3D printed titanium banana interbody cages versus titanium-coated PEEK bullet cages for TLIF

被引:0
|
作者
Jacob, Connor C. [1 ,3 ]
Eaton, Ryan [2 ]
Ward, Jacob [1 ]
Sette, Katelyn [1 ]
Wilson, Seth [1 ]
Weber, Matthieu D. [1 ]
Duru, Olivia [1 ]
Keister, Alexander [1 ]
Harrigan, Markus E. [1 ]
Grossbach, Andrew J. [2 ]
Viljoen, Stephanus [2 ]
机构
[1] OHIO STATE UNIV, Coll Med, 1645 Neil Ave, COLUMBUS, OH 43210 USA
[2] Ohio State Univ, Dept Neurosurg, 410 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
[3] Ohio State Univ, Coll Med, Columbus, OH 43210 USA
关键词
TLIF; 3D printed titanium; PEEK; fusion; subsidence; LUMBAR FUSION SURGERY; STENOSIS; SPONDYLOLISTHESIS; METAANALYSIS; ROUGHNESS; DISEASE; LEVEL;
D O I
10.1016/j.clineuro.2025.108731
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: Lumbar degenerative spinal disease is a common, major cause of pain and disability. Titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) are popular materials for interbody implants although evidence is mixed on which material is superior in terms of fusion and subsidence. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of 3D printed titanium (3DPT) cages in patients undergoing TLIFs, as well as complication profiles based on widely used outcome metrics and reoperation events. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted for patients receiving 1- or 2-level TLIF at an academic medical center between January 2018 and May 2022. Patients were divided into two cohorts according to the material of interbody cage(s), either 3DPT banana or titanium-coated PEEK bullet. Radiographs, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were analyzed and compared. All included patients had radiographic and clinical follow-up of at least one year. Results: 200 patients with 277 interbody cage-implanted levels were included. Patients received either 3DPT (n = 140) or PEEK (n = 60) interbody cages with 202 and 75 instrumented vertebral levels per cohort, respectively. At one year, the 3DPT cohort demonstrated a higher fusion rate of 93.3 % compared to the PEEK cohort's fusion rate of 73.2 % (p < 0.0001). Subsidence rates were 6.0 % and 25.0 % for the 3DPT and PEEK groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: While 3DPT and PEEK interbody cages demonstrated few adverse events at short- and long-term follow-up, 3DPT exhibited a higher rate of fusion and lower rate of subsidence at one year.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of Short-Term Radiographical and Clinical Outcomes After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a 3D Porous Titanium Alloy Cage and a Titanium-Coated PEEK Cage
    Makino, Takahiro
    Takenaka, Shota
    Sakai, Yusuke
    Yoshikawa, Hideki
    Kaito, Takashi
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2022, 12 (05) : 931 - 939
  • [32] Impaction durability of porous polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) and titanium-coated PEEK interbody fusion devices
    Torstrick, F. Brennan
    Klosterhoff, Brett S.
    Westerlund, L. Erik
    Foley, Kevin T.
    Gochuico, Joanna
    Lee, Christopher S. D.
    Gall, Ken
    Safranski, David L.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2018, 18 (05): : 857 - 865
  • [33] 3D-printed porous titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of subsidence
    Liu, Shu-Xin
    Zeng, Teng-Hui
    Chen, Chien-Min
    He, Li-Ru
    Feng, An-Ping
    Jhang, Shang-Wun
    Lin, Guang-Xun
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2024, 11
  • [34] 'Subsidence Rates Associated With Porous 3D-Printed Versus Solid Titanium Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion' by Toop et al
    Chaurasia, Shashank
    Kumar, Vishal
    Gupta, Aditya
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2025,
  • [35] The Influence of Titanium-coated Poryetheretherketone Cages in Fusion Status after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Cortical Bone Trajectory Screw Fixation
    Yamagishi, Akira
    Ishii, Masayoshi
    Sakaura, Hironobu
    Yamasaki, Ryoji
    Ohnishi, Atsunori
    Tsukazaki, Hiroyuki
    Ohwada, Tetsuo
    Ando, Wataru
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2024, 183 : E201 - E209
  • [36] Radiographic and Clinical Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Versus 3D-Printed Titanium Cages in Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Single Institution's Experience
    Liu, Diang
    Chan, Julie L.
    Eleanore, Art
    Decost, Kristin
    Luk, Justin
    Neukam, Lissette C.
    Rizvi, Tasneem Zaihra
    Lin, Zhibang
    Ghogawala, Zoher
    Magge, Subu N.
    Yew, Andrew Y.
    Whitmore, Robert G.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2025, 14 (06)
  • [37] Authors' reply to Letter to the Editor regarding: Impaction durability of porous PEEK and titanium-coated PEEK interbody fusion devices
    Torstrick, F. Brennan
    Klosterhoff, Brett S.
    Lee, Christopher S. D.
    Gall, Ken
    Safranski, David L.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2019, 19 (12): : 2042 - 2043
  • [38] Evaluation of Healthcare Outcomes of Patients Treated with 3D-Printed-Titanium and PEEK Cages During Fusion Procedures in the Lumbar Spine
    Corso, Katherine A.
    Teferra, Andreas A.
    Michielli, Annalisa
    Corrado, Kristin
    Marcini, Amy
    Lotito, Mark
    Smith, Caroline
    Costa, Michelle
    Ruppenkamp, Jill
    Wallace, Anna
    MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2025, 18 : 37 - 51
  • [39] PEEK Versus Titanium Static Interbody Cages A Comparison of 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for 1-Level TLIFs
    Canseco, Jose A.
    Karamian, Brian A.
    Patel, Parthik D.
    Divi, Srikanth N.
    Timmons, Tyler
    Hallman, Haydn
    Nachwalter, Ryan
    Lee, Joseph K.
    Kurd, Mark F.
    Anderson, D. Greg
    Rihn, Jeffrey A.
    Hilibrand, Alan S.
    Kepler, Christopher K.
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Schroeder, Gregory D.
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2021, 34 (08): : E483 - E493
  • [40] Comparison of 3D-printed titanium-alloy, standard titanium-alloy, and PEEK interbody spacers in an ovine model
    Van Horn, Margaret R.
    Beard, Roland
    Wang, Wenhai
    Cunningham, Bryan W.
    Mullinix, Kenneth P.
    Allall, May
    Bucklen, Brandon S.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2021, 21 (12): : 2097 - 2103