ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Influence of coronal-morphology of endplate and intervertebral space to cage subsidence and fusion following oblique lumbar interbody fusion.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of instrumented and stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Pooled it
- MRI-based pedicle bone quality score predicts cage subsidence following oblique 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 · 2026Article
- Three-dimensional computed tomography morphometric analysis of lumbar endplates in Chinese young adults.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Bone cement distribution patterns influence cage subsidence after OLIF-AF-SEA in elderly patients with osteoporotic lumbar degeneration.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Risk Factors for Poor Matching of Intervertebral Fusion Devices After Posterior Vertebral Column Resection in Patients With Kyphosis or Kyphoscoliosis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Augmenting Screw Technique to Prevent TLIF Cage Subsidence: A Biomechanical In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Is lumbar spondylolisthesis a risk factor of cage subsidence after oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral screw fixation?Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined With Anterolateral Fixation and Cement Augmentation for the Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Diseases in the Elderly Population: A Retrospective Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Tomographic Assessment of Fusion Rate, Implant-Endplate Contact Area, Subsidence, and Alignment With Lumbar Personalized Interbody Implants at 1-Year Follow-Up.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Can zoledronic acid reduce the risk of cage subsidence after oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with bilateral pedicle screw fixation in the elderly population? A retrospective study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Reverse Lumbar Pedicle Screw in Oblique Lateral Interbody Fusion: A Novel Concept to Restrict Cage Subsidence.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- The Influence of Screw Positioning on Cage Subsidence in Patients with Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Combined with Anterolateral Fixation.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Optimizing Spinal Fusion Cage Design to Improve Bone Substitute Filling on Varying Disc Heights: A 3D Printing Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Resection and Decompression for Lateral Displacement of Cage after Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Case Report from a Single Center.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Mini-Open Intercostal Retroperitoneal Approach for Upper Lumbar Spine Lateral Interbody Fusion.Neurospine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndplate morphology is considered to be one of the influencing factors of cage subsidence after lumbar interbody fusion (LIF). Previous radiographic evaluations on the endplate mostly used sagittal X-ray or MRI. However, there are few studies on the CT evaluation of the endplate and intervertebral space (IVS), especially the evaluation of coronal morphology and its influence on subsidence and fusion after LIF. We aimed to measure and classify the shapes of the endplate and IVS using coronal CT imaging and evaluate the radiographic and clinical outcomes of different shapes of the endplate/IVS following oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF).
methodsA total of 137 patients (average age 59.1 years, including 75 males and 62 females) who underwent L4-5 OLIF combined with anterolateral fixation from June 2018 to June 2020 were included. The endplate concavity depth (ECD) was measured on the preoperative coronal CT image. According to ECD, the endplate was classified as flat (< 2 mm), shallow (2-4 mm), or deep (> 4 mm). The L4-5 IVS was further classified according to endplate type. The disc height (DH), DH changes, subsidence rate, fusion rate, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) in different endplate/IVS shapes were evaluated during 1-year follow up.
resultsThe ECD of L4 inferior endplate (IEP) was significantly deeper than that of L5 superior endplate (SEP) (4.2 ± 1.1 vs 1.6 ± 0.8, P < 0.01). Four types of L4-5 IVS were identified: shallow-shallow (16, 11.7%), shallow-flat (45, 32.9%), deep-shallow (32, 23.4%), and deep-flat (44, 32.1%). A total of 45 (32.9%) cases of cage subsidence were observed. Only one (6.3%) subsidence event occurred in the shallow-shallow group, which was significantly lower than in the other three groups (19 shallow-flat, 6 deep-shallow, and 19 deep-flat) (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the shallow-shallow group had the highest fusion rate (15, 93.8%) and the highest rate of reach minimal clinically important difference (MCID) ODI among the four types. For a single endplate, the shape of L4 IEP is the main influencing factor of the final interbody fusion rate, and the shallow shape L4 IEP facilitates fusion ( OR = 2.85, p = 0.03). On the other hand, the flat shape L5 SEP was the main risk factor to cage subsidence (OR = 4.36, p < 0.01).
conclusionThe L4-5 IVS is asymmetrical on coronal CT view and tends to be fornix-above and flat-down. The shallow-shallow IVS has the lowest subsidence rate and best fusion result, which is possibly because it has a relatively good degree in matching either the upper or lower interface of the cage and endplates. These findings provide a basis for the further improvements in the design of OLIF cages.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.