ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2022
Expandable vs Static Interbody Devices for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of expandable lateral lumbar interbody devices to restore disc height and segmental lordosis: a cadaveric study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026Article
- Higher screw-to-cage length ratios in standalone lateral interbody fusion using integrated, expandable implants provide more predictable outcomes with less variability: A 2-year follow-up study.North American Spine Society journal · 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
- A single straight expandable cage via a hybrid posterior-transforaminal approach with rhBMP-2 or allograft provides high fusion rates with low risk of subsidence.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has paved a way for minimally invasive surgical treatment of a wide variety of spine pathologies. Interbody devices are used to stabilize painful disc levels, provide indirect decompression of neural elements, correct deformity, restore lordosis, and provide a sound durable fusion. Through the years, new static and expandable interbody devices have been developed in an attempt to improve radiographic and clinical outcomes in lumbar spine surgery. The purpose of this article is to explore the advantages and disadvantages between static and expandable interbody devices when used in LLIF. Specifically, this article addresses the differences in subsidence, indirect decompression, restoration of lumbar lordosis, complications, patient-reported outcomes, and cost between static and expandable interbody devices.
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.