Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 19, 2025
Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024
Determining the Difference in Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between Expandable and Nonexpandable Titanium Cages in
Ronan J Doherty1, Waseem Wahood2, Yagiz U Yolcu3
1School of Medicine, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland; Neuro-Informatics Laboratory, Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; Department of Neurologic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Background:
Expandable cages have been increasingly used in cervical and lumbar reconstructions; however, there is a paucity in the literature on how they compare with traditional nonexpandable cages in the cervical spine. We present a systematic review and meta-analysis, comparing the clinical and radiologic outcomes of expandable versus nonexpandable corpectomy cage use in the cervical spine.
Methods:
A database search identified studies detailing the outcomes of expandable and nonexpandable titanium cage use in the cervical spine. These studies were screened using the PRISMA protocol. Fixed-effects and random-effects models were used with a 95% confidence interval. Two analyses were carried out for each outcome: one including all studies and the other including only studies reporting on exclusively 1-level and 2-level cases.
Results:
Forty-one studies were included. The mean change in segmental lordosis was significantly greater in expandable cages (all, 6.72 vs. 3.69°, P < 0.001; 1-level and 2-level, 6.81° vs. 4.31°, P < 0.001). The mean change in cervical lordosis was also significantly greater in expandable cages (all, 5.71° vs. 3.11°, P = 0.027; 1-level and 2-level, 5.71° vs. 2.07°, P = 0.002). No significant difference was found between the complication rates (all, P = 0.43; 1-level and 2-level, P = 0.94); however, the proportion of revisions was significantly greater in expandable cages (all, 0.06 vs. 0.02, P = 0.03; 1-level and 2-level, 0.08 vs. 0.01, P = 0.017).
Conclusions:
The use of expandable cages may carry a modest improvement in radiologic outcomes compared with nonexpandable cages in the cervical spine; however, they may also lead to a higher rate of revisions based on our analyses.
