Comparison of surgical outcomes between lumbar interbody fusions using expandable and static cages: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BACKGROUNDThe use of static cages for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) can cause complications such as end plate violation, graft subsidence, and nerve injury. Therefore, expandable cages that allow for in-situ expansion have been developed to overcome these problems. However, it remains uncertain whether expandable cages have better surgical outcomes than static cages do. PURPOSEWe aimed to determine the effectiveness of expandable cages by analyzing studies that compared the surgical outcomes between the use of expandable cages and static cages. STUDY DESIGNA systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODSThe preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to conduct this meta-analysis and systematic review. The primary outcomes of this study were anterior disc height, posterior disc height, segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), subsidence rate, numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). RESULTSThirteen studies with 1,700 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with static cages for LIFs, expandable cages significantly increased the anterior disc height (standardized mean difference 0.478, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.088–0.867, p=.0162) and segmental lordosis (sMD 0.307, 95% CI 0.159–0.454, p<.0001). There were no significant differences in the posterior disc height, lumbar lordosis, subsidence rate, back pain, leg pain, or ODI between the two groups. ConclusionExpandable cages show no clear clinical benefit over static cages.