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

Outcomes and Spinopelvic Changes After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Novel Interbody Fusion Device: A Retrospective Study

Ankit Hirpara, Christina Koshak, Eric Marty, Christopher Gallus and Christopher Kleck
International Journal of Spine Surgery July 2024, 8621; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8621
Ankit Hirpara
1 School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
BA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christina Koshak
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
MD, MPHFRCSC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eric Marty
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher Gallus
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
DO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher Kleck
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: christopher.kleck@cuanschutz.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    Configuration and modularity of the novel MectaLIF implant. (A) Three-hole design that provides additional flexibility in order to accommodate the iliac artery bifurcation. (B) Flush construct with no anterior profile in order to reduce impact and irritation. (C) Anterior view of the implant showing the sterile-wrapped plate that can be disassembled in one click and replaced with another indication-specific plate. (D) Superior view of the implant demonstrating the large central bone graft area.

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

    Example of radiographic measurements. (A) Sagittal vertical axis (SVA) measured as the distance from the posterosuperior corner of S1 horizontally to a vertical line dropped from the center of the C7 vertebral body. (B) T4-12 kyphosis measured from the cranial endplate of T4 to the caudal endplate of T12. (C) L1-S1 lordosis measured from the superior endplate of L1 to the superior endplate of S1. (D) L1-4 lordosis measured from the cranial endplate of L1 to the caudal endplate of L4. (E) L4-S1 lordosis measured from the cranial endplate of L4 to the cranial endplate of S1. (F) PI-LL tool using the femoral heads and the cranial endplates of L1 and S1 to calculate pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic incidence (PI), and sacral slope (SS).

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

    Single patient requiring revision of the implant. (A) Intraoperative radiograph after index anterior procedure showing implant fixation with S1 screws and good opposition of the implant on L5 with a residual spondylolisthesis. (B) After placement of posterior instrumentation and anatomic reduction of L5 on S1, the implant appears to have migrated but is in fact stable in position on S1 with loss of contact with L5. (C) Repeat postoperative radiograph after L5-S1 implant revision with the addition of L5 fixation. Anatomic reduction of L5 on S1 with full implant contact with both vertebrae has been achieved.

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

    Patient requiring a reoperation with the placement of posterior instrumentation for recurrence of radiculopathy after implant subsidence. (A) Intraoperative radiograph showing good position of L4-5 and L5-S1 implants. (B) Computed tomography scan obtained after recurrence of L4 radiculopathy showing subsidence of L4-5 implant into the superior endplate of L4. (C) Postoperative radiograph showing placement of posterior instrumentation for stabilization. The anterior lumbar interbody fusion implant was not revised.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Patient demographic data.

    VariableAllShort FusionLong Fusion P
    N (%)10868 (63.0)40 (37.0)N/A
    Age, y
     Mean (SD)59.8 (11.0)58.1 (11.9)62.9 (8.5)0.027
     Range28–8128–8138–76N/A
    Sex, n (%)
     Men51 (47.2)34 (50.0)17 (42.5)0.451a
     Women57 (52.8)34 (50.0)23 (57.5)
    Follow-up
     Days
      Mean (SD)623.2 (353.9)628.3 (366.8)614.5 (335.2)0.846
      Range48–171148–171185–1556N/A
     Years
      Mean (SD)1.71 (0.97)1.72 (1.0)1.68 (0.92)0.846
      Range0.13–4.690.13–4.690.23–4.26N/A
    Body mass index, kg/m2
     Mean (SD)27.6 (4.87)27.8 (4.6)27.2 (5.3)0.552
     Range17.4–40.017.7–40.017.5–38.1N/A
    Race, n (%)
     White/Caucasian92 (85.2)59 (86.8)33 (82.5)0.547a
     Black/African American7 (6.5)4 (5.9)3 (7.5)0.708
     Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander2 (1.9)0 (0.0)2 (5.0)0.135
     Other/Asian2 (1.9)2 (2.9)0 (0.0)0.529
     Other5 (4.6)3 (4.4)2 (5.0)>0.99
    Ethnicity, n (%)
     Non-Hispanic/Latino(a)102 (94.4)64 (94.1)37 (92.5)0.708
     Hispanic/Latino(a)5 (4.6)4 (5.9)2 (5.0)>0.99
     Other1 (0.9)0 (0.0)1 (2.5)0.37
    Smoking/nicotine, n (%)
     Current9 (8.3)5 (7.4)4 (10.0)0.284a
     Former52 (48.1)34 (50.0)18 (45.0)0.616a
     Never47 (43.5)29 (42.7)18 (45.00.812a
    Diabetes, n (%)
     Yes11 (10.2)8 (11.8)3 (7.5)0.479
     No97 (89.8)60 (88.2)37 (92.5)
    Osteoporosis, n (%)
     Yes16 (12.0)7 (10.3)9 (22.5)0.085
     No92 (88.0)61 (89.7)31 (77.5)
    • Abbreviation: N/A, not applicable.

    • ↵a Fisher’s exact test was performed for comparison; all other comparisons of proportions were performed with the χ2 test

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Patient diagnosis and surgical data.

    VariableAllShort FusionLong Fusion P
    Preoperative diagnosis, n (%)
     Degenerative disc disease104 (96.3)66 (97.1)39 (97.5)0.651a
     Stenosis94 (87.0)61 (89.7)33 (82.5)0.282
     Spondylolisthesis38 (35.2)29 (42.7)9 (22.5)0.034
     Radiculopathy92 (85.2)61 (89.7)31 (77.5)0.084
     Neurogenic claudication26 (24.1)13 (19.1)13 (32.5)0.116
     Back pain100 (92.6)60 (88.2)40 (100.0)0.024
     Kyphosis22 (20.4)6 (8.8)16 (40.0)<0.001
     Scoliosis41 (38.0)12 (17.7)29 (72.5)<0.001
     Sagittal imbalance24 (22.2)8 (11.8)16 (40.0)0.001
     Pseudarthrosis8 (7.4)7 (10.3)1 (2.5)0.135
     Infection1 (0.9)0 (0.00)1 (2.5)0.37a
     Fracture1 (0.9)1 (0.9)0 (0.0)1.0
    Novel implant device data
     Total number in cohort278164114
     No. per patient, n (%)
      1-level2 (1.9)1 (1.5)1 (2.5)>0.99a
      2-level50 (46.3)42 (61.8)8 (20.0)<0.001
      3-level48 (44.4)21 (30.9)27 (67.5)<0.001
      4-level8 (7.4)4 (5.9)4 (10.0)0.465a
     Mean/patient (SD)2.57 (0.66)2.41 (0.63)2.85 (0.62)<0.001
     Range1–41–41–4N/A
     Levels, n (%)
      L2–L38 (7.4)5 (7.4)3 (7.5)0.978
      L3–L459 (54.6)28 (41.2)31 (77.5)<0.001
      L4–L5105 (97.2)65 (95.6)40 (100)0.294a
      L5–S1104 (95.4)65 (95.6)39 (97.5)>0.99a
      L5–L6/L6–S12 (1.9)1 (1.5)1 (2.5)>0.99a
    Posterior fusion, n (%)
     Yes101 (93.5)61 (89.7)40 (100.0)0.036
     No7 (6.5)7 (10.3)0 (0.0)0.045a
     No. of levels
      Mean (SD)5.1 (4.0)2.4 (1.1)9.7 (2.7)<0.001
      Range0–150–58–15N/A
    Estimated blood loss, mL
     Mean (SD)858.9 (1027.1)432.1 (535.3)1573.8 (1243.1)<0.001
     Range50–615050–3050250–6150N/A
    Length of stay, d
     Mean (SD)6.2 (3.6)4.9 (2.5)8.5 (4.0)<0.001
     Range1–201–134–20N/A
    • Abbreviation: N/A, not applicable.

    • ↵a Fisher’s exact test was performed for comparison; all other comparisons of proportions were performed with the χ2 test.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Summary of medical outcomes.

