Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Other Publications
    • ijss

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
International Journal of Spine Surgery
  • My alerts
International Journal of Spine Surgery

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Advance Online Publication
    • Archive
  • About Us
    • About ISASS
    • About the Journal
    • Author Instructions
    • Editorial Board
    • Reviewer Guidelines & Publication Criteria
  • More
    • Advertise
    • Subscribe
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Join Us
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Sponsored Content
  • Follow ijss on Twitter
  • Visit ijss on Facebook
Research ArticleLumbar Spine

Expandable vs Static Interbody Devices for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Philip Zakko, James D. Whaley, Gordon Preston and Daniel K. Park
International Journal of Spine Surgery April 2022, 16 (S1) S53-S60; DOI: https://doi.org/10.14444/8236
Philip Zakko
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James D. Whaley
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gordon Preston
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
DO
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel K. Park
1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Beaumont Health, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

    • View popup
    Table

    Various expandable interbody devices on the market and their specifications, including starting width, length, height, lordosis, and direction of expansion.

    ProductManufacturerRelease DateMaterialStarting Width (A-P)Starting Length (M-L)Starting HeightStarting LordosisDirection of ExpansionBack FillingLiterature
    XLX ACRNuVasive2018Titanium23 mm50, 55, or 60 mm4, 6, 8, 10 mm10°Lordosis, 10–30°Yes NA
    Caliber-LGlobus Medical2012PEEK/titanium16, 18, or 22 mm40–60 mmParallel expansion 7, 9, or 11 mm6° Expansion range 8 mm10° Expansion range 10 or 12 mm0°, 6°, or 10°Height, up to 5 mmNoFrisch et al8
    Rise-LGlobus Medical2015PEEK/titanium18 or 22 mm40–60 mmParallel expansion 7 or 10 mm6° Expansion range 8 mm10° Expansion range 10 mm0°, 6°, or 10°Height, up to 7 mmYesHuang et al9Li et al10
    ELSAGlobus Medical2016Titanium20 mm40–65 mmParallel expansion 7 or 10 mm6° Expansion range 8 mm10° Expansion range 10 mm0°, 6°, or 10°Height, up to 7 mmYesBrady et al11
    ELSA (AL)Globus Medical2017Titanium20 mm40–65 mm5°–20° Expansion range 8 mm15°–30° Expansion range 11 mm5° or 15°Height, up to 9 mmLordosis, 5°–20° or 15°–30°Yes NA
    ELSA (ATP)Globus Medical2017Titanium20 mm40–65 mmParallel expansion 7 or 10 mm6° Expansion range 8 mm10° Expansion range 10 mm0°, 6°, or 10°Height, up to 7 mmYesNA 
    StaXx XDLSpine Wave2011PEEK with 6% barium & tantalum markers14 or 16 mmVarious8 mm0° or 6°Height expansion in 1 mm incrementsNoAlimi et al12
    SagittaeSpineEX2018Titanium21.5 mm42–58 mm8.4 mm0°Height, 8.4–17.1 mmLordosis, 0°–30°Yes NA
    AccuLif XLCoAlign Innovations2014Titanium18 or 22 mm40–60 mm18 mm width 6, 8, or 10 mm22 mm width 7 or 10 mm0°, 6°, or 10°Height, up to 7 mmYes NA
    LongbowLifespine20162019PEEKTitanium15 mm45–60 mm9–15 mm0° or 7°Width, 27 mm full expanded widthYes NA
    Toro-LIntegrity Implants2021Titanium14 mm45–60 mm8 mm10 mm11 mm5°10°15°Height, up to 5 mm increaseWidth, either 21 or 24 mmYes NA
    • A-P, anterior to posterior; M-L, medial to lateral; NA, not available; PEEK, polyetheretherketone.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

International Journal of Spine Surgery: 16 (S1)
International Journal of Spine Surgery
Vol. 16, Issue S1
1 Apr 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on International Journal of Spine Surgery.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Expandable vs Static Interbody Devices for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
(Your Name) has sent you a message from International Journal of Spine Surgery
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the International Journal of Spine Surgery web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Expandable vs Static Interbody Devices for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Philip Zakko, James D. Whaley, Gordon Preston, Daniel K. Park
International Journal of Spine Surgery Apr 2022, 16 (S1) S53-S60; DOI: 10.14444/8236

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Expandable vs Static Interbody Devices for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Philip Zakko, James D. Whaley, Gordon Preston, Daniel K. Park
International Journal of Spine Surgery Apr 2022, 16 (S1) S53-S60; DOI: 10.14444/8236
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND GEOMETRIC NATURE OF LLIF DEVICES
    • SUBSIDENCE
    • INDIRECT DECOMPRESSION
    • LUMBAR LORDOSIS
    • SPECIFIC ACCESS AND IMPLANT-RELATED COMPLICATIONS
    • PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES
    • COST
    • CONCLUSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparison of Stand-Alone Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, 360° Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion, and Arthroplasty for Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: Focus on Nerve Decompression and Painful Spinal Instability Resolution
  • Association Between Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Use and Surgical Outcomes Following Posterior Lumbar Fusion: A Medical Claims Database Analysis
  • Postoperative Brace Prescription Practices for Elective Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Questionnaire-Based Study of Spine Surgeons in Japan
Show more Lumbar Spine

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • LLIF
  • device
  • spacer
  • cage
  • interbody
  • expandable
  • static

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Content
  • Archive

More Information

  • About IJSS
  • About ISASS
  • Privacy Policy

More

  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Feedback

Other Services

  • Author Instructions
  • Join ISASS
  • Reprints & Permissions

© 2025 International Journal of Spine Surgery

International Journal of Spine Surgery Online ISSN: 2211-4599

Powered by HighWire