Expandable Versus Static Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Would it Differ?

Background: This study aimed to compare both types of interbody fusion either expandable or static types regarding clinical and radiological changes in anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), average disc height, foraminal height (FH), segmental lordosis (SL), and lumbar lordosis (LL). Aim of Study: The primary outcome was detecting which of both types of interbody fusion is superior to the other one. The secondary outcomes included comparison between both types of cages regarding the rate of complications, comparison between both techniques regarding the operative time, patient complaint improvement using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scoring. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study en-rolled adult patients who underwent single- or multiple-levels lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) between 2022 and 2024. Patients were categorized by the cage type used intraoperatively (stat-ic versus expandable). We enrolled 104 patients with lumbar pathology scheduled for posterior spinal fusion surgery with transpedicular screws and interbody fusion. Patients were en-rolled into two groups of 60 patients in the static arm and 44 in the expandable arm. Results: A total of 104 patients were studied (60 static non-expendable group, 44 expandable group). Groups had similar demographic characteristics. There was a significantly higher average ADH in the expandable group compared to the static group (11.3±.8 versus 10.3±.9, p<0.001). There was a signifi-cantly higher average FH in the expandable group compared to the static group. In addition, there was a significantly higher av-erage SL in the expandable group compared to the static group (22.6±5.1 versus 19±4.4, p=0.004), and there was a significant-ly higher average LL in the expandable group compared to the static group (p<0.001). Conclusions: Patients undergoing LIF using cages of either types show improvements in all the assessed parameters in our study SL, LL, ADH, PDH, and FH together with clinical im-provements in the VAS score and the ODI. However, there was evidence of superiority of expandable cages over static types regarding ADH, FH, SL, and LL. With borderline superiority of expandable cages over static cages in blood loss and operative time.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Medical Journal of Cairo University/˜The œMedical Journal of Cairo University
Published
2025-03-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21608/mjcu.2025.423600
Primary Topic
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Expandable Versus Static Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Would it Differ?

Mahmoud Mostafa
The Medical Journal of Cairo University/˜The œMedical Journal of Cairo University
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
article

Expandable Versus Static Lumbar Interbody Fusion, Would it Differ?

Mahmoud Mostafa
article en

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare both types of interbody fusion either expandable or static types regarding clinical and radiological changes in anterior disc height (ADH), posterior disc height (PDH), average disc height, foraminal height (FH), segmental lordosis (SL), and lumbar lordosis (LL). Aim of Study: The primary outcome was detecting which of both types of interbody fusion is superior to the other one. The secondary outcomes included comparison between both types of cages regarding the rate of complications, comparison between both techniques regarding the operative time, patient complaint improvement using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scoring. Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study en-rolled adult patients who underwent single- or multiple-levels lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) between 2022 and 2024. Patients were categorized by the cage type used intraoperatively (stat-ic versus expandable). We enrolled 104 patients with lumbar pathology scheduled for posterior spinal fusion surgery with transpedicular screws and interbody fusion. Patients were en-rolled into two groups of 60 patients in the static arm and 44 in the expandable arm. Results: A total of 104 patients were studied (60 static non-expendable group, 44 expandable group). Groups had similar demographic characteristics. There was a significantly higher average ADH in the expandable group compared to the static group (11.3±.8 versus 10.3±.9, p<0.001). There was a signifi-cantly higher average FH in the expandable group compared to the static group. In addition, there was a significantly higher av-erage SL in the expandable group compared to the static group (22.6±5.1 versus 19±4.4, p=0.004), and there was a significant-ly higher average LL in the expandable group compared to the static group (p<0.001). Conclusions: Patients undergoing LIF using cages of either types show improvements in all the assessed parameters in our study SL, LL, ADH, PDH, and FH together with clinical im-provements in the VAS score and the ODI. However, there was evidence of superiority of expandable cages over static types regarding ADH, FH, SL, and LL. With borderline superiority of expandable cages over static cages in blood loss and operative time.

The Medical Journal of Cairo University/˜The œMedical Journal of Cairo UniversityVol. 93(03)
Cairo University (EG)
Openalex Percentile: Top 87%
Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.