Literature DB >> 33122189

Expandable Interbody Spacers: A Two-Year Study Evaluating Radiologic and Clinical Outcomes With Patient-Reported Outcomes.

Graham Mulvaney1,2, Steve Monk1,2, Jonathan D Clemente3, Deborah Pfortmiller1, Domagoj Coric1,2,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Posterior and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF and TLIF) have gained significant popularity for management of lumbar degenerative spine over the last 3 decades. Expandable interbody spacers are a newer technology that can increase in size after placement, theoretically minimizing the operative risks of static spacers without sacrificing radiographic correction. The goal of this study is to further evaluate the radiographic and clinical outcomes of expandable spacers.
METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective cohort that underwent elective 1- to 3-level PLIF/TLIF with expandable interbody spacers from 2014 to 2020 at a single institution. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) Oswestry Disability Index and Visual Analog Scale were collected at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. Imaging was performed at 12 months, with follow up at 24 months in case of nonunion. Retrospective outcomes were computer tomography (CT) based and Bridwell-Lenke classification of fusion, radiographic parameters, and adverse events.
RESULTS: A total of 50/53 (94.3%) otherwise eligible patients had 12-month PROMs and CT imaging for analysis. Here, 50% were obese (body mass index > 30), 58% had a smoking history, and 24% had a prior lumbar procedure. Also, 46/50 (92%) patients fused by CT criteria. Significant decrease in PROMs was seen as early as 6 weeks postoperatively. The mean change in preoperative-to-postoperative global lordosis values was 3.8° ± 15.6°. There were 4 (8%) intraoperative durotomies and 5 (10%) patients requiring reoperation for nonunion.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the use of expandable spacers in a high comorbidity cohort with low complications, excellent improvement in PROMs despite minimal lordotic improvement, and high rates of fusion without recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) or iliac crest bone graft. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Expandable interbody fusion can significantly improve outcomes for degenerative lumbar spondylosis, with good safety profile, and high fusion rates. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
Copyright © 2020 ISASS.

Entities:  

Keywords:  fusion; interbody cages; radiographic parameters

Year:  2020        PMID: 33122189      PMCID: PMC7735441          DOI: 10.14444/7124

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Spine Surg        ISSN: 2211-4599


  29 in total

1.  The treatment of ruptured lumbar intervertebral discs by vertebral body fusion. I. Indications, operative technique, after care.

Authors:  R B CLOWARD
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1953-03       Impact factor: 5.115

2.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of symptomatic spinal stenosis.

Authors:  D Coric; C L Branch
Journal:  Neurosurg Focus       Date:  1997-08-15       Impact factor: 4.047

3.  Clinical outcomes of 3 fusion methods through the posterior approach in the lumbar spine.

Authors:  Ki-Tack Kim; Sang-Hun Lee; Young-Ho Lee; Sung-Chul Bae; Kyung-Soo Suk
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2006-05-20       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Perioperative complications of primary posterior lumbar interbody fusion for nonisthmic spondylolisthesis: analysis of risk factors.

Authors:  Noboru Hosono; Masato Namekata; Takahiro Makino; Toshitada Miwa; Takashi Kaito; Noriyoshi Kaneko; Takeshi Fuji
Journal:  J Neurosurg Spine       Date:  2008-11

5.  Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial.

Authors:  J W Brantigan; A D Steffee; M L Lewis; L M Quinn; J M Persenaire
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2000-06-01       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  The Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire.

Authors:  J C Fairbank; J Couper; J B Davies; J P O'Brien
Journal:  Physiotherapy       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 3.358

7.  Vertebral bone resorption after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bone morphogenetic protein (rhBMP-2).

Authors:  John W McClellan; Daniel S Mulconrey; Robert J Forbes; Nancy Fullmer
Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech       Date:  2006-10

8.  Radiographic restoration of lumbar alignment after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

Authors:  Jay Jagannathan; Charles A Sansur; Rod J Oskouian; Kai-Ming Fu; Christopher I Shaffrey
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 4.654

9.  Vertebral osteolysis after posterior interbody lumbar fusion with recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2: a report of five cases.

Authors:  Kai-Uwe Lewandrowski; Christopher Nanson; Robert Calderon
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-05-07       Impact factor: 4.166

10.  Laminectomy plus Fusion versus Laminectomy Alone for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  Zoher Ghogawala; James Dziura; William E Butler; Feng Dai; Norma Terrin; Subu N Magge; Jean-Valery C E Coumans; J Fred Harrington; Sepideh Amin-Hanjani; J Sanford Schwartz; Volker K H Sonntag; Fred G Barker; Edward C Benzel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  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
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.