HSS Journal ®

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 25–29 | Cite as

An Association Can Be Found Between Hounsfield Units and Success of Lumbar Spine Fusion

  • Joseph J. Schreiber
  • Alexander P. Hughes
  • Fadi Taher
  • Federico P. Girardi
Original Article



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.


Hounsfield units fusion osteoporosis 

Supplementary material

11420_2013_9367_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
ESM 1(PDF 1,225 kb)
11420_2013_9367_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
ESM 2(PDF 1,225 kb)
11420_2013_9367_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
ESM 3(PDF 1,224 kb)
11420_2013_9367_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
ESM 4(PDF 1,224 kb)


  1. 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
  2. 2.
    Carragee EJ, Hurwitz EL, Weiner BK. A critical review of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 trials in spinal surgery: emerging safety concerns and lessons learned. The Spine Journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2011; 11(6): 471-491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 4.
    DeWald CJ, Stanley T. Instrumentation-related complications of multilevel fusions for adult spinal deformity patients over age 65: surgical considerations and treatment options in patients with poor bone quality. Spine. 2006; 31(19 Suppl): S144-151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 6.
    Fantini GA, Pappou IP, Girardi FP, Sandhu HS, Cammisa FP Jr. Major vascular injury during anterior lumbar spinal surgery: incidence, risk factors, and management. Spine. 2007; 32(24): 2751-2758.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hart RA, Prendergast MA. Spine surgery for lumbar degenerative disease in elderly and osteoporotic patients. Instructional Course Lectures. 2007; 56: 257-272.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Meredith DS, Schreiber JJ, Taher F, Cammisa FP Jr, Girardi FP. Lower Preoperative Hounsfield Unit Measurements are Associated With Adjacent Segment Fracture Following Spinal Fusion. Spine. 2012; 38(5): 415-418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mroz TE, Wang JC, Hashimoto R, Norvell DC. Complications related to osteobiologics use in spine surgery: a systematic review. Spine. 2010; 35(9 Suppl): S86-104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oliveira L, Marchi L, Coutinho E, Pimenta L. A radiographic assessment of the ability of the extreme lateral interbody fusion procedure to indirectly decompress the neural elements. Spine. 2010; 35(26 Suppl): S331-337.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR. Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. The Spine Journal: official journal of the North American Spine Society. 2006; 6(4): 435-443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 13.
    Rajaraman V, Vingan R, Roth P, Heary RF, Conklin L, Jacobs GB. Visceral and vascular complications resulting from anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Journal of Neurosurgery. 1999; 91(1 Suppl): 60-64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson J. Intraoperative and early postoperative complications in extreme lateral interbody fusion: an analysis of 600 cases. Spine. 2011; 36(1): 26-32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Rodgers JA. Lumbar fusion in octogenarians: the promise of minimally invasive surgery. Spine. 2010; 35(26 Suppl): S355-360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schreiber JJ, Anderson PA, Rosas HG, Buchholz AL, Au AG. Hounsfield units for assessing bone mineral density and strength: a tool for osteoporosis management. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume. 2011; 93(11): 1057-1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharma AK, Kepler CK, Girardi FP, Cammisa FP, Huang RC, Sama AA. Lateral lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiographic outcomes at 1 year: a preliminary report. Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques. 2011; 24(4): 242-250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Toyone T, Ozawa T, Kamikawa K, et al. Subsequent vertebral fractures following spinal fusion surgery for degenerative lumbar disease: a mean ten-year follow-up. Spine. 2010; 35(21): 1915-1918.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph J. Schreiber
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexander P. Hughes
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fadi Taher
    • 1
    • 2
  • Federico P. Girardi
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine and Scoliosis ServiceHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Weill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations