distraction and overall HRQOL outcome