ArticleGlobal spine journal2020
Comparative Effectiveness of Expandable Versus Static Interbody Spacers via MIS LLIF: A 2-Year Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes Study.
Article in Global spine journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expandable Interbody Cages in 1-3 Level Circumferential Lumbar Arthrodesis with 2-Year Follow up: A Retrospective Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparison of 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Between 2 Expandable Cage Designs in Navigation-Assisted Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Radiological outcomes of static and expandable cage placement in minimally invasive oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective study.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Reduction of degenerative anterolisthesis using an expandable interbody device.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive Lateral Thoracic and Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Expandable Interbody Spacers for Spine Trauma-Indications, Complications and Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Innovative Developments in Lumbar Interbody Cage Materials and Design: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- Expandable cages that expand both height and lordosis provide improved immediate effect on sagittal alignment and short-term clinical outcomes following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF).Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Minimally-invasive lateral thoracic and lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with expandable interbody cages - Considerations, complications & outcomes.Brain & spine · 2024Article
- Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with an expandable interbody device: Two-year clinical and radiographic outcomes.North American Spine Society journal · 2023Article
- Cage subsidence-A multifactorial matter!Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Article
- Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable vs Static Titanium Interbody Cages: A Prospective Cohort Study of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.International journal of spine surgery · 2023Article
- Comparing expandable and static interbody cages in lumbar interbody fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2023Article
- The effect of expandable versus static lordotic interbody implants in minimally invasive spine surgery: patient reported outcomes, sagittal alignment, and restoration of disc height and foraminal height.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2023Article
- Instrumentation choice and early radiographic outcome following lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF): Lateral instrumentation versus posterior pedicle screw fixation.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Article
- Expandable Lateral Lumbar Cages With Integrated Fixation: A Viable Option for Rostral Adjacent Segment Disease.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
- Expandable vs Static Interbody Devices for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study.
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of expandable interbody spacers to static interbody spacers.
methodsThis is a retrospective, institutional review board-exempt chart review of 62 consecutive patients diagnosed with degenerative disc disease who underwent minimally invasive spine surgery lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF) using static or expandable spacers. There were 27 patients treated with static spacers, and 35 with expandable spacers. Radiographic and clinical functional outcomes were collected. Statistical results were significant if
resultsMean improvement in visual analogue scale back and leg pain scores was significantly greater in the expandable group compared to the static group at 6 and 24 months by 42.3% and 63.8%, respectively (
conclusionsThis study showed positive clinical and radiographic outcomes for patients who underwent MIS LLIF with expandable spacers compared to those with static spacers. Sagittal correction and pain relief was achieved and maintained through 24-month follow-up. The expandable group had a lower subsidence rate than the static group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.