Van Den Brink et al: Comparison of Stand-Alone Cage versus Intervertebral Cage with Pedicle Screw and Rod Fixation in Dogs with Degenerative Lumbosacral Stenosis
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 3, 2026

Comparison of Stand-Alone Cage versus Intervertebral Cage with Pedicle Screw and Rod Fixation in Dogs with Degenerative Lumbosacral Stenosis

🔍 Key Findings

  • Long-term functional outcome was similar between treatments, with complete recovery in 63.6% of stand-alone cage dogs and 64.7% of cage + PSRF dogs.
  • Minor complications were substantially more common with stand-alone cages (10/11 dogs) than with cage + PSRF (6/17 dogs).
  • Major complications occurred in both groups, including cage migration, implant failure, relapse of clinical signs, and euthanasia.
  • Cage subsidence was more frequent with stand-alone cages (75%) than cage + PSRF (33%).
  • Fusion through the intervertebral cage was observed more consistently with PSRF, occurring in 4/4 CT-evaluated dogs versus 1/4 stand-alone cage dogs.
  • Histologic assessment confirmed successful bone bridging and fusion in the PSRF case, whereas the stand-alone cage specimen demonstrated fibrous tissue predominance and subsidence.
  • Positive bacterial cultures were identified in 6/28 dogs, but no dog developed clinically significant postoperative discospondylitis.
  • The authors concluded that both approaches are clinically viable, but cage + PSRF may be preferable due to reduced subsidence and improved fusion potential.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

How critical is this paper for crushing the Boards?

🚨 Must-know. I’d bet on seeing this.

📚 Useful background, not must-know.

💤 Skip it. Doubt it’ll ever show up.

Thanks for the feedback!
We'll keep fine-tuning the articles vault.
Oops — didn’t go through.
Mind trying that again?

Van Den Brink et al: Comparison of Stand-Alone Cage versus Intervertebral Cage with Pedicle Screw and Rod Fixation in Dogs with Degenerative Lumbosacral Stenosis
Veterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology 3, 2026

🔍 Key Findings

  • Long-term functional outcome was similar between treatments, with complete recovery in 63.6% of stand-alone cage dogs and 64.7% of cage + PSRF dogs.
  • Minor complications were substantially more common with stand-alone cages (10/11 dogs) than with cage + PSRF (6/17 dogs).
  • Major complications occurred in both groups, including cage migration, implant failure, relapse of clinical signs, and euthanasia.
  • Cage subsidence was more frequent with stand-alone cages (75%) than cage + PSRF (33%).
  • Fusion through the intervertebral cage was observed more consistently with PSRF, occurring in 4/4 CT-evaluated dogs versus 1/4 stand-alone cage dogs.
  • Histologic assessment confirmed successful bone bridging and fusion in the PSRF case, whereas the stand-alone cage specimen demonstrated fibrous tissue predominance and subsidence.
  • Positive bacterial cultures were identified in 6/28 dogs, but no dog developed clinically significant postoperative discospondylitis.
  • The authors concluded that both approaches are clinically viable, but cage + PSRF may be preferable due to reduced subsidence and improved fusion potential.

Simini Surgery Review Podcast

Know What Matters in the Literature - and Why

We distill peer-reviewed surgical studies into clinically relevant summaries and
exam-style questions, so you can make informed decisions with confidence.

Free Access. No Spam. Just Smarter Surgical Learning

Multiple Choice Questions on this study

In Van Den Brink 2026 et al., on lumbosacral fusion, what percentage of dogs treated with a stand-alone cage achieved an excellent long-term outcome?

A. 27.3%
B. 45.5%
C. 63.6%
D. 75.0%
E. 88.2%

Answer: 63.6%

Explanation: Excellent long-term outcome occurred in 7/11 dogs (63.6%) treated with a stand-alone cage.
In Van Den Brink 2026 et al., on lumbosacral fusion, which treatment group demonstrated the lowest rate of cage subsidence?

A. Stand-alone cage group
B. Cage plus PSRF group
C. Both groups had equal subsidence rates
D. Neither group showed subsidence
E. Subsidence was not evaluated

Answer: Cage plus PSRF group

Explanation: The cage + PSRF group had subsidence in 33% of cases versus 75% in the stand-alone cage group.
In Van Den Brink 2026 et al., on lumbosacral fusion, what was the authors' primary conclusion regarding treatment selection?

A. Stand-alone cages should replace PSRF in all dogs
B. Both techniques were ineffective
C. Both techniques were viable, but cage plus PSRF may be preferable due to reduced subsidence and improved fusion
D. PSRF should only be used after cage failure
E. Neither technique should be recommended

Answer: Both techniques were viable, but cage plus PSRF may be preferable due to reduced subsidence and improved fusion

Explanation: The authors reported similar clinical outcomes but less subsidence and better evidence of fusion with cage + PSRF.
In Van Den Brink 2026 et al., on lumbosacral fusion, which major complication led to revision surgery in dogs from both treatment groups?

A. Adjacent segment degeneration
B. Postoperative discospondylitis
C. Dorsal cage displacement
D. Hyperreflexia
E. Bladder atony

Answer: Dorsal cage displacement

Explanation: Dorsal migration/displacement of the intervertebral cage occurred in both groups and required revision surgery.
In Van Den Brink 2026 et al., on lumbosacral fusion, what CT finding most strongly supported improved fusion in the cage plus PSRF group?

A. Lower incidence of adjacent segment disease
B. Reduced vertebral body shortening
C. Bone ingrowth through the cage in all evaluated dogs
D. Absence of implant artifacts
E. Reduced foraminal width

Answer: Bone ingrowth through the cage in all evaluated dogs

Explanation: All four CT-evaluated dogs in the cage + PSRF group demonstrated bone ingrowth/fusion through the spacer.

Access the full library of surgical summaries and exam-style questions.

Educational content developed independently and supported by Simini.

The maker of Simini Protect Lavage.

Something off with this article?
Tell us what needs fixing—drop your note below.
Thanks for flagging this!
We’ll review your note as soon as possible.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Anything to add to this article?
Know a finding or detail we missed? Share it below.
Thanks for the suggestion!
We’ll review it as soon as possible.
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.