非扩张型、单层扩张型和双层扩张型 TLIF 下沉倾向匹配队列研究

Michelle A Zabat, Matthew S Galetta, Nathan A Lorentz, Patrick K Cronin, Yong Kim, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Charla Fischer
{"title":"非扩张型、单层扩张型和双层扩张型 TLIF 下沉倾向匹配队列研究","authors":"Michelle A Zabat, Matthew S Galetta, Nathan A Lorentz, Patrick K Cronin, Yong Kim, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Charla Fischer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become a common tool to achieve interbody fusion in lumbar spine surgery while avoiding the time, expense, and morbidity associated with an anterior approach. Nonexpandable (NE) devices have excellent fusion results but are limited to implant size by spinal anatomy; conversely, expandable implants have been associated with increased intraoperative subsidence. Dual-plane expandable (DPE) devices are theorized to have reduced subsidence risk, but DPE cages have not been directly compared to NE and single plane expandable (SPE) implants in vivo.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective review of patients who underwent TLIF at a single metropolitan academic medical center from 2018 through 2021 was conducted to compare intraoperative subsidence between NE versus SPE or DPE devices. Patients were propensity score matched (PSM) by age and bone density according to implant type. A second PSM cohort comparing DPE with SPE devices was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 402 patients underwent PSM with 46 NE and 49 DPE cases matched, and 103 SPE patients were matched with 24 DPE cases. The average age was 59 years with 52.5% female patients. Mean body mass index was 29. Nonexpandable TLIF was the most common device implanted 62%, followed by SPE (26%) and DPE (12.2%). Dual-plane expandable devices had a significantly greater intraoperative subsidence than NE devices (12% vs. 0%). Nonexpandable and SPE devices had significantly larger implant lordosis when compared to DPE (10.93 SPE vs. 6. 17 NE vs. 3.83 DPE). Single plane expandable devices had a significantly greater discrepancy between implant lordosis and interbody level lordosis compared to DPE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dual-plane expandable cages are associated with increased intraoperative subsidence compared to NE and SPE implants. Additionally, SPE devices have greater discrepancy between stated implant lordosis and interbody level lordosis compared with DPE devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":72481,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Subsidence in Nonexpandable, Single-Plane Expandable, and Dual-Plane Expandable TLIFs A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Michelle A Zabat, Matthew S Galetta, Nathan A Lorentz, Patrick K Cronin, Yong Kim, Themistocles Protopsaltis, Charla Fischer\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become a common tool to achieve interbody fusion in lumbar spine surgery while avoiding the time, expense, and morbidity associated with an anterior approach. Nonexpandable (NE) devices have excellent fusion results but are limited to implant size by spinal anatomy; conversely, expandable implants have been associated with increased intraoperative subsidence. Dual-plane expandable (DPE) devices are theorized to have reduced subsidence risk, but DPE cages have not been directly compared to NE and single plane expandable (SPE) implants in vivo.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A retrospective review of patients who underwent TLIF at a single metropolitan academic medical center from 2018 through 2021 was conducted to compare intraoperative subsidence between NE versus SPE or DPE devices. Patients were propensity score matched (PSM) by age and bone density according to implant type. A second PSM cohort comparing DPE with SPE devices was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 402 patients underwent PSM with 46 NE and 49 DPE cases matched, and 103 SPE patients were matched with 24 DPE cases. The average age was 59 years with 52.5% female patients. Mean body mass index was 29. Nonexpandable TLIF was the most common device implanted 62%, followed by SPE (26%) and DPE (12.2%). Dual-plane expandable devices had a significantly greater intraoperative subsidence than NE devices (12% vs. 0%). Nonexpandable and SPE devices had significantly larger implant lordosis when compared to DPE (10.93 SPE vs. 6. 17 NE vs. 3.83 DPE). Single plane expandable devices had a significantly greater discrepancy between implant lordosis and interbody level lordosis compared to DPE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dual-plane expandable cages are associated with increased intraoperative subsidence compared to NE and SPE implants. Additionally, SPE devices have greater discrepancy between stated implant lordosis and interbody level lordosis compared with DPE devices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72481,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)已成为腰椎手术中实现椎体间融合的常用工具,同时避免了与前路相关的时间、费用和发病率。不可扩张(NE)植入物具有良好的融合效果,但受脊柱解剖结构的限制,植入物的尺寸有限;相反,可扩张植入物与术中下沉增加有关。双平面可扩张(DPE)植入物理论上可降低下沉风险,但双平面可扩张(DPE)植入物尚未在体内与NE和单平面可扩张(SPE)植入物进行直接比较:对 2018 年至 2021 年在一个大都市学术医疗中心接受 TLIF 的患者进行回顾性研究,比较 NE 与 SPE 或 DPE 装置的术中下沉情况。根据植入物类型,按年龄和骨密度对患者进行倾向评分匹配(PSM)。第二组 PSM 队列比较了 DPE 和 SPE 装置:共有 402 名患者接受了 PSM,其中 46 例 NE 和 49 例 DPE 匹配,103 例 SPE 患者和 24 例 DPE 匹配。平均年龄为 59 岁,女性患者占 52.5%。平均体重指数为 29。非扩张型 TLIF 是最常见的植入器械,占 62%,其次是 SPE(26%)和 DPE(12.2%)。双平面可扩张装置的术中下沉率明显高于 NE 装置(12% 对 0%)。与 DPE 相比,不可扩张和 SPE 装置的种植体前凸明显更大(10.93 SPE vs. 6. 17 NE vs. 3.83 DPE)。与DPE相比,单平面可扩张装置的植入前凸与椎体间水平前凸之间的差异明显更大:结论:与NE和SPE植入物相比,双平面可扩张保持架与术中下沉增加有关。结论:与 NE 和 SPE 植入体相比,双平面可扩张保持架与术中下沉增加有关。此外,与 DPE 植入体相比,SPE 植入体的植入前凸与椎体间水平前凸之间的差异更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Subsidence in Nonexpandable, Single-Plane Expandable, and Dual-Plane Expandable TLIFs A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study.

