ArticleAsian spine journal2023
Static versus Expandable Interbody Fusion Devices: A Comparison of 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early mechanical outcomes of two expandable interbody cages in minimally invasive TLIF: a comparative single-surgeon study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Impact of Expandable versus Static Interbody Cages on Subsidence and Outcomes in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2026Review
- Transfacet transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TF-TLIF) results in greater change in spondylolisthesis and posterior disc height compared to percutaneous TLIF (Perc-TLIF) or minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF): a retrospective study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) with Expandable Banana-Shaped Interbody Spacers-Institutional 5-Year Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Development and internal validation of a risk score for subsidence of expandable spacers in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery.Brain & spine · 2025Article
- Biportal Endoscopic TLIF With an Expandable Cage: Technical Note and Preliminary Results in Terms of Segmental Lordosis Achievement and Disc Height Elevation.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Minimally-invasive trans-facet lumbar interbody fusion using a dual-dimension expandable cage: preliminary results of a multi-institutional retrospective study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Innovative Developments in Lumbar Interbody Cage Materials and Design: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- Intradiscal Osteotomy and Bilateral Expandable Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Cages for Iatrogenic Kyphotic Deformity: A Technical Report.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2024Article
- Lordotic restoration: A comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion expandable and static cages at the lumbosacral junction.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study. PURPOSE: To compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of static versus expandable interbody cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using minimally invasive surgery (MIS-TLIF). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Expandable interbody cages may potentially improve radiographic and clinical outcomes following MIS-TLIF compared to static pages, but at a potentially higher cost and increased rates of subsidence.
methodsA retrospective chart review of 1- and 2-level MIS-TLIFs performed from 2014 to 2020 was reviewed. Radiographic measurements were obtained preoperatively, 6 weeks postoperatively, and at final follow-up. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the Oswestry Disability Index, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) back, and VAS leg were evaluated. Multivariate linear regression analysis determined the effect of cage type on the change in PROMs, controlling for demographic characteristics. Alpha was set at 0.05.
resultsA total of 221 patients underwent MIS-TLIF including 136 static and 85 expandable cages. Expandable cages had significantly greater anterior (static: 11.41 mm vs. expandable: 13.11 mm, p <0.001) and posterior disk heights (static: 7.22 mm vs. expandable: 8.11 mm, p <0.001) at 1-year follow-up. Expandable cages offered similar improvements in segmental lordosis at 6 weeks (static: 1.69° vs. expandable: 2.81°, p =0.243), but segmental lordosis was better maintained with expandable cages leading to significant differences at 1-year follow-up (static: 0.86° vs. expandable: 2.45°, p =0.001). No significant differences were noted in total complication (static: 12.5% vs. expandable: 16.5%, p =0.191) or cage subsidence rates (static: 19.7% vs. expandable: 22.4%, p =0.502) groups at 1-year follow-up.
conclusionsExpandable devices provide greater improvements in radiographic measurements including anterior disk height, posterior disk height, and segmental lordosis, but this did not lead to significant improvements in PROMs, complication rates, subsidence rates, or subsidence distance.
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.