Objectives: Cage retropulsion (CR) is a common complication following posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Symptomatic patients with CR often require revision surgery. However, there is a lack of literature supporting the effectiveness of conservative treatment for CR. This study compares clinical and radiographic outcomes between conservative treatment and revision surgery in patients with CR after PLIF.
Methods: A total of 55 patients with CR after PLIF treated at our institution between 2016 and 2023 were retrospectively reviewed; postoperative radiographic data of follow-up were used to diagnose CR. Clinical outcomes were assessed before therapy and at the final follow-up using the visual analog scale (VAS) for lower back pain and leg pain, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and Japanese Orthopedic Association 29 (JOA-29) scores. The treatment effectiveness was evaluated based on whether the score change reached the minimally clinically important difference (MCID). Radiographic indicators included the fusion rates, the extent of CR into the spinal canal, and the total displacement distance. Continuous variables were compared using independent samples t-tests or Mann–Whitney U tests, while categorical variables were analyzed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The fusion rates at the final follow-up for the conservative treatment group and the revision surgery group were 87.5% and 84.6%, respectively. There were no significant differences in final follow-up fusion rates, lower back pain VAS scores, leg pain VAS scores, JOA scores, or ODI scores between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Additionally, there was no difference in the proportion of patients whose lower back pain VAS, ODI, and JOA scores achieved MCID between groups (all p > 0.05). However, in the revision surgery group, the proportion of patients whose leg VAS scores reached MCID was significantly higher than in the conservative group (p = 0.001). In the revision surgery subgroup analysis, patients who did not achieve leg VAS MCID demonstrated significantly more severe cage retropulsion distance compared to MCID achievers (p = 0.03).
Conclusions: Conservative treatment yields satisfactory outcomes in mild, symptomatic CR patients, particularly for low back pain. For patients with a CR distance less than 8.8 mm, conservative treatment and revision surgery showed comparable outcomes, whereas when the CR distance is ≥ 8.8 mm, revision surgery was recommended to improve clinical results. Both conservative treatment and revision surgery can yield favorable outcomes when appropriately indicated.
| [1] |
R. J. Mobbs, K. Phan, G. Malham, K. Seex, and P. J. Rao, “Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Techniques, Indications and Comparison of Interbody Fusion Options Including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF,” Journal of Spine Surgery 1, no. 1 (2015): 2–18.
|
| [2] |
I. Teng, J. Han, K. Phan, and R. Mobbs, “A Meta-Analysis Comparing ALIF, PLIF, TLIF and LLIF,” Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 44 (2017): 11–17.
|
| [3] |
H. Kimura, J. Shikata, S. Odate, T. Soeda, and S. Yamamura, “Risk Factors for Cage Retropulsion After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Analysis of 1070 Cases,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37, no. 13 (2012): 1164–1169.
|
| [4] |
K. Liu, H. Chang, L. Wang, C. Wang, T. Chen, and X. Meng, “Risk Factors for Cage Retropulsion After Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” World Neurosurgery 132 (2019): 273–281.
|
| [5] |
M. Madera, J. Brady, S. Deily, et al., “The Role of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation After Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 26, no. 6 (2017): 694–704.
|
| [6] |
F. M. Pan, S. J. Wang, Z. Y. Yong, X. M. Liu, Y. F. Huang, and D. S. Wu, “Risk Factors for Cage Retropulsion After Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: Series of Cases and Literature Review,” International Journal of Surgery 30 (2016): 56–62.
|
| [7] |
Y. Hou, H. Shi, H. Shi, T. Zhao, J. Shi, and G. Shi, “A Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors for Cage Migration After Lumbar Fusion Surgery,” World Neurosurg X 18 (2023): 100152.
|
| [8] |
H. Li, H. Wang, Y. Zhu, W. Ding, and Q. Wang, “Incidence and Risk Factors of Posterior Cage Migration Following Decompression and Instrumented Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Disorders,” Medicine (Baltimore) 96, no. 33 (2017): e7804.
|
| [9] |
L. Peng, J. Guo, J. P. Lu, S. Jin, P. Wang, and H. Y. Shen, “Risk Factors and Scoring System of Cage Retropulsion After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Observational Study,” Orthopaedic Surgery 13, no. 3 (2021): 855–862.
|
| [10] |
R. Bassani, C. Morselli, A. Cirullo, A. M. Querenghi, and L. Mangiavini, “Successful Salvage Strategy Using Anterior Retroperitoneal Approach in Failed Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. A Retrospective Analisys on Lumbar Lordosis and Clinical Outcome,” European Spine Journal 31, no. 7 (2022): 1649–1657.
|
| [11] |
A. R. D. Pereira Filho, V. S. Baptista, M. Mussalem, et al., “Reoperations for Cage Removal or Replacement in Patients Undergoing ALIF: Operative Morbidity and Surgical Strategy,” Neurosurgical Review 48, no. 1 (2025): 499.
