<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//TaxonX//DTD Taxonomic Treatment Publishing DTD v0 20100105//EN" "https://foliamedica.bg/nlm/tax-treatment-NS0.dtd">
<article xmlns:tp="http://www.plazi.org/taxpub" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" article-type="research-article" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">87</journal-id>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="index">urn:lsid:arphahub.com:pub:A116C711-4C18-5A38-8F1E-5E97753A8A64</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title xml:lang="en">Folia Medica</journal-title>
        <abbrev-journal-title xml:lang="en">FM</abbrev-journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="ppub">0204-8043</issn>
      <issn pub-type="epub">1314-2143</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Plovdiv Medical University</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3897/folmed.68.e170420</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">170420</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
          <subject>Research Article</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Posterior self-expanding stand-alone cage: outcomes in degenerative disc disease</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group content-type="authors">
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Gecheva</surname>
            <given-names>Nia Atanasova</given-names>
          </name>
          <email xlink:type="simple">gecheva_nia@abv.bg</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="A1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="A2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Ilkov</surname>
            <given-names>Petar Lyubomirov</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="A3">3</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no">
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Uzunov</surname>
            <given-names>Konstantin Alexandrov</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="A4">4</xref>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <aff id="A1">
        <label>1</label>
        <addr-line content-type="verbatim">Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Sofia, Sofia, Bulgaria</addr-line>
        <institution>Department of Neurosurgery, University Multiprofile Hospital for Active Treatment and Emergency Medicine NI Pirogov</institution>
        <addr-line content-type="city">Sofia</addr-line>
        <country>Bulgaria</country>
        <uri content-type="ror">https://ror.org/002rp9w47</uri>
      </aff>
      <aff id="A2">
        <label>2</label>
        <addr-line content-type="verbatim">Clinics of Pediatric Orthopedics, Prof. B. Boychev University Hospital of Orthopedics, Sofia, Bulgaria</addr-line>
        <institution>Medical University of Sofia</institution>
        <addr-line content-type="city">Sofia</addr-line>
        <country>Bulgaria</country>
        <uri content-type="ror">https://ror.org/01n9zy652</uri>
      </aff>
      <aff id="A3">
        <label>3</label>
        <addr-line content-type="verbatim">Department of Neurosurgery, Prof. B. Boychev University Hospital of Orthopedics, Sofia, Bulgaria</addr-line>
        <institution>Clinics of Pediatric Orthopedics, Prof. B. Boychev University Hospital of Orthopedics</institution>
        <addr-line content-type="city">Sofia</addr-line>
        <country>Bulgaria</country>
      </aff>
      <aff id="A4">
        <label>4</label>
        <addr-line content-type="verbatim">Department of Neurosurgery, University Multiprofile Hospital for Active Treatment and Emergency Medicine NI Pirogov, Sofia, Bulgaria</addr-line>
        <institution>Department of Neurosurgery, Prof. B. Boychev University Hospital of Orthopedics</institution>
        <addr-line content-type="city">Sofia</addr-line>
        <country>Bulgaria</country>
      </aff>
      <author-notes>
        <fn fn-type="corresp">
          <p><bold>Corresponding author</bold>: Nia Gecheva, Medical University of Sofia, 15 Acad. Ivan Geshov Blvd., Sofia 1431, Bulgaria; Email: <email xlink:type="simple">gecheva_nia@abv.bg</email></p>
        </fn>
      </author-notes>
      <pub-date pub-type="collection">
        <year>2026</year>
      </pub-date>
      <pub-date pub-type="epub">
        <day>03</day>
        <month>04</month>
        <year>2026</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>68</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <elocation-id>e170420</elocation-id>
      <uri content-type="arpha" xlink:href="http://openbiodiv.net/EED4C43E-F115-5966-BD54-57F19D5F81AF">EED4C43E-F115-5966-BD54-57F19D5F81AF</uri>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received">
          <day>28</day>
          <month>08</month>
          <year>2025</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="accepted">
          <day>15</day>
          <month>12</month>
          <year>2025</year>
        </date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Nia Atanasova Gecheva, Petar Lyubomirov Ilkov, Konstantin Alexandrov Uzunov</copyright-statement>
        <license license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple">
          <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.</license-p>
        </license>
      </permissions>
      <abstract>
