Revision for Cage Migration After Transforaminal/Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion; How to Perform Revision Surgery?

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.

Delayed asymptomatic retroperitoneal dislodgement into the pouch of Douglas of a TLIF cage: A case report and review of the literature

Background: Intraoperative anteropulsion of a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage is infrequent but may have disastrous complications. Here, we present an 80-year-old female whose L5-S1 TLIF cage extruded anteriorly and later migrated into the pouch of Douglas (i.e. an anterior peritoneal reflection between the uterus and the rectum) posing potential significant risks/complications, particularly of a major vessel injury. Notably, this 80-year-old patient with degenerative lumbosacral scoliosis should have only undergone a lumbar decompression alone. Case Description: An 80-year-old female underwent a two-level L4-L5 and L5-S1 TLIF to address lumbosacral canal stenosis with degenerative scoliosis. During the L5-S1 TLIF, intraoperative fluoroscopy showed the anterior displacement of the cage ventral to the sacrum. As she remained hemodynamically stable, the cage was left in place. The postoperative CT scan confirmed that the cage was located in the retroperitoneum but did not jeopardize the major vascular structures. Three months later, however, the cage migrated inferiorly into the pouch of Douglas. Although asymptomatic, general surgery and gynecology advised laparoscopic removal of the cage to avoid the potential for a major vessel/bowel perforation. However, the patient refused further surgery, and 3 years later remained asymptomatic. Conclusion: Anterior cage migration following TLIF has been rarely reported. In this case, an L5-S1 TLIF cage extruded anteriorly in an 80-year-old severely osteoporotic female and migrated 3 months later into the pouch of Douglas, posing the risk of a major vessel/bowel injury. Although surgical removal was recommended, the patient refused further surgery but remained asymptomatic 3 years later. Notably, the authors, in retrospect, recognized that choosing to perform a 2-level TLIF in an 80-year-old female reflected poor judgment.

Platelet Concentrate In Lumbar Interbody Cage Fusion: A New Era of Modality Of Fusion

AIM: This was a prospective double-blinded randomized comparative study. Several authors have reported the efficacy of platelets derivatives for spinal union. However, the use of PRP and PRF for bone fusion with TLIF has not been fully explored. METHODS: Standard open TLIF surgery was performed on 80 patients, randomized in three groups, TLIF and local bone were used in 40 patients (control group) and TLIF, local bone, and PRP were used in 20 patients (PRP group) and PRF was used in 20 patients (PRF group). Radiological parameters were assessed by X-ray after 3 months post-operative to evaluate the position of the screws and cage migration and by CT scans at 6 months and 12 months postoperatively. Patients, surgeons, and post-surgical analysis were blinded. RESULTS: VAS scores for lower back pain and leg pain were statistically significant between the three groups preoperatively. The VAS scores of back pain improved after 12 months and were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and the VAS score of leg pain improved compared with preoperatively in the three groups during the 6- and 12-month follow-up postoperatively, however, the three groups, VAS scores for leg pain were not significantly different. After 1-year follow-up, significantly more patients achieved definite fusion, when implanted platelets derivatives compared with the control group, but with no significance regarding fusion rates. CONCLUSION: We advocated using platelet derivative as a fusion enhancer modality which is cost and time saving. It appears to be a complementary step that ensures better outcome for the patients.

External column lengthening with peek cage and modified single approach

Objective: To show the results obtained with the treatment of stage 2B flatfoot according to Myerson classification (reducible and flexible), through external column lengthening with interposition of a peek cage filled with spongious graft taken from the same calcaneus, without osteosynthesis, combined with medial slide calcaneal osteotomy with step plate, both using the a single approach. Medial time was associated with latero-lateral transfer of common flexor tendon of toes to posterior tibial. Methods: Sixteen patients were assessed from 2015 to 2018, of which 11 were women and 5 were men. In all cases, surgery was performed with a first lateral time for osteotomies and a second time for tendon repair. Mean patients’ follow-up was 28 months. Results: All patients achieved consolidation of both osteotomies at nearly 12 postoperative weeks. No patient presented signs of peek cage migration due to lack of stability or dorsal cutaneous nerve branch injuries resulting from this modified single approach. Two patients evolved with wound dehiscence and only one with calcaneocuboid pain so far. No patient required reoperation. Conclusion: The modified single tuberosity approach for the two osteotomies has shown to be a simple procedure that prevents damages to dorsal cutaneous nerve branches described with dorsal approach. Leve lof Evidence IV; Therapeutic Studies; Case Series.

