4.6 Article

Low Hounsfield units on computed tomography are associated with cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF)

Journal

SPINE JOURNAL
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 957-964

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2022.01.018

Keywords

Cage subsidence; Hounsfield units; OLIF-AF; HU; CT; Bone density

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81874027]
  2. Shenzhen-Hong Kong Institute of Brain Science-Shenzhen Fundamental Research Insti-tutions [312200102]
  3. Science & Technology Department of Sichuan Province Chengdu [2021YFSY0003, 2018SZDZX0013, 2019-YF08-00186-GX]
  4. Health Commis-sion of Sichuan Province [19PJ104]
  5. 135-project for disciplines of excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University
  6. Clinical Research Incubation project of West China Hospital of Sichuan University [2021HXFH036]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the association between vertebral Hounsfield unit (HU) value and cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF). The results showed that lower preoperative vertebral HU values were associated with cage subsidence, while endplate HU values were not associated with cage subsidence.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Cage subsidence is one of the most common complications following lumbar interbody fusion surgery. Low bone mineral density (BMD) is an important risk factor that contributes to cage subsidence. Hounsfield units (HU) obtained from clinical computed tomography (CT) scans provided a reliable method for determining regional BMD. The association between HU and cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) remains unclear. PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the association between vertebral HU value and cage subsidence following OLIF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adults with degenerative spinal conditions underwent single-level OLIF at our institution from October 2017 and August 2020 OUTCOME MEASURES: Cage subsidence, disc height, vertebral body global HU value, upper and lower instrumented vertebrae HU value, endplate HU value, fusion rate. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent single-level OLIF at one institution between October 2017 and August 2020. Cage subsidence was measured using the CT scan postoperatively based on the cage protrusion through the vertebral endplates. The HU values were measured from preoperative CT according to previously reported methods. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients with a mean follow-up of 15.4 months were included in the analysis. The subsidence rate was 25.7% (n=18/70). The average cage subsidence was 2.2 mm, with a range of 0 -7.7 mm. No significant difference was found in age, sex, or body mass index (BMI) between the two groups. The mean global HU value of the lumbar vertebral body (L1-5) was 142.7 +/- 30.1 in nonsubsidence and 103.7 +/- 11.5 in subsidence (p=.004). The upper instrumented vertebrae (UIV) HU value was 141.4 +/- 29.7 in the nonsubsidence and 101.1 +/- 10.2 in subsidence, (p=.005). The lower instrumented vertebrae (LIV) HU value was 147.4 +/- 34.9 in nonsubsidence and 108.1 +/- 13.7 in subsidence, (p <.001). The AUC of the UIV HU value was 0.917 (95% CI: 0.853-0.981), and the most appropriate threshold of the HU value was 115 (sensitivity: 84.6%, specificity: 100%). The AUC of the LIV HU value was 0.893 (95%CI: 0.819-0.966), and the most appropriate threshold of the HU value was 125 (sensitivity: 76.9%, specificity: 100%). The mean upper endplate HU value was 235.4 +/- 50.9, and the mean lower endplate HU value was 193.4 +/- 40.3. No significant difference (upper endplate p=.314, lower endplate p=.189) was observed between the two groups. CONSLUSIONS: Lower preoperative vertebral body HU values were associated with cage subsidence after single-level OLIF. However, the endplate HU values were not associated with cage subsidence. Preoperative HU measurement is useful in the prediction of the cage subsidence. (C) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available