Early Experience With Uniplanar Versus Biplanar Expandable Interbody Fusion Devices in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Objective To compare the early radiographic and clinical outcomes of expandable uniplanar versus biplanar interbody cages used for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF). Methods A retrospective review of 1-level MIS-TLIFs performed with uniplanar and biplanar polyetheretherketone cages was performed. Radiographic measurements were performed on radiographs taken preoperatively, at 6-week follow-up, and 1-year follow-up. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg at 3-month and 1-year follow-up. Results A total of 93 patients (41 uniplanar, 52 biplanar) were included. Both cage types provided significant postoperative improvements in anterior disc height, posterior disc height, and segmental lordosis at 1 year. No significant differences in cage subsidence rates were found between uniplanar (21.9%) and biplanar devices (32.7%) at 6 weeks (odds ratio, 2.015; 95% confidence interval, 0.651–6.235; p = 0.249) with no additional instances of subsidence at 1 year. No significant differences in the magnitude of improvements based on ODI, VAS back, or VAS leg at 3-month or 1-year follow-up between groups and the proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference in ODI, VAS back, or VAS leg at 1 year were not statistically significantly different (p > 0.05). Finally, there were no significant differences in complication rates (p = 0.283), 90-day readmission rates (p = 1.00), revision surgical procedures (p = 0.423), or fusion rates at 1 year (p = 0.457) between groups. Conclusion Biplanar and uniplanar expandable cages offer a safe and effective means of improving anterior disc height, posterior disc height, segmental lordosis, and patient-reported outcome measures at 1 year postoperatively. No significant differences in radiographic outcomes, subsidence rates, mean subsidence distance, 1-year patient-reported outcomes, and postoperative complications were noted between groups.

[1]  E. Roldán-Valadez,et al.  Imaging Assessment of the Postoperative Spine: An Updated Pictorial Review of Selected Complications , 2021, BioMed research international.

[2]  Lee A. Tan,et al.  Long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. , 2020, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[3]  Lee A. Tan,et al.  Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion—Early Experience Using a Biplanar Expandable Cage for Lumbar Spondylolisthesis , 2020, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[4]  R. Yassari,et al.  Effect of Cage Type on Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion. , 2020, World neurosurgery.

[5]  Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez,et al.  Retrospective Review of Immediate Restoration of Lordosis in Single-Level Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of Static and Expandable Interbody Cages. , 2020, Operative neurosurgery.

[6]  F. Geiger,et al.  Open versus minimally invasive TLIF: literature review and meta-analysis , 2019, Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.

[7]  M. Bydon,et al.  Assessing the Difference in Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Expandable Cage and Nonexpandable Cage Among Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. , 2019, World neurosurgery.

[8]  P. Passias,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF , 2019, Spine.

[9]  R. Pockett,et al.  The expandable transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion – Two years follow-up , 2018, Journal of craniovertebral junction & spine.

[10]  A. Chung,et al.  Risk Factors for Expandable Cage Subsidence in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2017 .

[11]  W. Z. Ray,et al.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with expandable versus static interbody devices: radiographic assessment of sagittal segmental and pelvic parameters. , 2017, Neurosurgical focus.

[12]  R. Mobbs,et al.  Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. , 2015, Journal of spine surgery.

[13]  J. Callaghan,et al.  Is lumbar lordosis related to low back pain development during prolonged standing? , 2015, Manual therapy.

[14]  D. Khorsand,et al.  Radiographical and Clinical Evaluation of Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion: Effects of Cage Size and Instrumentation Type With a Minimum of 1-Year Follow-up , 2014, Spine.

[15]  James A. Stadler,et al.  Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF): surgical technique, long-term 4-year prospective outcomes, and complications compared with an open TLIF cohort. , 2014, Neurosurgery clinics of North America.

[16]  Moon-Chan Kim,et al.  Subsidence of Polyetheretherketone Cage After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2013, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[17]  B. Freeman,et al.  Radiologic Assessment of Spinal Fusion , 2012, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[18]  Jessica A. Tang,et al.  Comparison of expandable and fixed interbody cages in a human cadaver corpectomy model, part I: endplate force characteristics. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[19]  M. McGirt,et al.  Minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after neural decompression and fusion for same-level recurrent lumbar stenosis: understanding clinical versus statistical significance. , 2012, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[20]  K. Shimizu,et al.  Kidney-type Intervertebral Spacers Should be Located Anteriorly in Cantilever Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Analyses of Risk Factors for Spacer Subsidence for a Minimum of 2 Years , 2011, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[21]  Shaoling Wu,et al.  Responsiveness of the Chinese version of the Oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[22]  William Horton,et al.  The Impact of Positive Sagittal Balance in Adult Spinal Deformity , 2005, Spine.

[23]  Avinash G. Patwardhan,et al.  Comparison of Posterior and Transforaminal Approaches to Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2001, Spine.

[24]  L. Schultz,et al.  Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. , 2018, Neurosurgical focus.

[25]  Jae Young Choi,et al.  Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages , 2004, European Spine Journal.