Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using banana-shaped and straight cages: meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes

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

Abstract

Purpose

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery rate increased over the last decade. There is no consensus about the better shape of cage to use in TLIF. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the shape focusing on bony union, lordosis restoration as well as perioperative complications.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (page 1–20) were searched till September 2022. The clinical outcomes consisted of the bony union, segmental and lumbar lordosis restoration, quality of life, and operation-related outcomes.

Results

Only 5 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Straight-shaped cages tended to have a lower subsidence rate compared to banana-shaped cages (p = 0.10), had a better restoration of segmental lordosis (p < 0.0001), better disc height restoration (p = 0.01), as well as a higher Oswestry Disability Index decrease (p = 0.0002).

Conclusion

Straight-shaped cages had a better restoration of lumbar lordosis, disc height, and a lower subsidence rate when compared to banana-shaped cages. This may be explained by the absence of the optimal placement of the curved cages, which is at the most anterior part of the disc space. Better conducted randomized controlled trial could strengthen these findings.

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
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G et al (2015) Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J spine Surg (Hong Kong) 1:2–18. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2414-469X.2015.10.05

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT et al (2005) Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2:670–672. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2005.2.6.0670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hee HT, Castro FP, Majd ME et al (2001) Anterior/posterior lumbar fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of complications and predictive factors. J Spinal Disord 14:533–540. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002517-200112000-00013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Taneichi H, Suda K, Kajino T et al (2006) Unilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and bilateral anterior-column fixation with two Brantigan I/F cages per level: clinical outcomes during a minimum 2-year follow-up period. J Neurosurg Spine 4:198–205. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2006.4.3.198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Holly LT, Schwender JD, Rouben DP, Foley KT (2006) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: indications, technique, and complications. Neurosurg Focus 20:E6. https://doi.org/10.3171/foc.2006.20.3.7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Humphreys SC, Hodges SD, Patwardhan AG et al (2001) Comparison of posterior and transforaminal approaches to lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:567–571. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200103010-00023

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cole CD, McCall TD, Schmidt MH, Dailey AT (2009) Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2:118–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-009-9053-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gödde S, Fritsch E, Dienst M, Kohn D (2003) Influence of cage geometry on sagittal alignment in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28:1693–1699. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.BRS.0000083167.78853.D5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Groth AT, Kuklo TR, Klemme WR et al (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. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bsd.0000163037.17634.89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen D, Fay LA, Lok J et al (1995) Increasing neuroforaminal volume by anterior interbody distraction in degenerative lumbar spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:74–79. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199501000-00014

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cho W, Wu C, Mehbod AA, Transfeldt EE (2008) Comparison of cage designs for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a biomechanical study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 23:979–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.02.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Anand N, Hamilton JF, Perri B et al (2006) Cantilever TLIF with structural allograft and RhBMP2 for correction and maintenance of segmental sagittal lordosis: long-term clinical, radiographic, and functional outcome. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31:E748–E753. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000240211.23617.ae

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D et al (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim JT, Shin MH, Lee HJ, Choi DY (2015) 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-015-3899-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhang H, Jiang Y, Wang B et al (2018) Direction-changeable lumbar cage versus traditional lumbar cage for treating lumbar spondylolisthesis. Med (United States). https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000009984

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Gelfand Y, Benton J, De la Garza-Ramos R et al (2020) Effect of cage type on short-term radiographic outcomes in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 141:e953–e958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.06.096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Choi WS, Kim JS, Hur JW, Seong JH (2018) Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using banana-shaped and straight cages: radiological and clinical results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin Neurosurg 82:289–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyx212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Toop N, Viljoen S, Baum J et al (2022) Radiographic and clinical outcomes in one- and two-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions: a comparison of bullet versus banana cages. J Neurosurg Spine 36:918–927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuslich SD, Ulstrom CL, Griffith SL et al (1998) The Bagby and Kuslich method of lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 23:1267–1278. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199806010-00019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lim TH, Kwon H, Jeon CH et al (2001) Effect of endplate conditions and bone mineral density on the compressive strength of the graft-endplate interface in anterior cervical spine fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26:951–956. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200104150-00021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fukuta S, Miyamoto K, Hosoe H, Shimizu K (2011) Kidney-type intervertebral spacers should be located anteriorly in cantilever transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: analyses of risk factors for spacer subsidence for a minimum of 2 years. J Spinal Disord Tech 24:189–195. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181e9f249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lindley TE, Viljoen SV, Dahdaleh NS (2014) Effect of steerable cage placement during minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion on lumbar lordosis. J Clin Neurosci 21:441–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2013.06.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jagannathan J, Sansur CA, Oskouian RJ et al (2009) Radiographic restoration of lumbar alignment after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 64:955–963. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000343544.77456.46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee DY, 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. https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI/2008/9/8/137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yson SC, Santos ERG, Sembrano JN, Polly DW (2012) Segmental lumbar sagittal correction after bilateral transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 17:37–42. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.4.SPINE111013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA et al (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. https://doi.org/10.3171/SPI-07/10/379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery Spine Unit, Hotel Dieu de France Hospital, Alfred Naccache Boulevard, Beirut, Lebanon

    Amer Sebaaly, Gaby Kreichati, Jean Tarchichi & Khalil Kharrat

  2. Faculty of Medicine, Saint Joseph University, Beirut, Lebanon

    Amer Sebaaly, Gaby Kreichati & Mohammad Daher

Authors
  1. Amer Sebaaly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gaby Kreichati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean Tarchichi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Khalil Kharrat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohammad Daher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amer Sebaaly.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

AS is consultant for Medtronic (with no relation to this work). All other authors report no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sebaaly, A., Kreichati, G., Tarchichi, J. et al. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using banana-shaped and straight cages: meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes. Eur Spine J 32, 3158–3166 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07797-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-023-07797-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation