Expandable Versus Static Cages in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- PMID: 33940268
- DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2021.04.090
Expandable Versus Static Cages in Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Background: Expandable cages for interbody fusion allow for in situ expansion optimizing fit while mitigating endplate damage. Studies comparing outcomes after using expandable or static cages have been conflicting.
Methods: This was a meta-analysis A systematic search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines identifying studies reporting outcomes among patients who underwent minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-LIF).
Results: Fourteen articles with 1129 patients met inclusion criteria. Compared with MIS-LIFs performed with static cages, those with expandable cages had a significantly lower incidence of graft subsidence (expandable: incidence 0.03, I2 22.50%; static: incidence 0.27, I2 51.03%, P interaction <0.001), length of hospital stay (expandable: mean difference [MD] 3.55 days, I2 97%; static: MD 7.1 days, I2 97%, P interaction <0.01), and a greater increase in disc height (expandable: MD -4.41 mm, I2 99.56%; static: MD -0.79 mm, I2 99.17%, P interaction = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference among Oswestry Disability Index (expandable: MD -22.75, I2 98.17%; static: MD -17.11, I2 95.26%, P interaction = 0.15), fusion rate (expandable: incidence 0.94, I2 0%; static incidence 0.92, I2 0%, P interaction = 0.44), overall change in lumbar lordosis (expandable: MD 3.48 degrees, I2 59.29%; static: MD 3.67 degrees, I2 0.00%, P interaction 0.88), blood loss (expandable: MD 228.9 mL, I2 100%; static: MD 261.1 mL, I2 94%, P interaction = 0.69) and operative time (expandable: MD 184 minutes, I2 95.32%; static: MD 150.4 minutes, I2 91%, P interaction = 0.56).
Conclusions: Expandable interbody cages in MIS-LIF were associated with a decrease in subsidence rate, operative time and greater in increase in disc height.
Keywords: Expandable cages; Graft subsidence; Hospital stay; Interbody fusion; Lumbar; Meta-analysis; Minimally invasive surgery; Static cages; Systematic review.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
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
-
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
-
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
-
Static Versus Expandable Cages in Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clin Spine Surg. 2025 Aug 1;38(7):326-332. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001737. Epub 2024 Nov 18. Clin Spine Surg. 2025. PMID: 39774441
-
Outcomes of Expandable Interbody Devices in Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clin Spine Surg. 2020 Jul;33(6):230-243. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000959. Clin Spine Surg. 2020. PMID: 32101992
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.
-
Evolution of Complex Spine Surgery in Neurosurgery: From Big to Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Spinal Deformity.Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg. 2022;45:339-357. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-99166-1_11. Adv Tech Stand Neurosurg. 2022. PMID: 35976456
-
Expandable vs Static Interbody Devices for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Int J Spine Surg. 2022 Apr;16(S1):S53-S60. doi: 10.14444/8236. Int J Spine Surg. 2022. PMID: 35387889 Free PMC article.
-
Predictors of Postoperative Segmental and Overall Lumbar Lordosis in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Consecutive Case Series.Global Spine J. 2025 Mar;15(2):425-437. doi: 10.1177/21925682231193610. Epub 2023 Jul 31. Global Spine J. 2025. PMID: 37522797 Free PMC article.
-
Does the application of expandable cages in TLIF provide improved clinical and radiological results compared to static cages? A meta-analysis.Front Surg. 2022 Aug 10;9:949938. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.949938. eCollection 2022. Front Surg. 2022. PMID: 36034361 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous