ArticleNeurospine2025
Radiographic Analysis of Endplate Coverage of a 3-Dimensional-Expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Implant Compared to Static TLIF and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Implants.
Article in Neurospine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTransforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) has become a mainstay technique for interbody fusion, allowing for large contact area between implant and endplate, and providing increased stability and greater area for fusion. The development of 3-dimensional (3D)-expandable implants that provide multidimensional (3D) expansion has shown to provide better height restoration and clinical outcomes when compared to static implants. Comparison of the endplate coverage between 3D-expandable and static TLIF implants has yet to be studied. This study compares endplate coverage achieved with static TLIF, 3D-expandable TLIF, and anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) implants.
methodsA retrospective review of patients undergoing interbody fusion with either static TLIF, 3D-expandable TLIF, or ALIF between the years 2014 and 2022 was conducted. Postoperative computed tomography (CT) imaging was used to measure endplate and implant dimensions. 3D-expandable TLIF interbody device areas were calculated using diameter measurements on postoperative CT. The coverage ratio was defined as the ratio of twice the area of the implant and the sum of the superior and inferior endplate areas at the operative level.
resultsA total of 53 patients per cohort were included. The average endplate coverage ratios for static TLIF, 3D-expandable TLIF, and ALIF implants were 0.19±0.04, 0.35±0.06, and 0.46±0.13, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed comparable coverage of 3D-expandable TLIF to ALIF implants at L3-4 and L4-5, while ALIF remained superior at L5-S1.
conclusion3D-expandable TLIF interbody devices provide greater endplate coverage when compared to static TLIF devices and approach comparable coverage to ALIF implants.
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.