Domagoj Coric1, Raphael R Roybal2, Mark Grubb3, Vincent Rossi1, Alex K Yu4, Isaac R Swink4, Jason Long5, Boyle C Cheng4, Jason A Inzana6. 1. Carolina Neurosurgery & Spine Associates, Atrium Musculoskeletal Institute, Charlotte, North Carolina. 2. Chatham Orthopaedic Associates, Savannah, Georgia. 3. Northeast Ohio Spine Center, Akron, Ohio. 4. Neuroscience Institute, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Radiology, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. Telos Partners, LLC, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expandable devices for transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF and PLIF, respectively) may enable greater restoration of disc height, foraminal height, and stability within the interbody space than static spacers. Medial-lateral expansion may also increase stability and resistance to subsidence. This study evaluates the clinical and radiographic outcomes from early experience with a bidirectional expandable device. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a continuous series of patients across 3 sites who had previously undergone TLIF or PLIF surgery with a bidirectional expandable interbody fusion device (FlareHawk, Integrity Implants, Inc) at 1 or 2 contiguous levels between L2 and S1. Outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain or leg pain, radiographic fusion by 1 year of follow-up, subsidence, device migration, and adverse events (AE). RESULTS: There were 58 eligible patients with radiographs for 1-year fusion assessments and 45 patients with ODI, VAS back pain, or VAS leg pain data at baseline and a mean follow-up of 4.5 months. The ODI, VAS back pain, and VAS leg pain scores improved significantly from baseline to final follow-up, with mean improvements of 14.6 ± 19.1, 3.4 ± 2.6, and 3.9 ± 3.4 points (P < .001 for each), respectively. In addition, 58% of patients achieved clinically significant improvements in ODI, 76% in VAS back pain, and 71% in VAS leg pain. By 1 year, 96.6% of patients and 97.4% of levels were considered fused. There were zero cases of device subsidence and 1 case of device migration (1.7%). There were zero device-related AEs, 1 intraoperative dural tear, and 3 subsequent surgical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The fusion rate, improvements in patient-reported outcomes, and the AEs observed are consistent with those of other devices. The bidirectional expansion mechanism may provide other important clinical value, but further studies will be required to elucidate the unique advantages. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
BACKGROUND: Expandable devices for transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF and PLIF, respectively) may enable greater restoration of disc height, foraminal height, and stability within the interbody space than static spacers. Medial-lateral expansion may also increase stability and resistance to subsidence. This study evaluates the clinical and radiographic outcomes from early experience with a bidirectional expandable device. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a continuous series of patients across 3 sites who had previously undergone TLIF or PLIF surgery with a bidirectional expandable interbody fusion device (FlareHawk, Integrity Implants, Inc) at 1 or 2 contiguous levels between L2 and S1. Outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a visual analog scale (VAS) for back pain or leg pain, radiographic fusion by 1 year of follow-up, subsidence, device migration, and adverse events (AE). RESULTS: There were 58 eligible patients with radiographs for 1-year fusion assessments and 45 patients with ODI, VAS back pain, or VAS leg pain data at baseline and a mean follow-up of 4.5 months. The ODI, VAS back pain, and VAS leg pain scores improved significantly from baseline to final follow-up, with mean improvements of 14.6 ± 19.1, 3.4 ± 2.6, and 3.9 ± 3.4 points (P < .001 for each), respectively. In addition, 58% of patients achieved clinically significant improvements in ODI, 76% in VAS back pain, and 71% in VAS leg pain. By 1 year, 96.6% of patients and 97.4% of levels were considered fused. There were zero cases of device subsidence and 1 case of device migration (1.7%). There were zero device-related AEs, 1 intraoperative dural tear, and 3 subsequent surgical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The fusion rate, improvements in patient-reported outcomes, and the AEs observed are consistent with those of other devices. The bidirectional expansion mechanism may provide other important clinical value, but further studies will be required to elucidate the unique advantages. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
Authors: Andriy Noshchenko; Lilian Hoffecker; Emily M Lindley; Evalina L Burger; Christopher M J Cain; Vikas V Patel Journal: J Spinal Disord Tech Date: 2015-11
Authors: Ammar H Hawasli; Jawad M Khalifeh; Ajay Chatrath; Chester K Yarbrough; Wilson Z Ray Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Benjamin Khechen; Brittany E Haws; Dil V Patel; Joon S Yoo; Jordan A Guntin; Kaitlyn L Cardinal; Sravisht Iyer; Kern Singh Journal: HSS J Date: 2019-03-27
Authors: Marjan Alimi; Benjamin Shin; Michael Macielak; Christoph P Hofstetter; Innocent Njoku; Apostolos J Tsiouris; Eric Elowitz; Roger Härtl Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2015-06