Background: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become a common tool to achieve interbody fusion in lumbar spine surgery while avoiding the time, expense, and morbidity associated with an anterior approach. Nonexpandable (NE) devices have excellent fusion results but are limited to implant size by spinal anatomy; conversely, expandable implants have been associated with increased intraoperative subsidence. Dual-plane expandable (DPE) devices are theorized to have reduced subsidence risk, but DPE cages have not been directly compared to NE and single plane expandable (SPE) implants in vivo.

Study design: A retrospective review of patients who underwent TLIF at a single metropolitan academic medical center from 2018 through 2021 was conducted to compare intraoperative subsidence between NE versus SPE or DPE devices. Patients were propensity score matched (PSM) by age and bone density according to implant type. A second PSM cohort comparing DPE with SPE devices was performed.

Results: A total of 402 patients underwent PSM with 46 NE and 49 DPE cases matched, and 103 SPE patients were matched with 24 DPE cases. The average age was 59 years with 52.5% female patients. Mean body mass index was 29. Nonexpandable TLIF was the most common device implanted 62%, followed by SPE (26%) and DPE (12.2%). Dual-plane expandable devices had a significantly greater intraoperative subsidence than NE devices (12% vs. 0%). Nonexpandable and SPE devices had significantly larger implant lordosis when compared to DPE (10.93 SPE vs. 6. 17 NE vs. 3.83 DPE). Single plane expandable devices had a significantly greater discrepancy between implant lordosis and interbody level lordosis compared to DPE.

Conclusions: Dual-plane expandable cages are associated with increased intraoperative subsidence compared to NE and SPE implants. Additionally, SPE devices have greater discrepancy between stated implant lordosis and interbody level lordosis compared with DPE devices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Amputation or Reconstruction? Development and Validation of a Patient Decision Aid for Treatment of Severe Lower-Extremity Trauma. Factors Associated with Patient Satisfaction After Periacetabular Osteotomy. Leukocyte-Poor Platelet-Rich Plasma as a Treatment for Patellar Tendinopathy A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial. Subsidence in Nonexpandable, Single-Plane Expandable, and Dual-Plane Expandable TLIFs A Propensity-Matched Cohort Study. Symptomatic Idiopathic Ulnar Nerve Instability in the Elbow Diagnostic Considerations and 1-Year Outcomes After Anterior Transposition of Ulnar Nerve.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1