Fusion and subsidence rate of stand alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion using PEEK cage with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2
- 866 Downloads
Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is an established treatment for structural instability associated with symptomatic disk degeneration (SDD). Stand-alone ALIF offers many advantages, however, it may increase the risk of non-union. Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) may enhance fusion rate but is associated with postoperative complication. The optimal dose of BMP-2 remains unclear. This study assessed the fusion and subsidence rates of stand-alone ALIF using the SynFix-LR interbody cage with 6 ml/level of BMP-2.
Thirty-two ALIF procedures were performed by a single surgeon in 25 patients. Twenty-five procedures were performed for SDD without spondylolisthesis (SDD group) and seven procedures were performed for SDD with grade-I olisthesis (SDD-olisthesis group). Patients were followed-up for a mean of 17 ± 6 months.
Solid fusion was achieved in 29 cases (90.6 %) within 6 months postoperatively. Five cases of implant subsidence were observed (16 %). Four of these occurred in the SDD-olisthesis group and one occurred in the SDD group (57 % vs. 4 % respectively; p = 0.004). Three cases of subsidence failed to fuse and required revision. The body mass index of patients with olisthesis who developed subsidence was higher than those who did not develop subsidence (29 ± 2.6 vs. 22 ± 6.5 respectively; p = 0.04). No BMP-2 related complications occurred.
The overall fusion rate of stand-alone ALIF using the SynFix-LR system with BMP-2 was 90.6 %, comparable with other published series. No BMP-2 related complication occurred at a dose of 6 mg/level. Degenerative spondylolisthesis and obesity seemed to increase the rate of implant subsidence, and thus we believe that adding posterior fusion for these cases should be considered.
KeywordsALIF Spine fusion BMP-2 PEEK cage Subsidence
I hereby declare that no funding or grants were given to conduct this study.
Conflict of interest
- 10.Burkus JK, Dorchak JD, Sanders DL (2003) Radiographic assessment of interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein type 2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(4):372–377Google Scholar
- 13.Schimmel JJ et al (2012) PEEK Cages in Lumbar Fusion: Mid-term Clinical Outcome and Radiological Fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31826eaf74
- 21.Manchikanti L et al (2009) Systematic review of lumbar discography as a diagnostic test for chronic low back pain. Pain Phys 12(3):541–559Google Scholar
- 23.Brau SA (2011) Expert’s comment concerning Grand Rounds case entitled “The routine intra-operative use of pulse oximetry for monitoring can prevent severe thromboembolic complications in anterior surgery” (by M.A. Konig, Y. Leung, S. Jurgens, S. MacSweeney and B.M. Boszczyk). Eur Spine J 20(12):2103–2104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Brantigan JW et al (2000) 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(11):1437–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Beimborn DS, Morrissey MC (1988) A review of the literature related to trunk muscle performance. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 13(6):655–660Google Scholar