        <label>Abstract</label>
        <p><bold>Introduction</bold>: Degenerative disc disease (<abbrev xlink:title="Degenerative disc disease">DDD</abbrev>) and lumbar facet joint pathology are leading causes of chronic back pain, predominantly affecting older adults due to cumulative spinal degeneration. Lumbar spondylosis, a key manifestation of <abbrev xlink:title="Degenerative disc disease">DDD</abbrev>, contributes to mechanical instability, radiculopathy, and neurogenic claudication, significantly impairing mobility and quality of life.</p>
        <p><bold>Aim</bold>: To investigate the efficacy of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with hydroxyapatite cages in improving functional outcomes and spinal stability in degenerative disc disease.</p>
        <p><bold>Materials and methods</bold>: A retrospective review of 57 patients (mean age: 42.29±11.26 years; 75% male) undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion (<abbrev xlink:title="posterior lumbar interbody fusion">PLIF</abbrev>) for single- or two-level lumbar <abbrev xlink:title="Degenerative disc disease">DDD</abbrev> with ≥16.76 months follow-up was conducted. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (<abbrev xlink:title="Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire">RMQ</abbrev>) and Oswestry Disability Index (<abbrev xlink:title="Oswestry Disability Index">ODI</abbrev>), while radiographic parameters included intervertebral disc height and fusion stability.</p>
        <p><bold>Results</bold>: Postoperative analysis showed a disc height increase (16.69 to 35.59), significant <abbrev xlink:title="Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire">RMQ</abbrev> improvement (14.76 to 3.76), and <abbrev xlink:title="Oswestry Disability Index">ODI</abbrev> reduction (50.47% to 16.74%), reflecting a 34% disability improvement.</p>
        <p><bold>Conclusion</bold>: Minimally invasive <abbrev xlink:title="posterior lumbar interbody fusion">PLIF</abbrev> with hydroxyapatite cages effectively restores spinal height, enhances stability, and improves functional outcomes, presenting a viable alternative to traditional fusion techniques.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <label>Keywords</label>
        <kwd>hydroxyapatite cage</kwd>
        <kwd>lumbar</kwd>
        <kwd>PLIF</kwd>
        <kwd>radiological</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
    <notes>
      <sec sec-type="Citation" id="sec1">
        <title>Citation</title>
        <p>Gecheva NA, Ilkov PL, Uzunov KA. Posterior self-expanding stand-alone cage: outcomes in degenerative disc disease. Folia Med (Plovdiv) 2026;68(2):е170420. <ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="10.3897/folmed.68.e170420">doi: 10.3897/folmed.68.e170420</ext-link>.</p>
      </sec>
    </notes>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec sec-type="Introduction" id="sec2">
      <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Degenerative disc and facet joint pathology within the lumbar spine represents a prevalent and debilitating condition, particularly prominent among the geriatric demographic. Despite extensive research, the epidemiology and pathophysiology underlying the manifestation of discopathy across various age demographics remain incompletely elucidated.</p>
      <p>It has been observed that L5-S1 disc degeneration frequently occurs asymptomatically early in life, with considerable variability in its clinical impact. While some individuals experience no functional impairment, others endure significant and incapacitating pain. The factors dictating this dichotomy remain obscure, despite various proposed pathophysiological mechanisms. Furthermore, the interplay between psychological predispositions and personality traits has been recognized as a determinant in both symptom perception and the propensity to seek medical intervention.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">1</xref>]</sup> Notably, lumbar spondylosis manifests with a spectrum of symptoms, including mechanical back pain, radicular and claudicant manifestations, compromised mobility, and a concomitant reduction in overall quality of life. The anatomical integrity of the posterior column structures, encompassing the interspinous ligaments, articular synovial joints, and the joint capsule, plays an indispensable role in maintaining spinal stability and dictating postoperative prognoses.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">3</xref>]</sup></p>
      <p>Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (<abbrev xlink:title="posterior lumbar interbody fusion">PLIF</abbrev>), initially delineated by Briggs and Milligan in 1942<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">4</xref>]</sup> has since undergone iterative refinement and ascended to the status of a cornerstone surgical modality for addressing degenerative disc disease. <abbrev xlink:title="posterior lumbar interbody fusion">PLIF</abbrev> entails the establishment of intervertebral fusion through a posterior approach, with indications encompassing the management of debilitating low back pain, particularly when at least two-thirds of the disc height remains preserved. Conversely, absolute contraindications to <abbrev xlink:title="posterior lumbar interbody fusion">PLIF</abbrev> surgery comprise severe osteoarthrosis, degenerative spinal cord stenosis, and a diminution of disc height by one-third relative to adjacent levels.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">5</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref>]</sup></p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Aim" id="sec3">
