Outcomes of Expandable Interbody Devices in Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- PMID: 32101992
- DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000959
Outcomes of Expandable Interbody Devices in Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Abstract
Study design: This was a systematic review.
Objective: The objective of this study was to review radiographic, clinical, and surgical outcomes of expandable interbody device implantation following lumbar fusion.
Summary of background data: Few studies have evaluated postsurgical outcomes of expandable implants following lumbar interbody fusion.
Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify studies investigating expandable intervertebral body devices in lumbar fusion. Radiographic parameters, fusion assessments, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), complications, and revision data were recorded. A comparison of expandable and static devices was performed using a meta-analysis.
Results: Eleven articles were included. Postoperative improvements for each radiographic parameters for expandable versus static device implantation ranged from: lumbar lordosis, +2.0 to +5.0 degrees (expandable) versus +1.0 to +4.4 degrees (static); segmental lordosis, +1.0 to +5.2 degrees (expandable) versus+1.1 to +2.3 degrees (static); disk height, +0.82 to +4.8 mm (expandable) versus +0.26 to +6.9 mm (static); foraminal height, +0.13 to +2.8 mm (expandable) versus and +0.05 to +3.0 mm (static). Fusion rates ranged from 72.1% at 6 months to 100% at terminal follow-up. Preoperative to final follow-up improvement for the various PROs assessed were: Oswestry Disability Index, -15.4 to -56.3 (expandable) versus -13.6 to -26.3 (static); Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Back, -3.2 to -6.0 (expandable) versus -3.1 to -4.1 (static); and VAS Leg, -2.9 to -7.1 (expandable) -3.0 versus -4.8 (static). Static cages had a reported complication rate ranging from 6.0% to 16.1% and a subsidence rate of 6.0%. Expandable cages had a reported complication rate that ranged from 0.0.% to 10.0% and a subsidence rate of 5.5%-10.0%. A meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the PRO Oswestry Disability Index, but not VAS Back, VAS Leg, or radiographic outcomes (disk height or foraminal height).
Conclusion: There is no clear evidence for the use of expandable interbody devices over static devices.
Similar articles
-
Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters.Neurosurg Focus. 2017 Aug;43(2):E10. doi: 10.3171/2017.5.FOCUS17197. Neurosurg Focus. 2017. PMID: 28760032
-
Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable Cages: Increased Risk of Late Postoperative Subsidence Without a Real Improvement of Perioperative Outcomes: A Clinical Monocentric Study.World Neurosurg. 2021 Dec;156:e57-e63. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.08.127. Epub 2021 Sep 4. World Neurosurg. 2021. PMID: 34492389
-
Expandable versus static transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cages: comparing radiographic outcomes and complication profiles.Spine J. 2025 Feb;25(2):237-243. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2024.09.030. Epub 2024 Sep 28. Spine J. 2025. PMID: 39349256
-
Expandable Versus Static Cages in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World Neurosurg. 2021 Jul;151:e607-e614. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.04.090. Epub 2021 Apr 30. World Neurosurg. 2021. PMID: 33940268
-
Assessing the Difference in Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Expandable Cage and Nonexpandable Cage Among Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.World Neurosurg. 2019 Jul;127:596-606.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.284. Epub 2019 Apr 5. World Neurosurg. 2019. PMID: 30954733
Cited by
-
Restoring segmental lumbar lordosis after failed previous fusion at the same level.J Spine Surg. 2025 Jun 27;11(2):321-327. doi: 10.21037/jss-24-169. Epub 2025 Jun 12. J Spine Surg. 2025. PMID: 40621382 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Aoki Y, Yamagata M, Nakajima F, et al. Examining risk factors for posterior migration of fusion cages following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a possible limitation of unilateral pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13:381–387.
-
- Chen L, Yang H, Tang T. Cage migration in spondylolisthesis treated with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using BAK cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:2171–2175.
-
- Elias WJ, Simmons NE, Kaptain GJ, et al. Complications of posterior lumbar interbody fusion when using a titanium threaded cage device. J Neurosurg. 2000;93:45–52.
-
- Pekmezci M, Tang JA, Cheng L, et al. Comparison of expandable and fixed interbody cages in a human cadaver corpectomy model: fatigue characteristics. Clin Spine Surg. 2016;29:387–393.
-
- Pekmezci M, Tang JA, Cheng L, et al. Comparison of expandable and fixed interbody cages in a human cadaver corpectomy model, part I: endplate force characteristics. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;17:321–326.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous