Complete cage migration/subsidence into the adjacent vertebral body after posterior lumbar interbody fusion

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 597-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco V. Corniola ◽  
Max Jägersberg ◽  
Martin N. Stienen ◽  
Oliver P. Gautschi
2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 1621-1628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Abbushi ◽  
Mario Čabraja ◽  
Ulrich-Wilhelm Thomale ◽  
Christian Woiciechowsky ◽  
Stefan Nikolaus Kroppenstedt

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 21-27
Author(s):  
Saurav Narayan Nanda ◽  
Mantu Jain ◽  
Sudarsan Behera ◽  
Manisha Gaikwad

The procedure of interbody fusion has become an established treatment for many spine disorders. This arthrodesis can be achieved by hardware (fusion cage) through many approaches. Initially, posterior lumbar interbody fusion was popularized but had some serious neurological complications related to insertion as well as the migration of the cage. Gradually, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) was introduced, which proved safer as it involves minimal cord handling, and also migration, if any, remains asymptomatic. We had two patients who were operated for interbody fusion using TLIF technique with subsequent posterior migration of the banana-shaped fusion cage 4–6 month after the index surgery. Both patients presented with radiculopathy mimicking a prolapsed intervertebral disc. These were evaluated and operated with the removal of the migrated cages and revision with bigger-size cages with adequate bone grafting. At the 1-year follow-up, both had remission of symptoms, and radiographs showed no subsequent migration. TLIF procedure is an established procedure to achieve arthrodesis in varying spine disorders with promising result. However, there are only a few reports describing cage migration after the procedure and these have been asymptomatic. Revision surgery is contemplated in the setting of neurological compression or instability. A bigger fusion cage in a compressive mode with adequate bone grafting is used to achieve arthrodesis. The principles of interbody fusion must be followed, and utmost precautions must be taken to prevent this unfortunate complication.


2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 507-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melvin D. Helgeson ◽  
Ronald A. Lehman ◽  
Jeanne C. Patzkowski ◽  
Anton E. Dmitriev ◽  
Michael K. Rosner ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masato Tanaka ◽  
Zhang Wei ◽  
Akihiro Kanamaru ◽  
Shin Masuda ◽  
Koji Uotani ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundSymptomatic pseudarthrosis and cage migration/protrusion are difficult complications of transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF). If the patient experiences severe radicular symptoms due to cage protrusion, removal of the migrated cage is necessary. However, this procedure is sometimes very challenging because epidural adhesions and fibrous union can be present between the cage and vertebrae. We describe a novel classification and technique utilizing a navigated osteotome and the oblique lumbar interbody fusion at L5/S1 (OLIF51) technique to address this problem.MethodsThis retrospective study investigated consecutive patients with degenerative lumbar diseases who underwent TLIF/PLIF. Symptomatic cage migration was evaluated by direct examination, radiography, and/or computed tomography (CT) at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up. Cage migration/protrusion was defined as symptomatic cage protrusion >5 mm from the posterior border of the over and underlying vertebral body compared with initial CT. We evaluated patient characteristics including body mass index, smoking history, fusion level, and cage type. A total of 113 patients underwent PLIF/TLIF (PLIF n=30, TLIF n=83), with a mean age of 71.1 years (range, 28–87 years). Mean duration of follow-up was 25 months (range, 12-47 months). ResultsCage migration was identified in 5 of 113 patients (4.4%). All cases of symptomatic cage migration involved the L5/S1 level and the TLIF procedure. Risk factors for cage protrusion were age (younger), sex (male), and level (L5/S1). The mean duration to onset of cage protrusion was 3.2 months (range, 2–6 months). We applied a new classification for cage protrusion: type 1, only low back pain without new radicular symptoms; type 2, low back pain with minor radicular symptoms; or type 3, cauda equina syndrome and/or severe radicular symptoms. According to our classification, one patient was in type 1, three patients were in type 2, and one patient was in type 3. For all cases of cage migration, revision surgery was performed using a navigated high-speed burr and osteotome, and the patient in group 1 underwent additional PLIF without removal of the protruding cage. Three revision surgeries (group 2) involved removal of the protruding cage and PLIF, and one revision surgery (group 3) involved anterior removal of the cage and OLIF51 fusion.ConclusionsThe navigated high-speed burr, navigated osteotome, and OLIF51 technique appear very useful for removing a cage with fibrous union from the disc in patients with pseudarthrosis. This new technique makes revision surgery after cage migration much safer, and more effective. This technique also reduces the need for fluoroscopy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document