      <title>Aim</title>
      <p>This study seeks to elucidate and juxtapose the perioperative and postoperative outcomes associated with minimally invasive standalone posterior interbody fusion in the context of treating degenerative disc disease.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="materials|methods" id="sec4">
      <title>Material and methods</title>
      <p>This retrospective case study evaluated outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion (<abbrev xlink:title="posterior lumbar interbody fusion">PLIF</abbrev>) for degenerative disc disease in 57 patients (75% male, 25% female) treated between 2015 and the present, each with ≥12 months of follow-up. Inclusion criteria comprised single-level L4-L5 or L5-S1 degeneration without osteoporosis or prior surgery, while patients with spinal stenosis, severe spondylolisthesis, advanced disc collapse, or multi-level disease were excluded. All procedures were performed by a single senior spine surgeon using a standardized technique. Only patients with complete preoperative and postoperative clinical and radiographic data and at least 12 months’ follow-up were included to minimize attrition bias. Clinical and radiographic assessments were conducted preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months, including disc height index (modified Farfan method), fusion stability, and outcomes measured by the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index, and Odom’s criteria.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">7</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>]</sup> All patients were admitted to two hospital departments, with healthcare activities covered by the National Health Insurance Fund in compliance with European regulations; the retrospective study was approved by the Dean of the Medical Faculty, and all necessary precautions were taken to ensure patient anonymity in accordance with institutional ethical standards.</p>
      <sec sec-type="Operative technique" id="sec5">
        <title>Operative technique</title>
        <p>Under general anesthesia, the patient was positioned prone with legs flexed to restore physiological lordosis and optimize access to the L4/L5 or L5/S1 intervertebral space <bold>(Fig. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">1</xref>)</bold>. Through a 2.5–3 cm incision, the paraspinal musculature was bluntly dissected following fasciectomy, and under microscopic visualization, the ligamentum flavum, partial vertebral arch, and medial facet joint were resected to achieve neural decompression by mobilizing the thecal sac and nerve roots from fibrotic adhesions with removal of extruded disc material. Trial cages were fluoroscopically assessed before definitive hydroxyapatite cages were bilaterally inserted into the intervertebral space, with hemostasis secured and layered closure performed. Final fluoroscopic confirmation verified accurate cage placement, with posterior lumbar interbody fusion restoring intervertebral height, achieving decompression, and preserving posterior support structures (<bold>Figs <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">2</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">3</xref>)</bold>.</p>
        <fig id="F1">
          <object-id content-type="arpha">DF303E49-D31B-588E-978A-3ADCA09AEE2F</object-id>
          <label>Figure 1.</label>
          <caption>
            <p>The 2.5–3 cm incision with access to the paraspinal musculature; (<bold>A)</bold> The 2.5–3 cm incision - model approach; (<bold>B)</bold> The 2.5–3 cm incision - skin incision.</p>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="foliamedica-68-2-e170420-g001.jpg" id="oo_1582710.jpg">
            <uri content-type="original_file">https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1582710</uri>
          </graphic>
        </fig>
        <fig id="F2">
          <object-id content-type="arpha">B10749BE-74C1-5DE6-A5D1-6B2E52C1C43B</object-id>
          <label>Figure 2.</label>
          <caption>
            <p>Pre- and post-operative X-ray results after incorporation of a standalone cage with a year of follow-up; (<bold>A)</bold> Pre-operative X-ray of a patient with single level discal hernia; (<bold>B)</bold> Postoperative X-ray results after incorporation of a standalone cage with a year of follow-up.</p>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="foliamedica-68-2-e170420-g002.jpg" id="oo_1582711.jpg">
            <uri content-type="original_file">https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1582711</uri>
          </graphic>
        </fig>
        <fig id="F3">
          <object-id content-type="arpha">2F0F0B2F-7F57-5EE3-834E-EA9AD49A6E15</object-id>
          <label>Figure 3.</label>
          <caption>
            <p>A 2-year follow-up CT scan; (<bold>A)</bold> Sagital view; (<bold>B)</bold> Transversal view.</p>
          </caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="foliamedica-68-2-e170420-g003.jpg" id="oo_1582712.jpg">
            <uri content-type="original_file">https://binary.pensoft.net/fig/1582712</uri>
          </graphic>
        </fig>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Results" id="sec6">
      <title>Results</title>
      <p>Data were available on 57 patients with a median follow up of 16.76 months. The mean patient age during the surgery was 42.29±11.26 years. Forty-two patients had a single level procedure and 15 patients had a two-level procedure. Disc height was expressed as the disc height index (DHI), based on the method of with modifications, calculated as: [(Ha + Hp)/(Ds + Di)]×100. The index was measured preoperatively and at 6-month follow-up as ∆DHI &lt;−20% is considered severe discal height diminution.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">9</xref>]</sup> The mean result for <abbrev xlink:title="Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire">RMQ</abbrev> was also pre-operatively (14.76) and post-operatively (3.76) evaluated, thus proving a significant clinical improvement which is also statistically valid. Another grading scale, the Oswestry disability index, is also considered for the current study.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>]</sup> It was developed by Jeremy Fairbank and Graham Pynsent in Oswestry, England in 1980 and considered one of the best accepted tools for the assessment of low back pain and is calculated in percents: 0% to 4%: minimal disability, 4% to 15%: mild disability, 15% to 24%: moderate disability, 24% to 34%: severe disability, and 35% to 50%: complete disability. The mean preoperative outcomes yielded a value of 50.47%±12.05, with a predominance observed in the male cohort, while the mean postoperative outcomes demonstrated a significant reduction to 16.76, indicating a notable improvement of 34% (<bold>Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">1</xref></bold>) .</p>
      <table-wrap id="T1" position="float" orientation="portrait">
        <label>Table 1.</label>
        <caption>
          <p>Patient characteristics </p>
        </caption>
        <table>
          <tbody>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                <bold>Characteristic</bold>
              </td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                <bold>Value*</bold>
              </td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of patients</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">57</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Male/Female</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">43/14</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean age at follow-up (yrs)</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">42.29±11.26</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Number of prior lumbar disc surgeries</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0 (none had a prior surgery)</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="2"><bold>Level of surgery</bold>:</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Both levels</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">15</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">L4–L5</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">6</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">L5–S1</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">36</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean preop Farfan DHI</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.69±6.65</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Median preop RMDQ score</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">14.76±2.41</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean preop Oswestry index</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">50.47±12.05</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean postop Farfan DHI</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">35.59±15.69</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Median postop RMDQ score</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.76±1.48</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean postop Oswestry index</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.74± 4.62</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="2">Preop working status</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Working w/ few or no restrictions</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">13</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Working w/ many restrictions</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">40</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Unable to work</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">4</td>
            </tr>
            <tr>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Mean follow-up period in months</td>
              <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">16.75±4.62</td>
            </tr>
          </tbody>
        </table>
        <table-wrap-foot>
          <fn>
            <p>*Pre- and post-operative results using Farfan DHI, RMDQ score and Oswestry index.</p>
          </fn>
        </table-wrap-foot>
      </table-wrap>
      <sec sec-type="Statistical analysis" id="sec7">
        <title>Statistical analysis</title>
        <p>Both the paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were employed to evaluate pre- versus postoperative outcomes, allowing assessment under both parametric and non-parametric conditions. Analyses revealed statistically significant improvements across all measures, with notable reductions in Oswestry Disability Index scores, increases in Farfan Disc Height Index, and enhanced Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire outcomes, thereby confirming the clinical effectiveness of the intervention <bold>(Table <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">2</xref>)</bold>.</p>
        <table-wrap id="T2" position="float" orientation="portrait">
          <label>Table 2.</label>
          <caption>
            <p>Summary of statistical test results</p>
          </caption>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Measure</bold>
                </td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Paired t-test  <italic>p</italic>-value</bold>
                </td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">
                  <bold>Wilcoxon Signed-Rank <italic>p</italic>-value</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Oswestry Index</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">3.89×10<sup>−8</sup></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.000015</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">Farfan DHI</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">2.32×10<sup>−4</sup></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.000031</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">RMDQ</td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">5.29×10<sup>−9</sup></td>
                <td rowspan="1" colspan="1">0.000015</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Discussion" id="sec8">
      <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>Lumbar interbody fusion offers several theoretical advantages compared to other fusion techniques, including enhanced biomechanical stability, improved fusion rates, and the potential for restoring intervertebral disc height and sagittal balance.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">11</xref>]</sup> Achieving normal spinal lordosis necessitates consideration of multiple parameters, primarily the alignment of spinal and pelvic parameters. Duval-Beaupère was among the earliest researchers to introduce pelvic incidence (<abbrev xlink:title="pelvic incidence">PI</abbrev>) as a critical determinant of sagittal spinal balance, a concept later expanded upon by Roussouly, who categorized patients into four distinct types.‌<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>]</sup> Building on these foundational studies, Barrey and Darnis<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>]</sup> developed an algorithm for optimizing lordosis restoration during fusion surgery.</p>
      <p>The attenuation of lordosis has been attributed to factors such as diminished intervertebral disc height and degeneration of interspinous ligaments. Jackson proposed that reduced spinal lordosis, particularly at the L4-L5 and L5-S1 levels—accounting for approximately two-thirds of total lumbar lordosis—is associated with low back pain.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref>]</sup> Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (<abbrev xlink:title="posterior lumbar interbody fusion">PLIF</abbrev>), first introduced by Cloward in 1953, was designed as a surgical intervention for degenerative disc disease.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">16</xref>]</sup> Cloward emphasized that the ideal surgical technique should not only restore intervertebral height but also achieve rigid immobilization of adjacent vertebral bodies. His surgical concept revolved around the placement of a robust intervertebral graft to replace the degenerated disc, thereby ensuring spinal stability and biomechanics. Over time, refinements to <abbrev xlink:title="posterior lumbar interbody fusion">PLIF</abbrev> have incorporated autologous iliac crest bone grafts and banked allografts, with further developments documented by Lin and colleagues.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref>-<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">20</xref>]</sup></p>
      <p>While some researchers, including Dandy, proposed that nucleus pulposus curettage alone might induce spontaneous arthrodesis, others sought improvements in <abbrev xlink:title="posterior lumbar interbody fusion">PLIF</abbrev> by optimizing grafting techniques. Akamaru et al.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">21</xref>]</sup> conducted a study analyzing lumbar interbody fusion at L4-L5, investigating various sagittal alignments. Their findings indicate that fusion with sagittal misalignment poses a risk factor for adjacent segment degeneration following <abbrev xlink:title="posterior lumbar interbody fusion">PLIF</abbrev>.</p>
      <p>Donor bone grafting, while serving as an alternative in <abbrev xlink:title="posterior lumbar interbody fusion">PLIF</abbrev>, introduces concerns related to transmissible infections (HIV, hepatitis), prolonged graft incorporation times, technical difficulties in shaping bony channels, and challenges in obtaining sterile allografts of appropriate dimensions. Additionally, postoperative segmental instability, graft migration, and neural compromise present significant risks, with graft collapse further complicating outcomes.</p>
      <p>The introduction of pedicle screw fixation by Harrington and Tullos in 1969 marked a significant advancement in spinal surgery, offering improved stability and support.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">22</xref>]</sup> However, this technique necessitates greater surgical exposure, larger skin incisions, and presents a relatively high screw malposition rate (up to 42%). In this study, a distinct approach was employed, utilizing expandable standalone cages without additional osteosynthetic materials. This strategy resulted in reduced operative time, preservation of the paraspinal musculature, and diminished radiation exposure. The expandable cage, featuring height adjustability through a controlled mechanism, facilitated precise restoration of spinal lordosis with an overall expandability of 15 degrees, while an integrated locking system prevented cage rotation within the intervertebral space. Successful spinal fusion requires graft material with osteogenic, osteoinductive, and osteoconductive properties to support bone formation, differentiation, and vascularized ingrowth. In this study, porous hydroxyapatite was utilized as a synthetic graft owing to its biocompatibility, structural uniformity, and osteoconductive capacity mediated by Ca<sup>2+</sup> and PO<sub>4</sub><sup>3−</sup> ion release that enhances osteogenesis.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">23</xref>]</sup></p>
      <p>Hydroxyapatite cages further allow for minimally invasive surgical approaches, reducing posterior structural damage and preserving facet joints—critical factors in achieving successful fusion.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">24</xref>,<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">25</xref>]</sup> However, despite these advantages, potential drawbacks include limited osseointegration due to the bioinert nature of hydroxyapatite, which may contribute to nonunion, subsidence, and migration, with reported complication rates between 3% and 10% in prominent studies.</p>
      <p>Fusion assessment criteria differ among authors, with some defining it as the absence of segmental mobility and others relying on imaging modalities such as CT to assess implant lucency. In this study, flexion-extension radiography demonstrated no abnormal mobility in 100% of cases, indicating successful fusion. Lequin et al.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">26</xref>]</sup> reported moderate clinical outcomes, with 46% of patients achieving good recovery and significant pain reduction, although many had a history of multiple prior discectomies. Similarly, Costa et al.<sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">27</xref>]</sup> evaluated 119 patients with degenerative disc disease treated with standalone titanium-threaded cages and observed significant one- and two-year improvements, including a reduction of back pain VAS scores to 26 and favorable functional outcomes in 94% of cases.</p>
      <p>This study demonstrates that posterior lumbar interbody fusion provides significant functional improvement and radiographic fusion in degenerative disc disease, supporting its role as an effective and durable surgical option for symptom relief and spinal stabilization.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Conclusion" id="sec9">
      <title>Conclusion</title>
      <p>In summary, this study provides a detailed evaluation of lumbar interbody fusion techniques for degenerative disc disease, demonstrating the efficacy of expandable standalone cages and the osseointegrative potential of porous hydroxyapatite graft material. These findings contribute to the evidence base guiding surgical decision-making and advance clinical strategies for optimizing outcomes in spinal fusion.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Ethical approval" id="sec10">
      <title>Ethical approval</title>
      <p>This retrospective study was granted an official approval by the Dean of the Medical Faculty of Sofia Medical University.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Ethical statements" id="sec11">
      <title>Ethical statements</title>
      <list list-type="bullet">
        <list-item>
          <p>The authors declared that no clinical trials were used in the present study.
</p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p>The authors declared that no experiments on humans or human tissues were performed for the present study.
</p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p>The authors declared that written informed consent was obtained from all patients in the study as required by the National Health Insurance Fund and European regulations.
</p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p>The authors declared that no experiments on animals were performed for the present study.
</p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p>The authors declared that no commercially available immortalized human and animal cell lines were used in the present study.
</p>
        </list-item>
      </list>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Conflict of interest" id="sec12">
      <title>Conflict of interest</title>
      <p>The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Use of AI" id="sec13">
      <title>Use of AI</title>
      <p>Generative AI was not used for this manuscript.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Funding" id="sec14">
      <title>Funding</title>
      <p>This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Author contributions" id="sec15">
      <title>Author contributions</title>
      <p>All authors have contributed equally.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec sec-type="Data availability" id="sec16">
      <title>Data availability</title>
      <p>All data used are referenced or included in the article.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ack>
      <title>Acknowledgements</title>
      <p>This research is supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria under the National Program “Young Scientists and Postdoctoral Students – 2.”</p>
    </ack>
    <ref-list>
      <title>References</title>
      <ref id="B1">
        <label>1.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Donnally CJ 3rd, Hanna A, Varacallo MA. Lumbar degenerative disk disease. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B2">
        <label>2.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Baeesa SS, Medrano BG, Noriega DC. Long-term outcomes of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using stand-alone Ray threaded cage for degenerative disk disease: a 20-year follow-up. Asian Spine J 2016; 10(6):1100–5.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B3">
        <label>3.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Diedrich O, Lüring C, Pennekamp PH, et al. Effect of posterior lumbar interbody fusion on the lumbar sagittal spinal profile. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2003; 141(4):481–8.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B4">
        <label>4.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Briggs H, Milligan PR. Chip fusion of the low back following exploration of the spinal canal. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1944; 26(1):125–30.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B5">
        <label>5.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Cho KR, Lee SH, Kim ES, et al. Mid-term clinical outcomes of stand-alone posterior interbody fusion with rectangular cages: a 4-year-minimum follow-up. Korean J Spine 2013; 10(3):126–32.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B6">
        <label>6.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Godde S, Fritsch E, Dienst M, et al. Influence of cage geometry on sagittal alignment in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine 2003; 28(15):1693–9.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B7">
        <label>7.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Stratford PW, Riddle DL. A Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire target value to distinguish between functional and dysfunctional states in people with low back pain. Physiother Can 2016; 68(1):29–35.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B8">
        <label>8.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Chiarotto A, Maxwell LJ, Terwee CB, et al. Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and Oswestry Disability Index: which has better measurement properties for measuring physical functioning in nonspecific low back pain? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther 2016; 96(10):1620–37.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B9">
        <label>9.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Farfan HF. Mechanical disorders of the low back. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins; 1973. ISBN: 0812104188.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B10">
        <label>10.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Fairbank JC, Couper J, Davies JB, et al. The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire. Physiotherapy 1980; 66(8):271–3.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B11">
        <label>11.</label>
        <mixed-citation>McAfee PC. Interbody fusion cages in reconstructive operations on the spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81(6):859–80.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B12">
        <label>12.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Duval-Beaupère G, Schmidt C, Cosson P. A barycentremetric study of the sagittal shape of the spine and pelvis: the conditions required for an economic standing position. Ann Biomed Eng 1992; 20(4):451–62.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B13">
        <label>13.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Barrey C, Darnis A. Current strategies for the restoration of adequate lordosis during lumbar fusion. World J Orthop 2015; 6(1):117–26.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B14">
        <label>14.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Jackson RP, McManus AC. Radiographic analysis of sagittal plane alignment and balance in standing volunteers and patients with low back pain matched for age, sex, and size: a prospective controlled clinical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1994; 19(14):1611–8.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B15">
        <label>15.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Cloward RB. The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. J Neurosurg 1953; 10(2):154–68.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B16">
        <label>16.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Cloward RB. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion updated. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; 193:16–9.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B17">
        <label>17.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Lin PM. A technical modification of Cloward’s posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery 1977; 1(1):18–24.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B18">
        <label>18.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Lin PM. Posterior lumbar interbody fusion technique: complications and pitfalls. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; 193:90–102.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B19">
        <label>19.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Collis JS. Total disc replacement: a modified posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Report of 750 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; 193:64–7.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B20">
        <label>20.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Hutter CG. Posterior intervertebral body fusion: a 25-year study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983; 179:86–96.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B21">
        <label>21.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Akamaru T, Kawahara N, Yoon ST, et al. Adjacent segment motion after a simulated lumbar fusion in different sagittal alignments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003; 28(14):1560–6.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B22">
        <label>22.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Harrington PR, Tullos HS. Reduction of severe spondylolisthesis in children. South Med J 1969; 62(1):1–7.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B23">
        <label>23.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Kim H, Lee CK, Yeom JS, et al. The efficacy of porous hydroxyapatite bone chip as an extender of local bone graft in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 2012; 21(7):1324–30.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B24">
        <label>24.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Morimoto T, Tsukamoto M, Aita K, et al. First clinical experience with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using a thermal-sprayed silver-containing hydroxyapatite-coated cage. J Orthop Surg Res 2023; 18:392.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B25">
        <label>25.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Hirasawa M, Mure H, Toi H, et al. Surgical results of lumbar interbody fusion using calcium phosphate cement. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 2014; 54(9):722–6.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B26">
        <label>26.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25(13):1437–46.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B27">
        <label>27.</label>
        <mixed-citation>Costa F, Sassi M, Ortolina A, et al. Stand-alone cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of high-degree degenerative disc disease: design of a new device for an “old” technique. Eur Spine J 2011; 20 Suppl 1:S46–56.</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>