Iliac vein injury after anterior transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion cage migration

<p>Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is an effective treatment for many spine conditions. Anterior cage migration is one of the known complications and major vessels injury after that is a rare but potentially disastrous complication. We present a case of a 65-year-old female patient who underwent a TLIF for the treatment of an instable low grade spondylolisthesis. During the procedure, anterior dislodgment of the cage was verified and it was not possible to retrieve it by this approach. Has no bleeding or change in hemodynamical status was verified, it was decided not to proceed to removal at that moment. A CT-scan was performed and showed the position of the cage migrated through the posterior wall of the confluence of the left internal and external iliac veins. A new surgery was performed by an anterior approach to remove the cage and repair the vessel injury, by a vascular surgeon. In this case, cage migration occurred mostly because of implant malfunction. Surgeons must be aware that anterior cage migration can cause vascular injuries, and removal of this implants is effective by an anterior approach but a vascular surgeon must be part of the team.</p>

Development of a lumbosacral intervertebral cage prototype for dogs

ABSTRACT: Several surgical procedures aim to decompress and/or stabilize the lumbosacral (LS) joint of dogs; however, the lumbar interbody fusion technique, by using a cage combined with a bone graft, is the most indicated and used in human medicine. No specific implant is available for application to the canine lumbosacral joint. Thus, this study measured lumbosacral discs in large dogs, determined whether a human cage model could fit the dogs’ L7-S1 intervertebral space, and developed a LS cage prototype for dogs. Ten cadaveric lumbosacral spines from adult dog weighing 20-35kg were used. The dogs had died for reasons unrelated to this study. The vertebral body dimensions and the L7-S1 intervertebral space occupied by the intervertebral disc were measured by lateral and ventrodorsal radiographs and by computed tomography in the dorsal, sagittal, and transverse views. Measurements were also taken of the anatomical specimens in the sagittal and transverse planes. After measuring the intervertebral discs, the following mean measures were obtained for L7-S1 discs: height 12.23mm, dorsal thickness 3.3mm, central thickness 4mm, ventral thickness 5.5mm, and width 24.74mm. The human lumbar cage models from brands LDR, Baumer Orthopedics, Stryker, Synthes, and Vertebral Technologies, Inc. and cervical stabilization cages from the brands B-Braun and Stryker were evaluated and were found to be unsuitable for large dogs. Cervical human cages had measurements similar to those found in this study; however, due to their quadrangular shape, the possibility of being introduced surgically through the surgical accesses available for the articulation between L7-S1 in dogs without injuring the cauda equina or the L7 root is small. A cage model was then developed using 3D modelling software. It was designed for insertion via dorsal laminectomy in the lateral portions of the intervertebral space. To avoid cauda equina lesion, the implant model was developed to be placed laterally to the midline. The cage surface is serrated to prevent using the locking screw to fix it, thus avoiding further injury to nerve structures. The serrated surfaces are also designed to avoid cage migration and promote stability. The prototype allows graft placement in the surrounding intervertebral space, which is fundamental for fusion through integration between the cage and the endplates as well as for bone growth between and around the cage. It was also considered studies on humans showing that the lateral regions of the endplates support a more considerable load. Biomechanical and in vivo studies on the developed model are necessary to evaluate the actual degree of distraction, mobility and the long-term rate of fusion between L7 and S1 and its possible impact on the adjacent motor units, combined or not with dorsal fixation techniques.