    Medical Outcome, n (%)AllShort FusionLong Fusion P
    Acute blood loss anemia84 (77.8)46 (67.6)38 (95.0)0.001
    Urinary retention11 (10.2)6 (8.8)5 (12.5)0.542
    Urinary tract infection/urosepsis11 (10.2)4 (5.9)7 (17.5)0.054
    Acute kidney injury6 (5.6)3 (4.4)3 (7.5)0.668a
    Altered mental status8 (7.4)6 (8.8)2 (5.0)0.522
    Hypotension11 (10.2)4 (5.9)7 (17.5)0.054
    Cardiac arrhythmia7 (6.5)2 (2.9)5 (20.0)0.051
    Ileus19 (17.6)6 (8.8)13 (32.5)<0.001
    Clostridioides difficile2 (1.9)2 (2.9)0 (0.0)0.53a
    Respiratory complication18 (16.7)3 (4.4)15 (37.5)<0.001
    Deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism3 (2.8)1 (1.5)2 (5.0)0.554a
    • ↵a Fisher’s exact test was performed for comparison; all other comparisons of proportions were performed with the χ2 test.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Summary of surgical outcomes.

    Surgical Outcome, n (%)AllShort FusionLong Fusion P
    Iliac vein injury3 (2.8)2 (2.9)1 (2.5)1.0a
    Dural tear5 (4.6)1 (1.5)4 (10.0)0.062a
    Posterior implant problem2 (1.9)2 (2.9)0 (0.0)0.53a
    Estimated blood loss >2500 mL8 (7.4)1 (1.5)7 (17.5)0.004a
    Neurological injury1 (0.9)1 (1.5)0 (0.0)1.0a
    Bone morphogenetic protein neuritis4 (3.7)4 (5.9)0 (0.0)0.294a
    Wound complications13 (12.0)4 (5.9)9 (22.5)0.015a
    Wound infection5 (4.6)1 (1.5)4 (10.0)0.01
    Symptomatic hardware6 (5.6)3 (4.4)3 (7.5)0.668a
    Abdominal hernia3 (2.8)2 (2.9)1 (2.5)1.0a
    Sacroiliac joint dysfunction2 (1.9)2 (2.9)0 (0.0)0.53a
    Persistent radiculopathy1 (0.9)1 (1.5)0 (0.0)1.0a
    PJK/PJF/PJ8 (7.4)2 (2.9)6 (15.0)0.05a
    Adjacent segment degeneration21 (19.4)14 (20.6)7 (17.5)0.022
    Rod fracture3 (2.8)0 (0.0)3 (2.8)0.07
    • Abbreviation: PJK/PJF/PJ, proximal junctional kyphosis/proximal junctional failure/proximal junctional fracture.

    • ↵a Fisher’s exact test was performed for comparison; all other comparisons of proportions were performed with the χ2 test.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Complications associated with the novel implant device.

    Complications, n (%)AllShort FusionLong Fusion P
    Subsidence
     Patients5 (4.6)4 (5.9)1 (2.5)0.649a
     All implants5 (1.8)4 (2.4)1 (0.9)0.649a
    Migration
     Patients1 (0.9)1 (1.5)0 (0.0)>0.99a
     All implants1 (0.4)1 (0.6)0 (0.0)>0.99a
    Nonunion
     Patients6 (5.6)2 (2.9)4 (10.0)0.191a
     All implants6 (2.2)2 (1.2)4 (3.5)0.191a
    Surgical revision
     Patients1 (0.9)1 (1.5)0 (0.0)>0.99a
     All implants1 (0.4)1 (0.6)0 (0.0)>0.99a
    • ↵a Fisher’s exact test was performed for comparison; all other comparisons of proportions were performed with the χ2 test.

    • View popup
    Table 6

    Summary of readmissions and reoperations.

