Literature DB >> 32015740

Static Versus Expandable Devices Provide Similar Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Benjamin Khechen1, Brittany E Haws1, Dil V Patel1, Joon S Yoo1, Jordan A Guntin1, Kaitlyn L Cardinal1, Sravisht Iyer1, Kern Singh1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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). QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To evaluate differences in radiographic parameters and PROs following MIS TLIF between static and expandable interbody devices.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: 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. © Hospital for Special Surgery 2019.

Entities:  

Keywords:  disc height; expandable; foraminal height; interbody device; lordosis; minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion; patient-reported outcomes; radiographic outcomes; static

Year:  2019        PMID: 32015740      PMCID: PMC6973784          DOI: 10.1007/s11420-019-09677-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  HSS J        ISSN: 1556-3316


  26 in total

Review 1.  Osteoinductive bone graft substitutes.

Authors:  S C Ludwig; J M Kowalski; S D Boden
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  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.

Authors:  Steven D Glassman; John R Dimar; Leah Y Carreon; Mitchell J Campbell; Rolando M Puno; John R Johnson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2005-08-01       Impact factor: 3.468

3.  A perioperative cost analysis comparing single-level minimally invasive and open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Kern Singh; Sreeharsha V Nandyala; Alejandro Marquez-Lara; Steven J Fineberg; Mathew Oglesby; Miguel A Pelton; Gunnar B Andersson; Darya Isayeva; Briana J Jegier; Frank M Phillips
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2013-11-16       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  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.

Authors:  Owoicho Adogwa; Scott L Parker; Ali Bydon; Joseph Cheng; Matthew J McGirt
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2011-12

5.  Cervical vertebral interbody fusion in the horse: a comparative study of bovine xenografts and autografts supported by stainless steel baskets.

Authors:  R M DeBowes; B D Grant; G W Bagby; A M Gallina; R D Sande; M H Ratzlaff
Journal:  Am J Vet Res       Date:  1984-01       Impact factor: 1.156

6.  Improvement of sagittal balance and lumbar lordosis following less invasive adult spinal deformity surgery with expandable cages and percutaneous instrumentation.

Authors:  Michael Y Wang
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2012-10-26

7.  Clinical and radiological outcomes of minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Chan Wearn Benedict Peng; Wai Mun Yue; Seng Yew Poh; William Yeo; Seang Beng Tan
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 8.  Preservation or Restoration of Segmental and Regional Spinal Lordosis Using Minimally Invasive Interbody Fusion Techniques in Degenerative Lumbar Conditions: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Juan S Uribe; Sue Lynn Myhre; Jim A Youssef
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 9.  The use of biologic materials in spinal fusion.

Authors:  A R Vaccaro; A D Sharan; R S Tuan; J D Kang; H S An; M A Morone; P E Savas; A S Hilibrand; J J Abitbol
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 1.390

10.  The clinical and radiological outcomes of multilevel minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Sang-Hyuk Min; Jae-Sung Yoo
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 3.134

View more
  4 in total

1.  Expandable Interbody Fusion Cages: An Editorial on the Surgeon's Perspective on Recent Technological Advances and Their Biomechanical Implications.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Lisa Ferrara; Boyle Cheng
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

2.  What Affects Segmental Lordosis of the Surgical Site after Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?

Authors:  Soo-Heon Kim; Bang Sang Hahn; Jeong-Yoon Park
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2022-07       Impact factor: 3.052

3.  Bidirectional Expandable Technology for Transforaminal or Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Analysis of Safety and Performance.

Authors:  Domagoj Coric; Raphael R Roybal; Mark Grubb; Vincent Rossi; Alex K Yu; Isaac R Swink; Jason Long; Boyle C Cheng; Jason A Inzana
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-10-29

Review 4.  Does the application of expandable cages in TLIF provide improved clinical and radiological results compared to static cages? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Guang-Xun Lin; Jin-Sung Kim; Vit Kotheeranurak; Chien-Min Chen; Bao-Shan Hu; Gang Rui
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-08-10
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.