An Association Can Be Found Between Hounsfield Units and Success of Lumbar Spine Fusion
Measuring Hounsfield units (HUs) from computed tomography (CT) scans has recently been proposed as a tool for assessing vertebral bone quality, as it has been associated with bone mineral density, compressive strength, and fracture risk. Vertebral bone quality is believed to be an important determinant of outcome and complication rates following spine surgery and potentially influences success of interbody spinal fusion.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between HU on CT scans and fusion success in patients with lateral transpsoas surgery for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF).
The CT scans of 28 patients with a combined 52 levels of stand-alone LIF were evaluated at a minimum of 12 weeks postoperatively. Coronal and sagittal images were evaluated for evidence of fusion, and HU values were collected from axial images. HU measurements were also taken from vertebral bodies proximal to the construct to evaluate global bone quality.
Of the 52 LIF levels, 73% were assessed as fused and 27% were nonunited at the time of evaluation. The successful fusion levels had significantly higher HU measurements than the nonunion levels (203.3 vs. 139.8, p < 0.001). Patients with successful fusion constructs also had higher global bone density when vertebral bodies proximal to the construct were compared (133.7 vs. 107.3, p < 0.05).
With the aging population and increasing prevalence of osteoporosis, preoperative assessment of bone quality prior to spinal fusion deserves special consideration. We found that a successful lumbar fusion was associated with patients with higher bone density, as assessed with HU, both globally and within the fusion construct, as compared to patients with CT evidence of nonunion.
KeywordsHounsfield units fusion osteoporosis
- 1.Burkus JK, Gornet MF, Schuler TC, Kleeman TJ, Zdeblick TA. Six-year outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody arthrodesis with use of interbody fusion cages and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume. 2009; 91(5): 1181-1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Chin DK, Park JY, Yoon YS, et al. Prevalence of osteoporosis in patients requiring spine surgery: incidence and significance of osteoporosis in spine disease. Osteoporosis International: a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA. 2007; 18(9): 1219-1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Dipaola CP, Bible JE, Biswas D, Dipaola M, Grauer JN, Rechtine GR. Survey of spine surgeons on attitudes regarding osteoporosis and osteomalacia screening and treatment for fractures, fusion surgery, and pseudoarthrosis. The Spine Journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2009; 9(7): 537-544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Pumberger M, Hughes AP, Huang RR, Sama AA, Cammisa FP, Girardi FP. Neurologic deficit following lateral lumbar interbody fusion. European Spine Journal: official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2012; 21(6): 1192-1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Smith WD, Huntington CF. Letter to the editor regarding: Dua K, Kepler CK, Huang RC, Marchenko A. Vertebral body fracture after anterolateral instrumentation and interbody fusion in two osteoporotic patients. Spine J 2010;10:e11-5. The Spine Journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2011; 11(2): 166-167. author reply 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar