Static versus Expandable Interbody Fusion Devices: A Comparison of 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Author:

Ledesma Jonathan Andrew,Lambrechts Mark J.,Dees Azra,Thomas Terence,Hiranaka Cannon Greco,Kurd Mark Faisal,Radcliff Kris E.,Anderson David Greg

Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.Purpose: To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of static versus expandable interbody cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using minimally invasive surgery (MIS-TLIF).Overview of Literature: Expandable interbody cages may potentially improve radiographic and clinical outcomes following MIS-TLIF compared to static pages, but at a potentially higher cost and increased rates of subsidence.Methods: A retrospective chart review of 1- and 2-level MIS-TLIFs performed from 2014 to 2020 was reviewed. Radiographic measurements were obtained preoperatively, 6 weeks postoperatively, and at final follow-up. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back, and VAS leg were evaluated. Multivariate linear regression analysis determined the effect of cage type on the change in PROMs, controlling for demographic characteristics. Alpha was set at 0.05.Results: A total of 221 patients underwent MIS-TLIF including 136 static and 85 expandable cages. Expandable cages had significantly greater anterior (static: 11.41 mm vs. expandable: 13.11 mm, <i>p</i> <0.001) and posterior disk heights (static: 7.22 mm vs. expandable: 8.11 mm, <i>p</i> <0.001) at 1-year follow-up. Expandable cages offered similar improvements in segmental lordosis at 6 weeks (static: 1.69° vs. expandable: 2.81°, <i>p</i> =0.243), but segmental lordosis was better maintained with expandable cages leading to significant differences at 1-year follow-up (static: 0.86° vs. expandable: 2.45°, <i>p</i> =0.001). No significant differences were noted in total complication (static: 12.5% vs. expandable: 16.5%, <i>p</i> =0.191) or cage subsidence rates (static: 19.7% vs. expandable: 22.4%, <i>p</i> =0.502) groups at 1-year follow-up.Conclusions: Expandable devices provide greater improvements in radiographic measurements including anterior disk height, posterior disk height, and segmental lordosis, but this did not lead to significant improvements in PROMs, complication rates, subsidence rates, or subsidence distance.

Publisher

Asian Spine Journal (ASJ)

Subject

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery

全球学者库

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"全球学者库"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前全球学者库共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2023 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3