Expandable Cages Increase the Risk of Intraoperative Subsidence but Do Not Improve Perioperative Outcomes in Single Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

[1]  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.

[2]  Kern Singh,et al.  Static Versus Expandable Devices Provide Similar Clinical Outcomes Following Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2019, HSS Journal ®.

[3]  Christopher C. Gillis,et al.  Clinical and Short-Term Radiographic Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Expandable Lordotic Devices. , 2019, Neurosurgery.

[4]  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.

[5]  J. Buchowski,et al.  Outcomes and cost-minimization analysis of cement spacers versus expandable cages for posterior-only reconstruction of metastatic spine corpectomies. , 2019, Annals of translational medicine.

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

[7]  Arash J. Sayari,et al.  Device solutions for a challenging spine surgery: minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) , 2019, Expert review of medical devices.

[8]  J. Rawlinson,et al.  Lordosis Recreation in Transforaminal and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Cadaveric Study of the Influence of Surgical Bone Resection and Cage Angle. , 2018, Spine.

[9]  Howard Y. Park,et al.  Does approach matter? A comparative radiographic analysis of spinopelvic parameters in single-level lumbar fusion. , 2018, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[10]  A. Patwardhan,et al.  Biomechanics of an Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Deployed Through Transforaminal Approach , 2018, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[11]  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.

[12]  K. Rijkers,et al.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[13]  K. Satake,et al.  Cage subsidence in lateral interbody fusion with transpsoas approach: intraoperative endplate injury or late-onset settling , 2017, Spine surgery and related research.

[14]  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.

[15]  Jacob R. Joseph,et al.  Expandable vs Static Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Radiographic Comparison of Segmental and Lumbar Sagittal Angles , 2017, Neurosurgery.

[16]  Xin Fu,et al.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable Technology: A Clinical and Radiographic Analysis of 50 Patients. , 2016, World neurosurgery.

[17]  Alexander W. L. Turner,et al.  MIS Expandable Interbody Spacers: A Literature Review and Biomechanical Comparison of an Expandable MIS TLIF With Conventional TLIF and ALIF , 2016, Spine.

[18]  Jessica A. Tang,et al.  Comparison of Expandable and Fixed Interbody Cages in a Human Cadaver Corpectomy Model: Fatigue Characteristics , 2012, Clinical spine surgery.

[19]  K. Foley,et al.  Surgical Outcomes for Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2015, Neurosurgery.

[20]  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.

[21]  R. Watkins,et al.  Sagittal Alignment After Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparing Anterior, Lateral, and Transforaminal Approaches , 2014, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[22]  W. Yue,et al.  Clinical and radiological outcomes of open versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion , 2011, European Spine Journal.

[23]  A. Villavicencio,et al.  Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion , 2010, Surgical neurology international.

[24]  Meic H. Schmidt,et al.  Comparison of low back fusion techniques: transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) approaches , 2009, Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine.

[25]  S. Oh,et al.  A Multi-center Clinical Study of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with the Expandable Stand-alone Cage (Tyche(R) Cage) for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Disorders. , 2007, Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.