Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study

Michael H Lawless; Chad F Claus; Doris Tong; Noah Jordan; Amarpal Dosanjh; Connor T Hanson; Daniel A Carr; Clifford M Houseman

doi:10.7759/cureus.21273

Radiographic and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Lordotic Versus Non-lordotic Static Interbody Devices in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Longitudinal Comparative Cohort Study

Cureus. 2022 Jan 15;14(1):e21273. doi: 10.7759/cureus.21273. eCollection 2022 Jan.

Authors

Michael H Lawless¹, Chad F Claus¹, Doris Tong¹, Noah Jordan², Amarpal Dosanjh³, Connor T Hanson¹, Daniel A Carr¹, Clifford M Houseman¹

Affiliations

¹ Division of Neurosurgery, Ascension Providence Hospital, Michigan State University, College of Human Medicine, Southfield, USA.
² Surgery, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, USA.
³ College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.

Abstract

Introduction Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) is increasingly used to treat lumbar degenerative pathology. Its effect on sagittal parameters remains controversial. Static and expandable lordotic interbody devices (cages) were developed to improve segmental and overall lumbar lordosis. This study aimed to compare the radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between static lordotic and non-lordotic titanium cages in patients undergoing 1-2 level MI-TLIF for degenerative conditions. Methods We reviewed consecutive eligible patients who underwent 1-2 level MI-TLIF (7/2017-11/2019) at a single institution by multiple surgeons. Standing X-rays and PROs were collected at preoperative, 1-month, and 6-month postoperative intervals. Using univariate analyses, we compared the two cohorts regarding confounders, radiographic parameters, and proportions of patients reaching minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for PROs. Results One-hundred-twenty-five patients were reviewed. Forty-seven had lordotic and seventy-eight non-lordotic cages. The lordotic cohort was significantly younger than the non-lordotic (55.9 years vs. 60.7 years, p= 0.042). The baseline radiographic parameters were not significantly different between cohorts. At the preoperative-6-month interval, the lordotic cohort had significant improvement in lumbar lordosis versus non-lordotic cohort (2.95° ± 7.2° vs. -0.3° ± 7.1°, p=0.024). Both cohorts showed improvement in segmental lordosis, anterior and posterior interspace height, and low subsidence grade with no significant difference between cohorts at all intervals. Overall, 69.1-83.8% of patients achieved MCID in all PROs with no significant difference between cohorts. Conclusions The use of a static lordotic titanium cage in 1-2 level MI-TLIF did not result in significantly different radiographic improvements or PROs compared with a non-lordotic cage.

Keywords: lordotic cage; lordotic interbody device; lumbar osteoarthritis; minimally invasive; tlif; transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.