Objective: To compare the early radiographic and clinical outcomes of expandable uniplanar versus biplanar interbody cages used for single-level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).Methods: A retrospective review of 1-level MIS-TLIFs performed with uniplanar and biplanar polyetheretherketone cages was performed. Radiographic measurements were performed on radiographs taken preoperatively, at 6-week follow-up, and 1-year follow-up. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analogue scale (VAS) for back and leg at 3-month and 1-year follow-up.Results: A total of 93 patients (41 uniplanar, 52 biplanar) were included. Both cage types provided significant postoperative improvements in anterior disc height, posterior disc height, and segmental lordosis at 1 year. No significant differences in cage subsidence rates were found between uniplanar (21.9%) and biplanar devices (32.7%) at 6 weeks (odds ratio, 2.015; 95% confidence interval, 0.651–6.235; p = 0.249) with no additional instances of subsidence at 1 year. No significant differences in the magnitude of improvements based on ODI, VAS back, or VAS leg at 3-month or 1-year follow-up between groups and the proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference in ODI, VAS back, or VAS leg at 1 year were not statistically significantly different (p > 0.05). Finally, there were no significant differences in complication rates (p = 0.283), 90-day readmission rates (p = 1.00), revision surgical procedures (p = 0.423), or fusion rates at 1 year (p = 0.457) between groups.Conclusion: Biplanar and uniplanar expandable cages offer a safe and effective means of improving anterior disc height, posterior disc height, segmental lordosis, and patient-reported outcome measures at 1 year postoperatively. No significant differences in radiographic outcomes, subsidence rates, mean subsidence distance, 1-year patient-reported outcomes, and postoperative complications were noted between groups.

This special issue of Sibirica is guest-edited by Joachim Otto Habeck, and the Editors applaud his work to bring together this excellent group of papers resulting from a conference he organized at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle, Germany. Dr Habeck is Coordinator of the Siberian Studies Centre at the MPI, which is now well established as a key institution in the anthropology of Siberia. The conference included scholars from several disciplines, and thus publication in Sibirica seemed to be the perfect choice, reflecting the journal's commitment to cross-disciplinary conversations on the region. This first issue of the fourth volume of Sibirica marks the advent of a new group of editors. Cathryn Brennan and Alan Wood have decided to step down as Editors, although Dr Brennan will remain active with the journal as an Associate Editor. We are greatly indebted to their years of hard work to establish Sibirica as a worldclass scholarly journal. Alexander King has taken on the primary responsibility as editor, and he will be closely supported by an active group of

No abstract