The superiority of endplate Hounsfield units relative to cervical vertebral Hounsfield units in predicting subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
OBJECTIVE The present investigation aimed to 1) develop a new CT-based assessment of endplate bone density (endplate Hounsfield unit [EP-HU]) and 2) analyze if EP-HU was a better predictor than vertebral Hounsfield unit (HU) for subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS All adult patients who underwent one- to three-level ACDF with a titanium interbody for radiculopathy and/or myelopathy at an academic center between 2018 and 2020 were retrospectively identified. Based on preoperative sagittal CT scans (left, right, and middle cuts), 2-mm superior and inferior endplate regions were circumscribed with the free draw tool to account for endplate surface undulations. The average of the superior and inferior EP-HUs on all CT cuts was used to calculate EP-HU. Cervical vertebral HUs were determined from the average of axial CT cranial, middle, and caudal cuts circumscribing only trabecular bone. The interbody subsidence of the cranial and caudal endplates of each ACDF level was directly measured on the endplate-facing surface of both coronal and sagittal cuts of postoperative CT scans (at 1 year) to determine the maximum subsidence (subsidence defined as ≥ 2 mm). Univariate and stepwise logistic regression analyses were used to compare subsidence based on CT bone metrics. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were used to determine the probability of subsidence based on EP-HUs and vertebral HUs. RESULTS A total of 35 patients were included. Subsidence occurred at 32 of 67 unique fusion levels. Subsidence was associated with older age (p = 0.008), diabetes diagnosis (p = 0.015), and decreased interbody length (p = 0.019). EP-HUs exhibited moderate correlation with cervical vertebral HUs (Pearson’s ρ = 0.63). Subsidence was significantly associated with decreased total EP-HUs (subsidence: 475 HU, no subsidence: 543 HU; p = 0.019) and decreased lumbar vertebral HUs (subsidence: 296 HU, no subsidence: 341 HU; p = 0.011). ROC curve analysis identified an optimal EP-HU cutoff of 512.30 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.701) to predict subsidence. The AUC of the vertebral HUs with respect to subsidence was 0.662. EP-HUs < 512.30 predicted subsidence (OR 6.67, p = 0.001) independent of significant demographic and surgical factors. CONCLUSIONS CT cervical EP-HUs rather than vertebral cervical trabecular HUs may be more efficacious in predicting subsidence after ACDF.
Lumbar Endplate Hounsfield Units Enhance Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Subsidence Prediction Compared to Trabecular Hounsfield Units Alone
Study Design Retrospective cohort analysis. Objective (1) Develop a novel computed tomography (CT)-based assessment of endplate bone density (EP-HU), (2) Determine if EP-HU was a stronger predictor than trabecular HU for subsidence after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods All adult patients who underwent single-level TLIF for lumbar degenerative conditions at an academic center between 2017-2022 were retrospectively identified. EP-HU was calculated from a 2 mm superior and inferior endplate region on the preoperative mid sagittal CT scans, accounting for surface undulations. Lumbar vertebral HUs (trabecular region) were determined in a standard fashion on axial CT. EP-HU + vertebral HU served as an aggregate bone quality metric. Interbody subsidence (≥2 mm threshold) was directly measured on the endplate-facing surface of 1 year CT scans. Univariate and multivariate analysis compared subsidence based on CT bone metrics. Results A total of 114 patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in fusion or reoperation rate based on subsidence occurrence. Both vertebral HU ( P = .012) and EP-HU ( P < .001) were associated with subsidence. In receiver operating curves, EP-HU was more optimal for subsidence prediction than vertebral HU, but the aggregate metric further optimized the specificity and total area under the curve. In a predictive logistic regression model EP-HU + vertebral HU (aggregate HU < 515 odds ratio: 7.82, P < .001) was a strong independent predictor of subsidence. Conclusion Preoperative calculation of EP-HUs in addition to vertebral HUs may enhance prediction of TLIF subsidence where aggregate endplate and vertebral HU < 515 can be used to identify high risk patients.
Do Three-Dimensional Printed Porous Titanium Relative to Polyetheretherketone Interbody Cages Reduce Complications and Revisions after Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?
Study Design Retrospective Cohort Study. Objectives To determine if 3D printed porous titanium (Ti) cages compared to non-porous polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages predicted improved fusion rate or clinical outcomes after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods All adult patients who underwent one- and two-level TLIF for degenerative conditions by a single surgeon at an academic center between 2017-2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were dichotomized into porous Ti and non-porous PEEK interbody cage groups. Fusion status was assessed by at 6-months and 1-year postoperatively by CT Bridwell scale and flexion/extension X-Rays. Postoperative complications (CT-based subsidence, adjacent segment disease, reoperation rates) and interval changes in lumbar radiographic alignment at short- and long-term follow-up were determined. Univariate and multivariate analysis compared patient and surgical factors, fusion rates, alignment, and complications across interbody groups. Results A total of 136 patients with 169 unique fusion levels (125 Ti cages, 44 PEEK cages) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Ti relative to PEEK interbodies had significantly decreased surface area and increased height and lordosis. Ti cage use was associated with greater subsidence ( P < 0.001) but did not independently predict maximum subsidence on regression ( P = 0.109). In the overall cohort, there were no significant differences in fusion rates or lumbopelvic alignment between interbody groups. Reoperation (Ti: 10.9% vs PEEK: 28.6%, P = 0.026) and reoperation for pseudoarthrosis (Ti: 2.0% vs PEEK: 11.4%, P = 0.038) was significantly more likely in the PEEK relative to the Ti group. Conclusions Use of 3D printed porous Ti cages relative to non-porous PEEK cages may mitigate pseudoarthrosis related reoperation after TLIF.