Study Design: Retrospective case-control study. Objectives: This study aims to present the clinical and radiographical outcomes of the titanium-polyetheretherketone (Ti/PEEK) composite cage compared to those of the standard PEEK cage in patients receiving minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). Methods: Patients receiving 1 level MI-TLIF between October 2015 and October 2017 were included with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. The patients were segregated into 2 groups; Ti/PEEK group and PEEK group. Each patient was propensity-matched using preoperative age, sex, and body mass index. Early fusion rate was evaluated by computed tomography at postoperative 6 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Results: After matching, there were 27 patients included in each group. The demographics, diagnosis, and surgical details were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The 6-month rate was 88.9% in Ti/PEEK group. The fusion rate and cage subsidence rate had no difference between the 2 groups. The complication rate in the Ti/PEEK group was comparable to that in the PEEK group. There was no difference in VAS and ODI scores during a 2-year follow-up period. Conclusions: The use of Ti/PEEK composite cage was as safe and effective as the use of PEEK cage in MI-TLIF. The 6-month fusion rate was 88.9%. Our finding revealed comparable clinical results for surgeons using Ti/PEEK composite cages in MI-TLIF compared to those using the PEEK cage.

Safe placement of pedicle screws without jeopardizing neurovascular structures medially and anteriorly is important during spine surgery. Inferior breach of pedicle is also dangerous due to low margin of error. Lumbar morphology and identical pedicle orientation at L1 to L5 shown on CT scan of young Taiwanese patients (90 patients) were analyzed and compared with findings reported for Caucasian subjects. Previously reported techniques were employed to quantitatively elucidate the parameters regarding lumbar morphology and identical pedicle orientation at each vertebra. The parameters for pedicle angle (PA), pedicle diameter (PD), pedicle axis distance (PAD), midline axis distance (MAD), transverse pedicle axis distance (TPAD) and transverse intertangential angle (TITA) were measured. Taiwanese subjects had different PA, PD, PAD, MAD at L1 to L5 and TITA at L3 to L5 compared with Caucasian subjects. L5 had the most convergent pedicle axis, the widest PD and the shortest antero-posterior axis morphology. This study provides detailed information for identifying pedicle orientation during pedicle screw placement and elucidate racial differences in lumbar morphology and pedicle orientation between Taiwanese and Caucasian populations.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: To compare the outcomes of patients with adult spinal deformity (ASD) following spinal fusion with the lowest instrumented vertebra (LIV) at L4/L5 versus S1/ilium. Methods: A multicenter ASD database was evaluated. Patients were categorized into 2 groups based on LIV levels—groups L (fusion to L4/L5) and S (fusion to S1/ilium). Both groups were propensity matched by age and preoperative radiographic alignments. Patient demographics, operative details, radiographic parameters, revision rates, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores were compared. Results: Overall, 349 patients had complete data, with a mean follow-up of 46 months. Patients in group S (n = 311) were older and had larger sagittal and coronal plane deformities than those in group L (n = 38). After matching, 28 patients were allocated to each group with similar demographic, radiographic, and clinical parameters. Sagittal alignment restoration at postoperative week 6 was significantly better in group S than in group L, but it was similar in both groups at the 2-year follow-up. Fusion to S1/ilium involved a longer operating time, higher PJK rates, and greater PJK angles than that to L4/L5. There were no significant differences in the complication and revision rates between the groups. Both groups showed significant improvements in HRQOL scores. Conclusions: Fusion to S1/ilium had better sagittal alignment restoration at postoperative week 6 and involved higher PJK rates and greater PJK angles than that to L4/L5. The clinical outcomes and rates of revision surgery and complications were similar between the groups.