ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Revision surgical treatments and classification system for cage retropulsion in degenerative lumbar disease.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCage retropulsion is a severe complication of lumbar spinal fusion, causing neurological deficits and spinal instability. Current evidence on revision strategies is limited by small sample sizes, with no consensus on surgical planning.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 14 patients (11 males, 3 females; mean age 57.2 ± 11.2 years) who underwent revision surgery for cage retropulsion (> 3 mm posterior displacement) after lumbar fusion between 2013 and 2023. A novel 5-grade classification system (I-V) based on migration severity was proposed. Surgical approaches (anterior, n = 5; posterior, n = 9) were selected by revision timing, segment, and migration grade. Outcomes were assessed via VAS, ODI, and imaging; operative time, blood loss, and complications were recorded.
results85.7% (12/14) patients showed clinical improvement: VAS decreased from 7.3 ± 1.2 to 2.3 ± 1.1, ODI from 69.5 ± 12.4% to 15.2 ± 8.7%. The average operation time for anterior approach was 215.0 ± 44.5 min, and the average blood loss was 190.0 ± 156.2 ml. The average operation time for posterior approach was 281.9 ± 90.9 min, and the average blood loss was 387.5 ± 92.7 ml. 50% (7/14) had complications, mainly transient abdominal distension (n = 5). 85.7% (12/14) achieved fusion at 78.9-month follow-up.
conclusionThis study proposes a practical classification system with preliminary feasibility in surgical approach selection for cage retropulsion. For symptomatic cases, early revision may yield better outcomes. Anterior surgery is recommended for L5-above segments with mild retropulsion, and posterior surgery is suggested for L5/S1 with severe retropulsion. In addition, anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a good option for L5/S1 with low-grade retropulsion when performed by experienced surgeon. Surgical success depends on tailored strategies considering revision timing, segments, and migration grade. But additional data are needed to confirm long-term safety and inform optimal management.
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.