Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleLumbar Spine

Tomographic Assessment of Fusion Rate, Implant-Endplate Contact Area, Subsidence, and Alignment With Lumbar Personalized Interbody Implants at 1-Year Follow-Up

Christopher P. Ames, Justin S. Smith and Rodrigo J. Nicolau
International Journal of Spine Surgery August 2024, 18 (S1) S41-S49; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8640
Christopher P. Ames
1 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: amesc@neurosurg.ucsf.edu
Justin S. Smith
2 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
MD, PHD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rodrigo J. Nicolau
3 Carlsmed, Carlsbad, CA, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Sagittal and coronal views of 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the preoperative condition (blue) and 3D model of planned correction (beige).

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Sagittal and coronal L4 to L5 intervertebral angles (A and B); L1 to S1 lordosis and L4 to S1 angles (C) .

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    A personalized implant in a model illustrating coronal correction and added lordosis, along with added anterior/posterior height and contact surfaces designed to match the inferior and superior endplate shape.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Illustration of coronal computed tomography slices for representative anterior lumbar interbody fusion and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion personalized interbody cage implants.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    Ratio of available implant surface area in intimate contact with endplate (as a percentage). *P < 0.05.

  • Figure 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 6

    Two-level implantation showing moderate subsidence of stock cage into superior endplate at L4 to L5. The solid yellow arrow indicates the level treated with a stock implant. The dashed yellow arrow indicates the level treated with a personalized interbody cage.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Bridwell fusion stage classification.

    Fusion GradeDescription
    IFused with remodeling and trabeculae present
    IIGraft intact, not fully remodeled and incorporated, but no lucency present
    IIIGraft intact, potential lucency present at top and bottom of graft
    IVFusion absent, with collapse/resorption of graft
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Operative characteristics.

    CharacteristicValue
    Patient N = 15
     Age, y, mean (SD)68.2 (7.1)
     Follow-up, mo, mean (range)12.2 (9–14)
     No. of levels instrumented, mean (SD)10.4 (3.0)
    Interbody implants N = 26
     Interbody implants per patient, mean (SD)1.6 (0.6)
     Level, n (%)
      L3–L4 (%)2 (7.7%)
      L4–L5 (%)10 (38.4%)
      L5–S1 (%)14 (53.8%)
     Procedure, No. of levels (%)
      ALIF PIC20 (76.9%)
      ALIF stock2 (7.7%)
      TLIF PIC4 (15.4%)
    • Abbreviations: ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; PIC, personalized interbody cage; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Subsidence results.

    Subsidence GradeDegree of SubsidencePIC ALIF
    (n = 20)
    PIC TLIF
    (n = 4)
    Stock ALIF
    (n = 2)
    Grade 00%–24%20 (100%)3 (75%)0
    Grade I25%–49%01 (25%)1 (50%)
    Grade II50%–74%001 (50%)
    Grade III>75%000
    • Abbreviations: ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; PIC, personalized interbody cage; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Angular correction results.

    Alignment ParameterOffset Between Goal and Achieved, Mean (SD)
    Intervertebral lordosis (PIC only)1.3° (3.8°)
    Intervertebral coronal angle (PIC only)0.7° (1.5°)
    Posterior disc height (PIC only)−2.1 mm (2.0 mm)
    L1–S1 lordosis (all patients)3.1° (10°)
    L4–S1 angle (all patients)−0.9° (5.8°)
    • Abbreviation: PIC, personalized interbody cage.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 18, Issue S1
1 Aug 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Tomographic Assessment of Fusion Rate, Implant-Endplate Contact Area, Subsidence, and Alignment With Lumbar Personalized Interbody Implants at 1-Year Follow-Up
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Tomographic Assessment of Fusion Rate, Implant-Endplate Contact Area, Subsidence, and Alignment With Lumbar Personalized Interbody Implants at 1-Year Follow-Up
Christopher P. Ames, Justin S. Smith, Rodrigo J. Nicolau
International Journal of Spine Surgery Aug 2024, 18 (S1) S41-S49; DOI: 10.14444/8640

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Tomographic Assessment of Fusion Rate, Implant-Endplate Contact Area, Subsidence, and Alignment With Lumbar Personalized Interbody Implants at 1-Year Follow-Up
Christopher P. Ames, Justin S. Smith, Rodrigo J. Nicolau
International Journal of Spine Surgery Aug 2024, 18 (S1) S41-S49; DOI: 10.14444/8640
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparison of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, 360° Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Arthroplasty for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: Focus on Nerve Decompression and Painful Spinal Instability Resolution
  • Recovery Trajectories After Lumbar Fusion Stratified by Baseline Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Disability Levels
  • Association Between Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Use and Surgical Outcomes Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Medical Claims Database Analysis
Show more Lumbar Spine

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • lumbar
  • interbody
  • fusion
  • personalized
  • contact
  • area
  • subsidence
  • alignment

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire