Incidence of Subsidence of Seven Intervertebral Devices in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Network Meta-Analysis

Does the Angulation of the Screws in the Zero-P Implant Affect the Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Patients?

OBJECTIVE

When implanting the Zero-P device, the screws of Zero-P form a bone wedge with a 40 ± 5° cranial and caudal angle (CCA). However, no study has been performed in the optimal CCA of the Zero-P implant. To investigate whether the cranial/caudal angles (CCA) of the screws affect the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients undergoing ACDF with the Zero-P implant.

METHODS

From January 2016 to December 2023, we retrospectively analyzed 186 patients who underwent 1-level ACDF with the Zero-P device. The patients were divided into four groups: group A (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle ≤40°); group B (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle >40°); group C (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle ≤40°); and group D (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle >40°). The clinical outcomes, including Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA), neck disability index (NDI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, the radiological parameters, including cervical lordosis (CL), cervical lordosis of operated segments (OPCL), intervertebral space height (ISH) and fusion rate (FR), and the complications, were evaluated and compared. Parametric tests, non-parametric tests, and chi-square tests were conducted to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The OPCL of group A was significantly less than that of the other groups at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). The ISH of group D was significantly less than that of group A at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). The subsidence rate of group A was significantly less than that of group D at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). At the final follow-up, the upper adjacent-level degeneration (ASD) of group D was significantly less severe than that of groups A and B (p < 0.05). The clinical outcomes do not differ among groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A larger CCA of the screws (cranial angle >40°, caudal angle >40°) was better for maintaining OPCL and reducing the incidence of ASD. A smaller CCA of the screws (cranial angle ≤40°, caudal angle ≤40°) was better for maintaining ISH and reducing the rate of subsidence.

Does Screw Number of Zero-profile Implants in Fusion Segment Influence Intervertebral Stability?

OBJECTIVE

The unclear clinical outcomes of two different zero-profile implants with different number of screws in hybrid surgery restricts the choice of patient-specific implants. This study aims to compare two different implants on its postoperative subsidence, motion stabilization and clinical outcomes. It also provides references to the most reasonable implant choice in fusion surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. From February 2014 to March 2022, 173 patients who underwent hybrid surgery were included. Among them, 122 received surgery with a four screw implant, while 51 received a two screw implant. We analyzed the significance of patient-specific factors, radiographic factors and clinical outcomes. The Wilcoxon rank sum test, t tests/analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and stepwise multivariate logistic regression were adopted for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was observed between the two screw and four screw groups in terms of immediate, middle, and long-term stability and fusion rate (p > 0.05). However, the two screws group had higher FSU height subsidence at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively and higher rates of significant subsidence at three and 6 months postoperatively (p < 0.05). Both groups showed significant clinical improvements at the final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Two screw and four screw implants provide comparable stability, fusion rates and clinical outcomes. However, the two screw implant was inferior to the four screw implant in subsidence prevention. Therefore, the two-screw implant is non-inferior to the four-screw implant in most patients. It can be used as the priority choice in the fusion segment by its easy manageability. However, the patients with a high risk of subsidence such as multilevel surgery, the elderly, lower BMD, bad cervical alignment should receive a four screw implant rather than a two screw implant.

Comparison of Interbody Fusion Strategies in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The optimal choice for fusion strategy in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) remains an unresolved issue. This study aims to perform a network meta-analysis and systematic review of fusion rate and complication rate of various fusion strategies used in ACDF.

METHODS

This study followed Prisma guidelines, and we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to November 11, 2022, for Randomized Controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of fusion modalities in ACDF. The primary outcome was the fusion rate and complication rate. The PROSPERO number is CRD42022374440.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis identified 26 Randomized Controlled trial studies with 1789 patients across 15 fusion methods. The cage with autograft + plating showed the highest fusion rate, surpassing other methods like iliac crest bone graft (ICBG) and artificial bone graft (AFG). The stand-alone cage with autograft (SATG) had the second highest fusion rate. Regarding complication rate, the cage with AFG (CAFG) had the highest rate, more than other methods. The ICBG had a higher complication rate compared to ICBG + P, AFG, stand-alone cage with artificial bone graft, SATG, and CALG. The SATG performed well in both fusion and complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we conducted the first network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of various fusion methods in ACDF. Our findings suggest that SATG, with superior performance in fusion rate and complication rate, may be the optimal choice for ACDF. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously until additional research provides further evidence.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Zero-Profile Anchored Spacer Versus Plate and Cage for 3-Level Contiguous Cervical Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety, clinical outcomes, and radiological results of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with zero-profile anchored spacer (ZPAS) versus plate and cage (PC) for 3-level contiguous cervical degenerative disease.

METHODS

The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42024512706). The Web of Science core collection, PubMed, and Embase were searched up to February 12, 2024. Review Manager 5.3 was used. The relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval were evaluated for dichotomous data. Continuous data were assessed using the mean difference and 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Nine studies comparing ACDF with ZPAS versus PC for 3-level contiguous cervical degenerative disease were included. The intraoperative blood loss and operation time in ZPAS were significantly less than those in PC. The subsidence rate, loss of cervical alignment, fusion segmental height, and intervertebral disc height were significantly greater in ZPAS than in PC. The cervical alignment and dysphagia rate within 6 months were significantly lower in ZPAS than in PC. The ASD of ZPAS was significantly lower than that of PC according to the sensitivity analysis when 1 study was excluded. No significant differences were identified in the other aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ACDF with ZPAS and PC were safe and effective procedures. PC was associated with increased surgical trauma. The ZPAS could better decrease the incidence of ASD and dysphagia. ZPAS was also accompanied by high subsidence rate and poor cervical alignment.

Application of 3D‑printed porous titanium interbody fusion cage vs. polyether ether ketone interbody fusion cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review and meta‑analysis update

The present study aimed to compare the differences between 3D-printed porous titanium and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) interbody fusion cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Literature on the application of 3D-printed porous titanium and PEEK interbody fusion cages for ACDF was searched in the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang and VIP databases. A total of 1,181 articles were retrieved and 12 were finally included. The Cochrane bias risk assessment criteria and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used for quality evaluation and Review Manager 5.4 was used for data analysis. The 3D cage group was superior to the PEEK cage group in terms of operative time [mean difference (MD): -7.68; 95% confidence interval (CI): -11.08, -4.29; P<0.00001], intraoperative blood loss (MD: -6.17; 95%CI: -10.56, -1.78; P=0.006), hospitalization time (MD: -0.57; 95%CI: -0.86, -0.28: P=0.0001), postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR): 0.35; 95%CI: 0.15, 0.80; P=0.01], C2-7 Cobb angle (MD: 2.85; 95%CI: 1.45, 4.24; P<0.0001), intervertebral space height (MD: 1.20; 95%CI: 0.54, 1.87; P=0.0004), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Assessment of Treatment (MD: 0.69; 95%CI: 0.24, 1.15; P=0.003) and visual analogue scale score (MD: -0.43; 95%CI: -0.78, -0.07; P=0.02). The difference was statistically significant, while there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of fusion rate (OR: 1.74; 95%CI: 0.71, 4.27; P=0.23). The use of 3D-printed porous titanium interbody fusion cage in ACDF has the advantages of short operation time, less bleeding loss, shorter hospitalization time and fewer postoperative complications. It can better maintain the cervical curvature and intervertebral height, relieve pain and accelerate postoperative functional recovery.

Porous 3D Printed Titanium Cages in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion are Associated With Less Subsidence, Improved Maintenance of Segmental Lordotic Correction, and Similar Clinical Outcomes as Allograft

STUDY-DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

OBJECTIVES

Investigate radiographic and clinical outcomes of 3D printed titanium cages (3DTC) vs allograft in patients undergoing Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS

Consecutive series of patients undergoing ACDF with 3DTC were compared to patients using corticocancellous allograft. Cage subsidence, fusion status, sagittal alignment, and patient-reported-outcomes. Radiographic evaluation was performed on the closing intraoperative x-ray and compared to films at 6-weeks, 6-months, and 1-year. Cage subsidence was calculated based on the amount of settling into superior and inferior endplates compared to the intraoperative x-ray. Fusion was assessed based on < 1 mm of flexion/extension motion. Sagittal alignment parameters and patient-reported-outcomes were measured.

RESULTS

Seventy six-patients/(120 levels) in 3DTC group and 77-patients/(115 levels) in allograft group were evaluated. No significant differences were noted in patient demographics, level fused or the number of levels fused between the groups. The most common level fused was C5-6. 3DTC had a significantly lower subsidence rate at all-time points as compared to allograft (P < .001). 3DTC maintained segmental lordosis better than allograft at all-time points including 1-year postop (P < .001). No significant differences were noted in fusion rate for 3DTC vs allograft at 6-months (P > .05). There were no significant differences in patient-reported-outcomes.

CONCLUSION

3D printed titanium cages had similar patient-reported outcomes and fusion rates as allograft, but less subsidence at all-time points. 3D printed titanium cages better maintained the segmental lordosis at the operative level at all-time points. Although longer term evaluation is needed, based on these results, 3DTC appear to be viable graft options for ACDF that better maintain disc space height and improve segmental lordotic interbody correction.

Cervical Vertebral Bone Quality Score Independently Predicts Zero-Profile Cage Subsidence After Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

OBJECTIVE

This is the first study to evaluate the predictive value of the cervical vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score on zero-profile cage (ZPC)subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using the Hounsfield units (HU) value of computed tomography as the reference.

METHODS

A total of 89 patients with at least 1 year of follow-up who underwent single-level ACDF with ZPC were retrospectively and consecutively included. VBQ and HU value were determined from preoperative T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography. Subsidence was defined as ≥2 mm of migration of the cage into the superior or inferior endplate or both using lateral cervical spine radiography. The results were subjected to statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Subsidence was observed among 16 of the 89 study patients (Subsidence rate: 18.0%). The mean VBQ score was 2.94 ± 0.820 for patients with subsidence and 2.33 ± 0.814 for patients without subsidence. The multivariable analysis demonstrated that only an increased VBQ score (odds ratio: 1.823, 95% confidence interval : 0.918,3.620, P = 0.001) was associated with an increased rate of cage subsidence. There was a significant and moderate correlation between HU and VBQ (r = -0.507, P < 0.001). Using receiver operating characteristic curves, the area under the curve was 0.785, and the most appropriate threshold of VBQ was 2.68 (sensitivity 72.7%, specificity 82.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The VBQ score may be a valuable tool for independently predicting ZPC subsidence after single-level ACDF.

Structural Allograft Versus Mechanical Interbody Devices Augmented With Osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Literature Review.

OBJECTIVE

Perform a systematic review evaluating postoperative fusion rates for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using structural allograft vs various interbody devices augmented with different osteobiologic materials.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed. Included studies were those that reported results of 1-4 levels ACDF using pure structural allograft compared with a mechanical interbody device augmented with an osteobiologic. Excluded studies were those that reported on ACDF with cervical corpectomy; anterior and posterior cervical fusions; circumferential (360° or 540°) fusion or revision ACDF for nonunion or other conditions. Risk of bias was determined using the Cochrane review guidelines.

RESULTS

8 articles reporting fusion rates of structural allograft and an interbody device/osteobiologic pair were included. All included studies compared fusion rates following ACDF among structural allograft vs non-allograft interbody device/osteobiologic pairs. Fusion rates were reported between 84% and 100% for structural allograft, while fusion rates for various interbody device/osteobiologic combinations ranged from 26% to 100%. Among non-allograft cage groups fusion rates varied from 73-100%. One study found PEEK cages filled with combinations of autograft, allograft, and demineralized bone matrix (DBM) to have an overall fusion rate of 26%. In one study comparing plate and zero-profile constructs, there was no difference in fusion rates for two-level fusions.

CONCLUSION

There was limited data comparing fusion outcomes of patients undergoing ACDF using structural allograft vs interbody devices augmented with osteobiologic materials to support superiority of one method.

Biomechanical study of anterior transpedicular root screw intervertebral fusion system of lower cervical spine: a finite element analysis

Background: The cervical anterior transpedicular screw (ATPS) fixation technology can provide adequate stability for cervical three-column injuries. However, its high risk of screw insertion and technical complexity have restricted its widespread clinical application. As an improvement over the ATPS technology, the cervical anterior transpedicular root screw (ATPRS) technology has been introduced to reduce the risk associated with screw insertion. This study aims to use finite element analysis (FEA) to investigate the biomechanical characteristics of a cervical spine model after using the novel ATPRS intervertebral fusion system, providing insights into its application and potential refinement. Methods: A finite element (FE) model of the C3-C7 lower cervical spine was established and validated. After two-level (C4-C6) anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery, FE models were constructed for the anterior cervical locked-plate (ACLP) internal fixation, the ATPS internal fixation, and the novel ATPRS intervertebral fusion system. These models were subjected to 75N axial force and 1.0 Nm to induce various movements. The range of motion (ROM) of the surgical segments (C4-C6), maximum stress on the internal fixation systems, and maximum stress on the adjacent intervertebral discs were tested and recorded. Results: All three internal fixation methods effectively reduced the ROM of the surgical segments. The ATPRS model demonstrated the smallest ROM during flexion, extension, and rotation, but a slightly larger ROM during lateral bending. Additionally, the maximum bone-screw interface stresses for the ATPRS model during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation were 32.69, 64.24, 44.07, 35.89 MPa, which were lower than those of the ACLP and ATPS models. Similarly, the maximum stresses on the adjacent intervertebral discs in the ATPRS model during flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation consistently remained lower than those in the ACLP and ATPS models. However, the maximum stresses on the cage and the upper endplate of the ATPRS model were generally higher. Conclusion: Although the novel ATPRS intervertebral fusion system generally had greater endplate stress than ACLP and ATPS, it can better stabilize cervical three-column injuries and might reduce the occurrence of adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). Furthermore, further studies and improvements are necessary for the ATPRS intervertebral fusion system.

Cervical vertebral Hounsfield units are a better predictor of Zero-P subsidence than the T-score of DXA in patients following single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile anchored spacer

OBJECTIVES

To determine the predictive effect of Hounsfield unit (HU) values in the cervical vertebral body measured by computed tomography (CT) and T-scores measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) on Zero-P subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)with Zero-P. In addition, we evaluated the most reliable measurement of cervical HU values.

METHODS

We reviewed 76 patients who underwent single-level Zero-P fusion for cervical spondylosis. HU values were measured on CT images according to previous studies. Univariate analysis was used to screen the influencing factors of Zero-P subsidence, and then, logistic regression was used to determine the independent risk factors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate the ability to predict Zero-P subsidence.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (15.8%) developed Zero-P subsidence. There were significant differences between subsidence group and non-subsidence group in terms of age, axial HU value, and HU value of midsagittal, midcoronal, and midaxial (MSCD), but there were no significant differences in lowest T-score and lowest BMD. The axial HU value (OR = 0.925) and HU value of MSCD (OR = 0.892) were independent risk factors for Zero-P subsidence, and the lowest T-score was not (OR = 1.186). The AUC of predicting Zero-P subsidence was 0.798 for axial HU value, 0.861 for HU value of MSCD, and 0.656 for T-score.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower cervical HU value indicates a higher risk of subsidence in patients following Zero-P fusion for single-level cervical spondylosis. HU values were better predictors of Zero-P subsidence than DXA T-scores. In addition, the measurement of HU value in the midsagittal, midcoronal, and midaxial planes of the cervical vertebral body provides an effective method for predicting Zero-P subsidence.

The Effect of Interbody Cage Parameters on the Rate of Subsidence in Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF): A Retrospective Analysis of 98 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Subsidence is a relatively common consequence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. This study aimed to identify the effect of radiological and non-radiological risk factors on subsidence after a single-level ACDF surgery with cage and plate.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent ACDF for radiculopathy or myelopathy at an academic center, University of Kentucky Albert Chandler Hospital, Lexington, Kentucky, United States, between January 2010 and January 2020. Subsidence was defined as the sinking of the interbody cage into the vertebral body at either the superior end plate (SEP) or inferior end plate (IEP) at the ACDF level and was measured manually on lateral standing x-ray. The numerical amount of subsidence was measured in millimeters as the sum of subsidence in the SEP and IEP and was further categorized into subsidence2 and subsidence3 (i.e., presence of subsidence > 2 mm and subsidence > 3 mm, respectively). Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess the effect of variables such as age, gender, body mass index (BMI), tobacco use, follow-up length, cage type, anterior cage height, posterior cage height, anterior cage height ratio, posterior cage height ratio, cage position, cage-end plate interface and cervical alignment on outcomes such as subsidence, subsidence2, and subsidence3.

RESULTS

A total of 98 patients were included, of which 46 (47.1%) were male. The mean age of the population was 47.6±8.4 years. Fifty-one patients (52%) experienced subsidence more than 3 mm. Anterior disc height ratio (ADHR) was calculated by dividing the anterior cage height by the anterior disc height (pmADH). The posterior disc height ratio (PDHR) was calculated by dividing the posterior cage height by the posterior disc height (pmPDH). There was no significant correlation between ADHR and PDHR with subsidence, (p=0.93 and 0.56, respectively). Gender, age, BMI, and smoking status did not affect subsidence either. Cage type significantly affected subsidence with a higher subsidence rate in VG2 cages compared to Bengal cages (p=0.05).

CONCLUSION

 This study showed that in patients undergoing single-level ACDF with cage and plate, cage size and in particular cage height (if adjusted for individual patients) did not affect subsidence. Other factors such as cage-endplate interface, cage depth in interbody space, and cervical alignment did not significantly affect subsidence either. This might be attributable to the use of an anterior plating system that conducts the force and reduces the stress on the graft-bone interface.

Uncovertebral Joint Fusion Versus End Plate Space Fusion in Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The uncovertebral joint is a potential region for anterior cervical fusion. Currently, we are aware of no clinical trials on human uncovertebral joint fusion (UJF). The purpose of this study was to compare the time it took to achieve osseous union/fusion and the clinical efficacy of UJF to end plate space fusion (ESF)-i.e., traditional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF)-in anterior cervical surgery.

METHODS

Patients with single-level cervical spondylosis were recruited from April 2021 through October 2022 and randomly divided into the UJF and ESF groups, with 40 patients in each group. Autologous iliac bone was used for bone grafting in both groups. The primary outcome was the early fusion rate at 3 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the prevalence of complications and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, Neck Disability Index (NDI), and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for arm and neck pain.

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients (92.5%) with an average age of 49.8 years (range, 26 to 65 years) completed the trial and were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups at baseline. The operative duration and intraoperative blood loss were also comparable between the 2 groups. The fusion rate in the UJF group was significantly higher than that in the ESF group at 3 months (66.7% compared with 13.2%, p < 0.0001) and 6 months (94.1% compared with 66.7%, p = 0.006) after the operation. No significant difference was found in the fusion rate between the 2 groups 12 months postoperatively. Overall, the PROMs significantly improved after surgery in both groups and did not differ significantly between the groups at any follow-up time point. The prevalence of complications was not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study of anterior cervical fusion surgery, we found that the early fusion rate after UJF was significantly higher than that after ESF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Clinical impact and imaging results after a modified procedure of ACDF: a prospective case-controlled study based on ninety cases with two-year follow-up

Study design

This is a prospective case-controlled study.

Background

To analyze the postoperative axial pain and cage subsidence of patients presenting with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) after a modified procedure of ACDF (mACDF).

Methods

Ninety patients with CSM were prospectively collected from 2014 to 2018. The patients were divided into spread group and non-spread group (48:42 ratio) according to the cage placement with or without releasing the Caspar cervical retractor after decompression. Spread group received conventional ACDF and non-spread group received mACDF. Patients were followed-up for at least 24 months after surgery. Radiologic data, including height of intervertebral space and Cobb Angle, were collected. Nervous system function was obtained using JOA scores, and level of pain was assessed using VAS scores.

Results

A total of 90 patients were enrolled and the patients were divided into spread group (n = 48) and none-spread group(n = 42). Cage subsidence of (spread group vs none-spread group) was (0.82 ± 0.68 vs 0.58 ± 0.81) mm, (0.64 ± 0.77 vs 0.34 ± 0.46) mm, (0.48 ± 0.43 vs 0.25 ± 0.28) mm, and (0.45 ± 0.47 vs 0.17 ± 0.32) mm at 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months, respectively. The period exhibiting the most decrease of the height of intervertebral space was 3 months postoperatively. However, there was no statistical difference in the height of intervertebral space, JOA or VAS scores at the final follow-up between the two groups.

Conclusions

The mACDF can avoid excessive distraction by releasing the Caspar Cervical retractor, restore the “natural height” of cervical vertebra, relieve immediate pain after surgery, and prevent rapid Cage subsidence and the loss of cervical curvature.

Current Concepts of Contemporary Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Designs, Part 2: Feasibility Assessment of an Endplate Conforming Bidirectional Expandable Interbody Cage

BACKGROUND

Expandable cages that allow for bidirectional expansion, in both height and width, may offer benefits over traditional expandable cages or static cages. Effective stiffness must also be considered, as implants with exceedingly high stiffness may increase subsidence risk and reduce graft loading.

METHODS

A retrospective case series of 7 patients were assessed with computed tomography (CT) scan at the final 1-year follow-up to evaluate the interbody fusion and configuration of the expandable cage related to the endplates within the intervertebral space. CT scans were reformatted using cage's tantalum markers as fiducials for single-plane orientation for each intervertebral cage. Device height and width at maximum in situ expansion was measured at its anterior and posterior aspects to evaluate implant deformation. The new bone volume within each cage was measured from the same CT scan data sets and by the Bridwell classification of interbody fusion.

RESULTS

The average difference between medial and lateral height measurements was 1.82 mm (±1.08) at the device's anterior aspect and 1.41 mm (±0.98) at the posterior aspect. The average difference between medial and lateral heights was 18.55% (±9.34) anteriorly and 15.49% (±9.24) posteriorly. There was a successful fusion in all 7 patients, as evidenced by measurable bone volume in the center of each interbody cage with an average of 586.42 mm3 (±237.06).

CONCLUSION

The authors demonstrated the feasibility of successfully using bidirectionally expandable multimaterial cages to achieve interbody fusion. These composite open-architecture cages were found to conform to each patient's endplate configuration. The authors' observations support the concept of material selection impacting the effective construct stiffness. The design investigated by the authors provided sufficient anterior column support and successful fusion in all patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Current Concepts of Contemporary Expandable Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage Designs, Part 1: An Editorial on Their Biomechanical Characteristics

BACKGROUND

Bidirectional expandable designs for lumbar interbody fusion cages are the latest iteration of expandable spacers employed to address some of the common problems inherent to static interbody fusion cages.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the rationales for contemporary bidirectional, multimaterial expandable lumbar interbody fusion cage designs to achieve in situ expansion for maximum anterior column support while decreasing insertion size during minimal-access surgeries.

METHODS

The authors summarize the current concepts behind expandable spinal fusion open architecture cage designs focusing on advanced minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques, such as endoscopy. A cage capable of bidirectional expansion in both height and width to address constrained surgical access problems was of particular interest to the authors while they analyzed the relationship between implant material stiffness and geometric design regarding the risk of subsidence and reduced graft loading.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomechanical advantages of new bidirectional, multimaterial expandable interbody fusion cages allow insertion through minimal surgical access and combine the advantages of proven device configurations and advanced material selection. The final construct stiffness is sufficient to provide immediate anterior column support while accommodating reduced sizes required for minimally invasive surgery applications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

7.