Static Versus Expandable Devices Provide Similar Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
- 11 Downloads
Few studies have analyzed differences in radiographic parameters and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between expandable and static interbody devices in patients undergoing minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).
To evaluate differences in radiographic parameters and PROs following MIS TLIF between static and expandable interbody devices.
Patients undergoing primary, single-level MIS TLIF between 2014 and 2017 were retrospectively identified. Radiographic measurements including lumbar lordosis (LL), segmental lordosis (SL), disc height (DH), and foraminal height (FH) were performed on lateral radiographs before and after MIS TLIF with a static or expandable articulating interbody device. Radiographic outcomes and PROs were compared using paired and unpaired Student’s t test.
Thirty patients received expandable interbody devices and 30 patients received static interbody devices. The expandable device cohort exhibited significantly greater improvement in DH and FH at final follow-up compared with those receiving a static device. Both device cohorts experienced significant improvements in PROs at 6 months post-operatively.
MIS TLIF with an expandable interbody device led to a greater increase of DH and FH than with a static interbody device. Patients undergoing MIS TLIF can expect similar improvements in PROs whether receiving a static or an expandable interbody device. Further studies are required to better understand improvements in clinical outcomes afforded by expandable interbody devices.
Keywordsminimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion interbody device expandable static patient-reported outcomes radiographic outcomes lordosis disc height foraminal height
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Benjamin Khechen, BA, Brittany E. Haws, MD, Dil V. Patel, BS, Joon S. Yoo, BA, Jordan A. Guntin, BS, Kaitlyn L. Cardinal, BS, and Sravisht Iyer, MD, declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Kern Singh, MD, reports royalties from Zimmer, Stryker, Pioneer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Thieme, Jaypee Publishing, and Slack Publishing; stock ownership in Avaz Surgical, LLC, and Vital 5, LLC; board membership and a grant from Cervical Spine Research Society; board membership at the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Scoliosis Research Society, and Vertebral Column–ISASS, all outside the submitted work.
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013.
Informed consent was waived from all patients for being included in this study.
Required Author Forms:
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.
- 1.Adogwa O, Parker SL, Bydon A, Cheng J, McGirt MJ. Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: 2-year assessment of narcotic use, return to work, disability, and quality of life. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24:479–484.Google Scholar
- 4.Cannestra AF, Peterson MD, Parker SR, Roush TF, Bundy JV, Turner AW. MIS expandable interbody spacers: a literature review and biomechanical comparison of an expandable MIS TLIF with conventional TLIF and ALIF. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41 Suppl 8:S44–49.Google Scholar
- 5.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences , 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988.Google Scholar
- 6.Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and pain scales. Spine J. 2008;8:968–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.DeBowes RM, Grant BD, Bagby GW, Gallina AM, Sande RD, Ratzlaff MH. Cervical vertebral interbody fusion in the horse: a comparative study of bovine xenografts and autografts supported by stainless steel baskets. Am J Vet Res. 1984;45:191–199.Google Scholar
- 8.Glassman SD, Dimar JR, Carreon LY, Campbell MJ, Puno RM, Johnson JR. Initial fusion rates with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2/compression resistant matrix and a hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate/collagen carrier in posterolateral spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:1694–1698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Hsieh PC, Koski TR, O’Shaughnessy BA, et al. Anterior lumbar interbody fusion in comparison with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: implications for the restoration of foraminal height, local disc angle, lumbar lordosis, and sagittal balance. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:379–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, Seex K, Rao PJ. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg.. 2015;1:2–18.Google Scholar
- 24.Uribe JS, Myhre SL, Youssef JA. Preservation or restoration of segmental and regional spinal lordosis using minimally invasive interbody fusion techniques in degenerative lumbar conditions: a literature review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41(Suppl 8):S50–58.Google Scholar
- 25.Vaccaro AR, Sharan AD, Tuan RS, et al. The use of biologic materials in spinal fusion. Orthopedics. 2001;24:191–197.Google Scholar