Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Restoration of lumbopelvic sagittal alignment and its maintenance following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): comparison between straight type versus curvilinear type cage

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate a radiological and clinical difference between the curvilinear type cages compared to the straight type cages for the restoration of lumbopelvic sagittal alignment and its maintenance after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure.

Methods

68 patients who underwent single-level TLIF using either the straight type or curvilinear type cage were retrospectively reviewed. Assessment of the lumbopelvic parameters and the height of disc space was performed before surgery as well as 2 days, 6 and 12 months after surgery. Clinical outcome was assessed using VAS and ODI.

Results

The curvilinear type cages were positioned more anteriorly than the straight type. Restoration of the segmental lordosis (SL) in the curvilinear group was significantly greater than the straight group and at 12 months of follow-up, the straight group showed greater decrease in the disc height than the curvilinear group. The straight group failed to show improvement of lumbar lordosis (LL), while the curvilinear group showed significant restoration of LL and could maintain it to the 6 months of follow-up. In both groups, pelvic tilt was significantly decreased and it lasted to 6 months in the straight group; whereas in the curvilinear group, it was maintained to the last follow-up of 12 months. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean VAS and ODI score over the follow-up period.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the curvilinear type cage is superior to the straight type cage in improving the SL and maintaining both the restored lumbopelvic parameters and elevated disc height. These results could be attributable to the anterior position of the curvilinear cage which permits easy restoration of segmental lordosis and less sinking of cages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Glassman S, Berven S, Bridwell K, Horton W, Dimar J (2005) Correlation of radiographic parameters and clinical symptoms in adult scoliosis. Spine (Phila, Pa 1976) 30:682–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mehta V, Amin A, Omeis I, Gokaslan Z, Gottfried O (2012) Implications of spinopelvic alignment for the spine surgeon. Neurosurgery 70:707–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Legaye J, Duval-Beaupère G, Hecquet J, Marty C (1998) Pelvic incidence: a fundamental pelvic parameter for three-dimensional regulation of spinal sagittal curves. Eur Spine J 7:99–103

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwab F, Lafage V, Patel A, Farcy J (2009) Sagittal plane considerations and the pelvis in the adult patient. Spine (Phila, Pa 1976) 34:1828–1833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lafage V, Schwab F, Patel A, Hawkinson N, Farcy J (2009) Pelvic tilt and truncal inclination: two key radiographic parameters in the setting of adults with spinal deformity. Spine (Phila, Pa 1976) 34:E599–E606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lazennec JY, Ramar S, Arafati N, Laudet CG, Gorin M, Roger B, Hansen S, Saillant G, Maurs L, Trabelsi R (2000) Sagittal alignment in lumbosacral fusion: relations between radiological parameters and pain. Eur Spine J 9:47–55

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jagannathan J, Sansur C, Oskouian R, Fu K-M, Shaffrey C (2009) Radiographic restoration of lumbar alignment after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 64:955–963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mac Thiong J-M, Roussouly P, Berthonnaud E, Guigui P (2010) Sagittal parameters of global spinal balance: normative values from a prospective cohort of seven hundred nine Caucasian asymptomatic adults. Spine (Phila, Pa 1976) 35:E1193–E1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim M-C, Chung H-T, Cho J-L, Kim D-J, Chung N-S (2013) Subsidence of polyetheretherketone cage after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech 26:87–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Groth A, Kuklo T, Klemme W, Polly D, Schroeder T (2005) Comparison of sagittal contour and posterior disc height following interbody fusion: threaded cylindrical cages versus structural allograft versus vertical cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 18:332–336

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hsieh P, Koski T, O’Shaughnessy B, Sugrue P, Salehi S, Ondra S, Liu J (2007) Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine 7:379–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bridwell KH, Dewald RL (2011) The textbook of spinal surgery, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lee D, Jung T-G, Lee S-H (2008) Single-level instrumented mini-open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in elderly patients. J Neurosurg Spine 9:137–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Faundez A, Mehbod A, Wu C, Wu W, Ploumis A, Transfeldt E (2008) Position of interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: effect on 3-dimensional stability and sagittal lumbar contour. J Spinal Disord Tech 21:175–180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kwon B, Berta S, Daffner S, Vaccaro A, Hilibrand A, Grauer J, Beiner J, Albert T (2003) Radiographic analysis of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 16:469–476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yson S, Santos ERG, Sembrano J, Polly D (2012) Segmental lumbar sagittal correction after bilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 17:37–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lowe T, Hashim S, Wilson L, O’Brien M, Smith DAB, Diekmann M, Trommeter J (2004) A biomechanical study of regional endplate strength and cage morphology as it relates to structural interbody support. Spine (Phila, Pa 1976) 29:2389–2394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grant JP, Oxland TR, Dvorak MF (2001) Mapping the structural properties of the lumbosacral vertebral endplates. Spine (Phila, Pa 1976) 26:889–896

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wenger KH PA, Wilke HJ (1999) Bone mineral density of the vertebral endplates: an in vitro comparison of normal, degenerative, and osteoporotic spine. International Society for the Study of the Lumbar Spine

  20. Feng Y, Chen L, Gu Y, Zhang Z-M, Yang H-L, Tang T-S (2014) Influence of the posterior lumbar interbody fusion on the sagittal spino-pelvic parameters in isthmic L5–S1 spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech 27:E20–E25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Park S, Lee C, Chung S, Kang K, Shin S (2011) Postoperative changes in pelvic parameters and sagittal balance in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis. Neurosurgery 68:355–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Boulay C, Tardieu C, Hecquet J, Benaim C, Mouilleseaux B, Marty C, Prat Pradal D, Legaye J, Duval Beaupère G (2006) Sagittal alignment of spine and pelvis regulated by pelvic incidence: standard values and prediction of lordosis. Eur Spine J 15:415–422

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Polly DW, Klemme WR, Cunningham BW, Burnette JB, Haggerty CJ, Oda I (2000) The biomechanical significance of anterior column support in a simulated single-level spinal fusion. J Spinal Disord 13:58–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kim K, Yang T, Lee J (2005) 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no financial or other conflicts of interest in relation to this research and its publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Incheon St Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 56 Dongsu-ro, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, 403-720, Republic of Korea

    Jong-Tae Kim, Myung-Hoon Shin, Ho-Jin Lee & Du-Yong Choi

Authors
  1. Jong-Tae Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Myung-Hoon Shin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ho-Jin Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Du-Yong Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Myung-Hoon Shin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, JT., Shin, MH., Lee, HJ. et al. Restoration of lumbopelvic sagittal alignment and its maintenance following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): comparison between straight type versus curvilinear type cage. Eur Spine J 24, 2588–2596 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3899-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3899-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation