ArticleOrthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023
Cage subsidence-A multifactorial matter!
Article in Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 3D-printed porous titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of subsidence.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Subsidence reduction effect of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) with upper and lower open windows modified with lattice structure.Biomedical engineering letters · 2025Article
- Risk Factors and Consequences of Cage Subsidence after Single-level Posterior or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.Spine surgery and related research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study
objectiveWider cages are associated with improved decompression and reduced subsidence, but variation in cage physical properties limits consistent outcome analysis after thoracolumbar interbody fusion. This study investigated cage subsidence and its relationship to lateral and posterior approaches with a focus on the hypothesis that the larger surface area of lateral cages results in lower subsidence rates.
methodsThis study retrospectively reviewed 194 patients who underwent interbody fusion between 2016 and 2019 with a primary outcome of cage subsidence. Secondary outcomes were cage distribution (patients, approaches, expandability), cage dimensions, t‑scores, length of hospital stay, blood loss, surgical time, and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch.
resultsMedical records were reviewed for 194 patients receiving 387 cages at 379 disc levels. Subsidence was identified in 35.1% of lateral cages, 40.9% of posterior cages, and 36.3% of all cages. Lower surface area (p = 0.008) and cage expandability were associated with subsidence risk. Lower anteroposterior cage length proved to be a significant factor in the subsidence of posteriorly placed cages (p = 0.007). Osteopenic and osteoporotic patients experienced cage subsidence 36.8% of the time compared to 3.5% of patients with normal t‑scores (p = 0.001). Cage subsidence correlated with postoperative deterioration of the PI-LL mismatch (p = 0.03). Patients receiving fusion augmentation with bone morphogenic protein experienced higher fusion rates (p < 0.01).
conclusionCage subsidence is a common complication that can significantly impact operative outcomes following thoracolumbar interbody fusion. Low t‑scores, smaller surface area, cage expandability, and lower cage length in posterior approaches contribute significantly to cage subsidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37012487What 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.