|
| [12] |
W. Wang, J. Li, Y. Xu, Y. Luo, W. Ding, and W. Zhang, “Predictors and Tactics for Revision Surgery in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 23, no. 1 (2022): 1101.
|
| [13] |
L. Y. Carreon, K. R. Bratcher, C. E. Canan, L. O. Burke, M. Djurasovic, and S. D. Glassman, “Differentiating Minimum Clinically Important Difference for Primary and Revision Lumbar Fusion Surgeries,” Journal of Neurosurgery. Spine 18, no. 1 (2013): 102–106.
|
| [14] |
M. Moisi, J. Page, D. Paulson, and R. J. Oskouian, “Technical Note - Lateral Approach to the Lumbar Spine for the Removal of Interbody Cages,” Cureus 7, no. 5 (2015): e268.
|
| [15] |
Y. Yu, D. L. Robinson, D. C. Ackland, Y. Yang, and P. V. S. Lee, “Influence of the Geometric and Material Properties of Lumbar Endplate on Lumbar Interbody Fusion Failure: A Systematic Review,” Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 17, no. 1 (2022): 224.
|
| [16] |
N. Li, M. Dai, B. Zhang, et al., “Risk Factors for Cage Retropulsion After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Older Patients,” Annals of Translational Medicine 8, no. 24 (2020): 1660.
|
| [17] |
D. Y. Lee, Y. J. Park, S. Y. Song, S. T. Jeong, and D. H. Kim, “Risk Factors for Posterior Cage Migration After Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery,” Asian Spine J 12, no. 1 (2018): 59–68.
|
| [18] |
Z. J. Zhou, P. Xia, F. D. Zhao, X. Q. Fang, S. W. Fan, and J. F. Zhang, “Endplate Injury as a Risk Factor for Cage Retropulsion Following Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Analysis of 1052 Cases,” Medicine (Baltimore) 100, no. 5 (2021): e24005.
|
| [19] |
Y. H. Hu, C. C. Niu, M. K. Hsieh, T. T. Tsai, W. J. Chen, and P. L. Lai, “Cage Positioning as a Risk Factor for Posterior Cage Migration Following Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion - An Analysis of 953 Cases,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 20, no. 1 (2019): 260.
|
| [20] |
M. Tanaka, Z. Wei, A. Kanamaru, et al., “Revision for Cage Migration After Transforaminal/Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: How to Perform Revision Surgery?,” BMC Surgery 22, no. 1 (2022): 172.
|
| [21] |
W. Singhatanadgige, A. Sukthuayat, T. Tanaviriyachai, et al., “Risk Factors for Polyetheretherketone Cage Subsidence Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Acta Neurochirurgica 163, no. 9 (2021): 2557–2565.
|
| [22] |
W. Schmoelz and A. Keiler, “Intervertebral Cages From a Biomechanical Point of View,” Der Orthopäde 44, no. 2 (2015): 132–137.
|
| [23] |
Y. Aoki, M. Yamagata, F. Nakajima, Y. Ikeda, and K. Takahashi, “Posterior Migration of Fusion Cages in Degenerative Lumbar Disease Treated With Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Report of Three Patients,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34, no. 1 (2009): E54–E58.
|
| [24] |
M. Zhang, X. Liu, G. Wang, H. Liu, F. Zhu, and H. Mou, “Risk Factors Associated With Cage Retropulsion After Lumbar Interbody Fusion,” Turkish Neurosurgery 34, no. 2 (2024): 274–282.
|
| [25] |
L. Chen, H. Yang, and T. Tang, “Cage Migration in Spondylolisthesis Treated With Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using BAK Cages,” Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 30, no. 19 (2005): 2171–2175.
|
| [26] |
L. A. Selznick, M. F. Shamji, and R. E. Isaacs, “Minimally Invasive Interbody Fusion for Revision Lumbar Surgery: Technical Feasibility and Safety,” Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 22, no. 3 (2009): 207–213.
|
| [27] |
C. H. Kim, C. K. Chung, T. A. Jahng, H. J. Yang, and Y. J. Son, “Surgical Outcome of Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Lumbar Diskectomy for Recurrent Disk Herniation After Open Diskectomy,” Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques 25, no. 5 (2012): E125–E133.
|
| [28] |
K. M. Eichholz and T. C. Ryken, “Complications of Revision Spinal Surgery,” Neurosurgical Focus 15, no. 3 (2003): E1.
|
| [29] |
W. Zhang, T. Takigawa, Y. Wu, Y. Sugimoto, M. Tanaka, and T. Ozaki, “Accuracy of Pedicle Screw Insertion in Posterior Scoliosis Surgery: A Comparison Between Intraoperative Navigation and Preoperative Navigation Techniques,” European Spine Journal 26, no. 6 (2017): 1756–1764.
|
| [30] |
K. Kobayashi, K. Ando, F. Kato, et al., “Reoperation Within 2 Years After Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Multicenter Study,” European Spine Journal 27, no. 8 (2018): 1972–1980.
|
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
2025 The Author(s). Orthopaedic Surgery published by Tianjin Hospital and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PDF
