{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02455313297976822, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0076605774896876845, 'mean_word_length': 5.7, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Poor Bone Quality, Multilevel Surgery, and Narrow and Tall Cages Are Associated with Intraoperative Endplate Injuries and Late-onset Cage Subsidence in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review

Abstract Background A major complication of lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) is cage subsidence, which may lead to clinical problems, including loss of disc height correction, altered spinal alignment, recurrent pain, and vertebral body fracture. A thorough review of the current knowledge about the risk factors for the two types of cage subsidence after LLIF—intraoperative endplate injury and late-onset cage subsidence—could bring attention to well-established risk factors for clinical consideration while identifying any incompletely characterized factors that require further research to clarify. Questions/purposes We performed a systematic review to answer the following questions: (1) Are bone quality and surrogates for bone quality, such as patient age and sex, associated with an increased likelihood of cage subsidence? (2) Are implant-related factors associated with an increased likelihood of cage subsidence? Methods Two independent reviewers comprehensively searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Web of Science from 1997 to 2020 to identify all potential risk factors for cage subsidence after LLIF. Discrepancies were settled through discussion during full-text screening. Search terms included “lateral” AND “interbody fusion” AND “subsidence” OR “settling” OR “endplate injury” OR “endplate violation” WITHOUT “cervical” OR “transforaminal” OR “biomechanical.” Eligible studies were retrospective or prospective comparative studies, randomized controlled trials, and case series with sample sizes of 10 patients or more reporting risk factors for cage subsidence or endplate injury after LLIF. Studies that involved cervical interbody fusions and biomechanical and cadaveric experiments were excluded. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the studies’ quality of evidence. The initial database review found 400 articles. Thirty-four articles with moderate- to very-low-quality evidence met the inclusion criteria for analysis. A total of 3233 patients (58% [1860] of whom were female) were included in this review. Two types of cage subsidence were reviewed: late-onset cage subsidence, which occurs gradually postoperatively, and intraoperative endplate injury, which is derived from iatrogenic endplate violation during endplate preparation or cage insertion. Among 20 studies with moderate quality of evidence according to the GRADE criteria, eight studies reported risk factors for cage subsidence related to bone mineral density and its surrogates and 12 studies focused on risk factors regarding implant factors, including cage dimension, cage material, construct length, and supplementary instrumentation. Results Patients with a dual x-ray absorptiometry T-score of -1.0 or less, age older than 65 years, and female sex were considered to have a high risk of both types of cage subsidence. Regarding cage size, cage width ≥ 22 mm helped to avoid late-onset cage subsidence, and cage height ≤ 11 mm was recommended by some studies to avoid intraoperative endplate injuries. Studies recommended that multilevel LLIF should be conducted with extra caution because of a high risk of losing the effect of indirect decompression. Studies found that standalone LLIF might be sufficient for patients without osteoporosis or obesity, and supplementary instrumentation should be considered to maintain the postoperative disc height and prevent subsidence progression in patients with multiple risk factors. The effect of the bone graft, cage material, endplate condition, and supplementary instrumentation on cage subsidence remained vague or controversial. Conclusion Patients with poor bone density, patients who are older than 65 years, and female patients should be counseled about their high risk of developing cage subsidence. Surgeons should avoid narrow cages when performing LLIF to minimize the risk of late-onset cage subsidence, while being cautious of an aggressive attempt to restore disc height with a tall cage as it may lead to intraoperative endplate injury. For multilevel constructs, direct decompression approaches, such as posterior and transforaminal LIF, should be considered before LLIF, since the effect of indirect decompression may be difficult to maintain in multilevel LLIF because of high risks of cage subsidence. The effect of the cage material and supplementary instrumentation require stronger evidence from prospectively designed studies with larger sample size that randomly assign patients to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or titanium cages and different fixation types. Future research on intraoperative endplate injuries should focus on the specific timing of when endplate violation occurs with the help of intraoperative imaging so that attempts can be made to minimize its occurrence. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.