Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 10, 2025
Clinical Application of Microscope-Assisted Minimally Invasive Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Published on: June 16, 2023
Comparative Effectiveness of Expandable Versus Static Interbody Spacers via MIS LLIF: A 2-Year Radiographic and
Yan Michael Li1, Richard F Frisch2, Zheng Huang3
16927University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA.
Study Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Objective:
The purpose of this study is to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of expandable interbody spacers to static interbody spacers.
Methods:
This is a retrospective, institutional review board-exempt chart review of 62 consecutive patients diagnosed with degenerative disc disease who underwent minimally invasive spine surgery lateral lumbar interbody fusion (MIS LLIF) using static or expandable spacers. There were 27 patients treated with static spacers, and 35 with expandable spacers. Radiographic and clinical functional outcomes were collected. Statistical results were significant if P < .05.
Results:
Mean improvement in visual analogue scale back and leg pain scores was significantly greater in the expandable group compared to the static group at 6 and 24 months by 42.3% and 63.8%, respectively (P < .05). Average improvement in Oswestry Disability Index scores was significantly greater in the expandable group than the static group at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months by 28%, 44%, 59%, 53%, and 89%, respectively (P < .05). For disc height, the mean improvement from baseline to 24 months was greater in the static group compared to the expandable group (P < .05). Implant subsidence was significantly greater in the static group (16.1%, 5/31 levels) compared with the expandable group (6.7%, 3/45 levels; P < .05).
Conclusions:
This study showed positive clinical and radiographic outcomes for patients who underwent MIS LLIF with expandable spacers compared to those with static spacers. Sagittal correction and pain relief was achieved and maintained through 24-month follow-up. The expandable group had a lower subsidence rate than the static group.