    Outcome MeasureAllShort FusionLong Fusion P
    Readmission, n (%)
     Yes36 (33.3)19 (27.9)17 (42.5)0.12
     No72 (66.7)49 (72.1)23 (57.5)
    Time to readmission
     Days
      Mean (SD)600.1 (531.4)683.6 (651.3)406.1 (316.2)0.12
      Range2–17552–17559–1029N/A
     Years
      Mean (SD)1.64 (1.46)1.87 (1.78)1.11 (0.87)0.12
      Range0.01–4.810.01–4.810.02–2.82N/A
    Reoperation, n (%)
     Yes33 (30.6)18 (26.5)15 (37.5)0.23
     No75 (69.4)50 (73.5)25 (62.5)
    Time to reoperation
     Days
      Mean (SD)570.9 (532.1)665.6 (661.1)457.3 (301.7)0.162
      Range2–17552–175551–1029N/A
     Years
      Mean (SD)1.56 (1.46)1.82 (1.81)1.25 (0.83)0.162
      Range0.01–4.810.01–4.810.14–2.82N/A
    Reason for Reoperation, n (%), % of all reoperations
     Adjacent segment degeneration9 (8.3), 27.37 (10.3), 38.92 (5.0), 13.30.48
     Proximal junctional kyphosis/proximal junctional failure/proximal junctional fracture4 (3.78), 12.10 (0.0), 0.04 (10.0), 26.70.017
     Painful iliac bolts5 (4.6), 15.23 (4.4), 16.72 (5.0), 13.31.0
     Wound complication6 (5.6), 18.22 (2.9), 11.14 (10.0), 26.70.191
     Acute implant problem3 (2.8), 9.13 (4.4), 16.70 (0.0), 0.00.294
     Fracture/spinopelvic dissociation2 (1.9), 6.10 (0.0), 0.02 (5.0), 13.30.135
     Recurrent stenosis/radiculopathy4 (3.7), 12.13 (4.4), 16.71 (2.5), 6.71.0
     Nonunion/rod failure2 (1.9), 6.10 (0.0), 0.02 (5.0), 13.30.135
     Sacroiliac joint dysfunction2 (1.9), 6.12 (2.9), 11.10 (0.0), 0.00.529
     Device migration1 (0.9), 3.01 (1.5), 5.60 (0.0), 0.01.0
     Device subsidence1 (0.9), 3.01 (1.5), 5.60 (0.0), 0.01.0
    • Abbreviation: N/A, not applicable.

    • View popup
    Table 7

    Summary of radiographic data.

    Variable N Mean (SD) P
    PreoperativePostoperativePreoperative to Postoperative
    LL (°)
     L1–S110744.4 (16.2)55.1 (12.8)10.7 (14.5)<0.001
     L1–L410719.7 (12.0)21.4 (10.8)1.8 (10.8)0.1
     L4–S110630.9 (10.3)38.4 (8.7)7.5 (8.2)<0.001
    T4–T12 Thoracic kyphosis (°)4231.7 (14.7)45.4 (12.4)13.6 (12.5)<0.001
    Spinopelvic parameters (°)
     Sacral slope10333.0 (11.0)37.6 (10.9)−4.7 (6.9)<0.001
     Pelvic tilt10319.6 (9.5)18.2 (9.1)1.4 (5.7)0.02
     PI10352.5 (12.3)55.8 (12.9)−3.3 (6.3)<0.001
     PI-LL1028.9 (15.1)1.1 (13.5)7.8 (14.2)<0.001
    Sagittal vertical axis, mm4448.2 (56.8)24.5 (55.3)23.8 (53.4)0.005
    • Abbreviations: LL, lumbar lordosis; PI, pelvic incidence.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 19 (S2)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 19, Issue S2
1 Apr 2025
  • 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.
Outcomes and Spinopelvic Changes After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Novel Interbody Fusion Device: A Retrospective Study
(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
Outcomes and Spinopelvic Changes After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Novel Interbody Fusion Device: A Retrospective Study
Ankit Hirpara, Christina Koshak, Eric Marty, Christopher Gallus, Christopher Kleck
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jul 2024, 8621; DOI: 10.14444/8621

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Outcomes and Spinopelvic Changes After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a Novel Interbody Fusion Device: A Retrospective Study
Ankit Hirpara, Christina Koshak, Eric Marty, Christopher Gallus, Christopher Kleck
International Journal of Spine Surgery Jul 2024, 8621; DOI: 10.14444/8621
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and 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

  • Sexual Dysfunction and Urinary Incontinence in Female Patients Following Primary Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Survey of 84 Patients
  • 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
Show more Lumbar Spine

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • ALIF
  • interbody fusion device
  • spinopelvic parameters
  • subsidence

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