{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041280539174389216, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02443133951137321, 'mean_word_length': 5.152849740932642, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing hyperlordotic and standard lordotic cages for achieving segmental lumbar lordosis during transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in adult spinal deformity surgery.

Background
Few studies directly compare the effect of interbody cages with different degrees of lordosis in producing segmental lumbar lordosis (SLL) in the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure. Thus, we aimed to investigate changes in SLL in hyperlordotic cages compared to standard lordotic cages in open TLIF procedures.


Methods
Thirty-eight consecutive patients who received open TLIF procedures performed by a single surgeon between 2017 and 2018 were reviewed. Twenty patients had "hyperlordotic cages" (20° lordosis), while 18 patients had "standard lordotic cages" (6° lordosis). Twenty-three patients had one-level TLIF procedures and 15 had two-level TLIF. Standard radiographic measurements, including SLL were assessed preoperatively, postoperatively, and at 1-year follow-up. SLL was measured from the superior endplate of the cephalad vertebra to the inferior endplate of the caudal vertebra. Changes in SLL were compared using Student's and paired t-tests.


Results
In one- and two-level open TLIF, both hyperlordotic and standard lordotic cages produced significant improvement in SLL. Among those receiving a one-level TLIF, SLL increased 7.8° (P=0.024) in those with standard lordotic cages; it increased 8.2° (P=0.020) in those with hyperlordotic cages. Among those receiving a two-level TLIF, SLL increased 13.9° (P=0.032) in those with standard lordotic cages; it increased 8.8° (P=0.023) in those with hyperlordotic cages. However, the improvement in SLL was not significantly different between the two cage types in either one or two-level TLIF procedures (P=0.917, P=0.389). At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant change in SLL, among standard lordotic and hyperlordotic cages (P=0.501, P=0.781).


Conclusions
Although it is theorized that hyperlordotic cages would increase SLL during open TLIF procedures more than standard lordotic cages, our data failed to demonstrate that. As our study examined cases performed by a single surgeon immediately before and after adoption of these lordotic cages, it is likely that surgical technique is of equal or greater importance in improving SLL than the amount of lordosis designed into interbody cages.