Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Study Design: A retrospective case series.
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of cage subsidence after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF) conducted using a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage, and to identify associated risk factors.
Summary Of Background Data: Although various rates of cage subsidence after lumbar interbody fusion have been reported, few studies have addressed subsidence rate after MITLIF using PEEK cage.
Methods: A total of 104 consecutive patients who had undergone MITLIF using a PEEK cage with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included in this study. Cage subsidence was defined to have occurred when a cage was observed to sink into an adjacent vertebral body by ≥2 mm on the postoperative or serial follow-up lateral radiographs. The demographic variables considered to affect cage subsidence were the following: age, sex, body mass index, bone mineral density, diagnosis, number of fusion segment, and the quality/quantity of back muscle, and the cage-related variables considered were: level of fusion, intervertebral angle, cage size, cage position, and postoperative distraction of disc height. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to explore relations between these variables and cage subsidence.
Results: : For the 122 cages inserted, the rate of cage subsidence was 14.8% (18 cages), and cage subsidence occurred within 7.2±8.5 (1-25) months of surgery. The odds ratios for factors found to significantly increase the risk of cage subsidence were; 1.950 (95% confidence interval, 1.002-4.224) for L5-S1 level, and 1.018 (95% confidence interval, 1.000-1.066) for anterior cage position.
Conclusions: The rate of PEEK cage subsidence after MITLIF was relatively low. End-plate manipulation and cage insertion during MITLIF were not influenced by a small operation window.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e318237b9b1 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!