Static Versus Expandable Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK) Interbody Cages: A Comparison of One-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for One-Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

The Impact of L4-L5 Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion on 2-Year Adjacent-level Parameters

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the impact of L4-L5 minimally invasive surgery (MIS)- transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) on adjacent-level parameters.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study performed on consecutive patients between January 2015 and December 2019. The index- and adjacent-level segmental lordosis (SL) and disc angle (DA) were measured. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected preoperatively and at 3-24 months postoperatively. Factors influencing changes in adjacent-level parameters and the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASDeg) were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 117 adult patients, averaging 65.5 years of age and slight preponderance of female (56.4%), were analyzed. L4-L5 SL decreased at 2 years (P < 0.05), but L4-L5 DA significantly increased at all timepoints (P < 0.05). While L3-L4 SL and DA significantly decreased at all timepoints (P < 0.05), L5-S1 SL decreased at 3 and 12 months (P < 0.05) and L5-S1 DA only significantly decreased at 2 years (P < 0.05). All PROs improved significantly (P < 0.0001). The ASDeg rate was 19.7% at 2.2 years. Cephalad and caudal ASDeg rates were 12.0% and 10.3%, respectively. Eight patients (6.8%) required adjacent-level reoperations, mainly at L3-L4 (6 cases). The use of expandable cage significantly reduced the odds of caudal ASDeg (OR 0.15, P = 0.037), but had no significant effect on cephalad ASDeg.

CONCLUSIONS

L4-L5 MIS-TLIF had a more consistent effect on L3-L4 than L5-S1. Although adjacent-level SL and DA decreased over time, their association with ASDeg appears limited, suggesting a multifactorial etiology. L4-L5 MIS-TLIF provides demonstrable clinical benefits with lasting PRO improvements and low adjacent-level reoperations.

Comparison of surgical outcomes between lumbar interbody fusions using expandable and static cages: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of static cages for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) can cause complications such as end plate violation, graft subsidence, and nerve injury. Therefore, expandable cages that allow for in-situ expansion have been developed to overcome these problems. However, it remains uncertain whether expandable cages have better surgical outcomes than static cages do.

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine the effectiveness of expandable cages by analyzing studies that compared the surgical outcomes between the use of expandable cages and static cages.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct this meta-analysis and systematic review. The primary outcomes of this study were anterior disc height, posterior disc height, segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), subsidence rate, numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 1,700 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with static cages for LIFs, expandable cages significantly increased the anterior disc height (standardized mean difference 0.478, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.088-0.867, p=.0162) and segmental lordosis (sMD 0.307, 95% CI 0.159-0.454, p<.0001). There were no significant differences in the posterior disc height, lumbar lordosis, subsidence rate, back pain, leg pain, or ODI between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Expandable cages show no clear clinical benefit over static cages.

An update of interbody cages for spine fusion surgeries: from shape design to materials

INTRODUCTION

Discectomy and interbody fusion are widely used in the treatment of intervertebral disc-related diseases. Among them, the interbody cage plays a significant role. However, the complications related to the interbody cage, such as nonunion or pseudoarthrosis, subsidence, loosening, and prolapse of the cage, cannot be ignored. By changing the design and material of the interbody fusion cage, a better fusion effect can be obtained, the incidence of appeal complications can be reduced, and the quality of life of patients after interbody fusion can be improved.

AREAS COVERED

This study reviewed the research progress of cage design and material and discussed the methods of cage design and material to promote intervertebral fusion.

EXPERT OPINION

Current treatment of cervical and lumbar degenerative disease requires interbody fusion to maintain decompression and to promote fusion and reduce the incidence of fusion failure through improvements in implant material, design, internal structure, and function. However, interbody fusion is not an optimal solution for treating vertebral instability.Abbreviations: ACDF, Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; Axi-aLIF, axial lumbar interbody fusion; BAK fusion cage, Bagby and Kuslich fusion cage; CADR, cervical artificial disc replacement; DBM, decalcified bone matrix; HA, hydroxyapatite; LLIF/XLIF, lateral or extreme lateral interbody fusion; MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; OLIF/ATP, oblique lumbar interbody fusion/anterior to psoas; PEEK, Poly-ether-ether-ketone; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; ROI-C, Zero-profile Anchored Spacer; ROM, range of motion; SLM, selective melting forming; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or.

Does the application of expandable cages in TLIF provide improved clinical and radiological results compared to static cages? A meta-analysis

Purpose

This study aimed to provide a direct meta-analysis of the evidence comparing outcomes between expandable cages and static cages in patients with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).

Methods

A search of relevant materials from databases was performed from inception to March 7, 2022. Clinical and radiological outcomes were included.

Results

Ten studies (1,440 patients) were included. The anterior disc height and foraminal height for expandable cages were substantially higher than those for static cages at the final follow-up (P < 0.0001; P = 0.05). In comparison with static cages, although not statistically significant, expandable cages showed beneficial results, including an increase in posterior disc height and segmental lordosis. There were no statistically significant differences in segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, pelvic parameters, cage subsidence, or fusion rates (P > 0.05). Oswestry disability index scores for expandable cages were substantially lower than those for static cages at the final follow-up (P = 0.0007). Interestingly, although the preoperative visual analog scores for back and leg pain were significantly higher in the expandable group than in the static group (P < 0.0001; P = 0.008), there was no significant difference between the static and expandable groups during the final follow-up (P = 0.51; P = 0.85).

Conclusions

Expandable cages are associated with improved functional outcomes and restored postoperative disc and foraminal heights in patients with TLIF. In addition, no statistically significant differences were observed in segmental lordosis, lumbar lordosis, pelvic parameters, cage subsidence, or fusion rate.