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

• Published in: World neurosurgery Vol. 127; pp. 596 - 606.e1
• Main Authors: Alvi, Mohammed Ali, Kurian, Shyam J., Wahood, Waseem, Goyal, Anshit, Elder, Benjamin D., Bydon, Mohamad
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.07.2019
• Subjects: Expandable cage; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Lordosis - surgery; Lumbar fusion; Lumbar Vertebrae - surgery; Male; Middle Aged; Minimally invasive surgery; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - instrumentation; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures - methods; Nonexpandable cage; Prospective Studies; Reoperation - statistics & numerical data; Retrospective Studies; Spinal Fusion - instrumentation; Spinal Fusion - methods; Spine surgery; Surgical Instruments; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; Treatment Outcome; Lumbar fusion; Minimally invasive surgery; TLIF; Expandable cage; CI; MIS; Spine surgery; Nonexpandable cage; Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
• ISSN: 1878-8750; 1878-8769
• DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.03.284

Minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has been shown to have excellent outcomes for surgical management of degenerative disc disease. However, the challenge is in addressing coronal imbalance and restoring lumbar lordosis and sagittal alignment. Use of expandable cages in MIS-TLIF has been hypothesized to circumvent this disadvantage. An indirect meta-analysis of the evidence is presented comparing outcomes from expandable cages with those from nonexpandable cages, in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF. PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of expandable cages and nonexpandable cages in patients undergoing MIS-TLIF. Twelve studies (706 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The mean increase in disc height was found to be significantly greater for the nonexpandable cages group than for the expandable cages group (1.33 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28–1.38 vs. 1.14 mm,; 95% CI, 1.06–1.23; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found regarding change in lumbar lordosis at last follow-up between the 2 groups (P = 0.34). The mean change in segmental lordosis was found to be significantly higher for the expandable cage group (5.04°, 95% CI, 3.89–6.20 vs. 2.08°, 95% CI, 1.93–2.22; P < 0.001). We did not detect any significant difference in fusion rate (P = 0.33), subsidence rate (P = 0.41) or in reoperations (P = 0.56) at last follow-up between the 2 groups. Our results indicate that there may not be a significant difference in clinical and radiologic parameters between expandable cages and nonexpandable cages among patients undergoing MIS-TLIF, and it is unclear if the higher cost of the expandable cages is justified.