Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society

The Korean Neurosurgical Society (대한신경외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Fusion Criteria for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Intervertebral Cages : The Significance of Traction Spur

  • Kim, Kyung-Hoon (Department of Neurosurgery, Spine and Spinal Cord Institute, Gangnam Severance Spine Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Jeong-Yoon (Department of Neurosurgery, National Health Insurance Corporation Ilsan Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine) ;
  • Chin, Dong-Kyu (Department of Neurosurgery, Spine and Spinal Cord Institute, Gangnam Severance Spine Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine)
  • Published : 2009.10.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective : The purpose of this study was to establish new fusion criteria to complement existing Brantigan-Steffee fusion criteria. The primary purpose of intervertebral cage placement is to create a proper biomechanical environment through successful fusion. The existence of a traction spur is an essential predictable radiologic factor which shows that there is instability of a fusion segment. We studied the relationship between the existence of a traction spur and fusion after a posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) procedure. Methods : This study was conducted using retrospective radiological findings from patients who underwent a PLIF procedure with the use of a cage without posterior fixation between 1993 and 1997 at a single institution. We enrolled 183 patients who were followed for a minimum of five years after the procedure, and used the Brantigan-Steffee classification to confirm the fusion. These criteria include a denser and more mature bone fusion area than originally achieved during surgery, no interspace between the cage and the vertebral body, and mature bony trabeculae bridging the fusion area. We also confirmed the existence of traction spurs on fusion segments and non-fusion segments. Results : The PLIF procedure was done on a total of 251 segments in 183 patients (71 men and 112 women). The average follow-up period was $80.4{\pm}12.7$ months. The mean age at the time of surgery was $48.3{\pm}11.3$ years (range, 25 to 84 years). Among the 251 segments, 213 segments (84.9%) were fused after five years. The remaining 38 segments (15.1%) were not fused. An analysis of the 38 segments that were not fused found traction spur formation in 20 of those segments (52.6%). No segments had traction spur formation with fusion. Conclusion : A new parameter should be added to the fusion criteria. These criteria should be referred to as 'no traction spur formation' and should be used to confirm fusion after a PLIF procedure.

Keywords

References

  1. Blumenthal SL, Ohnmeiss DD; NASS : Intervertebral cages for degenerative spinal diseases. Spine J 3 : 301-309, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-9430(03)00004-4
  2. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD : A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18 : 2106-2107, 1993 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199310001-00030
  3. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, Quinn LM, Persenaire JM : Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system : two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25 : 1437-1446, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200006010-00017
  4. Diedrich O, Perlick L, Schmitt O, Kraft CN : Radiographic characteristics on conventional radiographs after posterior lumbar interbody fusion : comparative study between radiotranslucent and radiopaque cages. J Spinal Disord 14 : 522-532, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200112000-00012
  5. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB : The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25 : 2940-2952; discussion 2952, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200011150-00017
  6. Fraser RD : Interbody, posterior, and combined lumbar fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20 : 167S-177S, 1995
  7. Frymoyer JW, Selby DK : Segmental instability. Rationale for treatment. Spine 10 : 280-286, 1985 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198504000-00017
  8. Fuji T, Oda T, Kato Y, Fujita S, Tanaka M : Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using titanium cylindrical threaded cages : is optimal interbody fusion possible without other instrumentation? J Orthop Sci 8 : 142-147, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1007/s007760300024
  9. Kasai Y, Kawakita E, Sakakibara T, Akeda K, Uchida A : Direction of the formation of anterior lumbar vertebral osteophytes. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10 : 4, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-10-4
  10. Kim KS, Yang TK, Lee JC : Radiological changes in the bone fusion site after posterior lumbar interbody fusion using carbon cages impacted with laminar bone chips : follow-up study over more than 4 years. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30 : 655-660, 2005 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000155421.07796.7f
  11. Leone A, Guglielmi G, Cassar-Pullicino VN, Bonomo L : Lumbar intervertebral instability : a review. Radiology 245 : 62-77, 2007 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2451051359
  12. Macnab I : The traction spur. An indicator of segmental instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 53 : 663-670, 1971
  13. McAfee PC : Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81 : 859-880, 1999
  14. McAfee PC, Boden SD, Brantigan JW, Fraser RD, Kuslich SD, Oxland TR, et al. : Symposium : a critical discrepancy-a criteria of successful arthrodesis following interbody spinal fusions. Spine 26 : 320-334, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200102010-00020
  15. Miyakoshi N, Itoi E, Murai H, Wakabayashi I, Ito H, Minato T : Inverse relation between osteoporosis and spondylosis in postmenopausal women as evaluated by bone mineral density and semiquantitative scoring of spinal degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28 : 492-495, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200303010-00015
  16. Nachemson A : Lumbar spine instability. A critical update and symposium summary. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 10 : 290-291, 1985 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-198504000-00019
  17. Pate D, Goobar J, Resnick D, Haghighi P, Sartoris DJ, Pathria MN : Traction osteophytes of the lumbar spine : radiographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 166 : 843-846, 1988
  18. Pitk$\ddot{a}$nen MT, Manninen HI, Lindgren KA, Sihvonen TA, Airaksinen O, Soimakallio S : Segmental lumbar spine instability at flexionextension radiography can be predicted by conventional radiography. Clin Radiol 57 : 632-639, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1053/crad.2001.0899
  19. Weiner BK, Fraser RD : Spine update lumbar interbody cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23 : 634-640, 1998 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199803010-00020
  20. Yadav SS : Traction spur. J Postgrad Med 19 : 136-138, 1973
  21. Zander T, Rohlmann A, Klockner C, Bergmann G : Influence of graded facetectomy and laminectomy on spinal biomechanics. Eur Spine J 12 : 427-434, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0540-0
  22. Zdeblick TA, Phillips FM : Interbody cage devices. Spine 28 : S2-S7, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200308011-00002

Cited by

  1. Minimally Invasive Multi-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Percutaneously Inserted Spinal Fixation System : Technical Tips, Surgical Outcomes vol.50, pp.5, 2009, https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2011.50.5.441
  2. Long-term clinical and radiological outcomes following stand-alone PLIF surgery using expandable cylindrical threaded cages in patients with degenerative lumbar spine disease vol.153, pp.7, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-011-1044-z
  3. Fate of Osteophytes and Sclerosis in Fused Segments After Lumbar Fusion vol.39, pp.18, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000000454
  4. Influence of smoking on spinal fusion after spondylodesis surgery: A comparative clinical study vol.24, pp.5, 2009, https://doi.org/10.3233/thc-161164
  5. Long-Term Outcomes of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Stand-Alone Ray Threaded Cage for Degenerative Disk Disease: A 20-Year Follow-Up vol.10, pp.6, 2009, https://doi.org/10.4184/asj.2016.10.6.1100
  6. Incidence and risk factors of persistent low back pain following posterior decompression and instrumented fusion for lumbar disk herniation vol.10, pp.None, 2009, https://doi.org/10.2147/jpr.s132862
  7. A novel PLIF PEEK interbody cage with an impactionless insertion technology: A case series with a mid-term follow up of three years vol.25, pp.5, 2009, https://doi.org/10.3233/thc-160721
  8. Approach to interpret images produced by new generations of multidetector CT scanners in post-operative spine vol.90, pp.1079, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170082
  9. Comparison of unilateral pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion with PEEK cage vs. standalone expandable fusion cage for the treatment of unilateral lumbar disc herniation vol.14, pp.6, 2009, https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2018.74890
  10. Application of a novel porous tantalum implant in rabbit anterior lumbar spine fusion model : in vitro and in vivo experiments vol.132, pp.1, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1097/cm9.0000000000000030
  11. Augmenting posterolateral fusion with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage improves clinical outcome, but not fusion rate, of posterior decompression vol.48, pp.4, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1177/0300060520910025