Nallammai Muthiah1,2, Yagiz Ugur Yolcu3, Nima Alan2, Nitin Agarwal4, David Kojo Hamilton2, Alp Ozpinar5. 1. School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. 3. Department of Neurosurgery, The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Neurological Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 5. Department of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. ozpinara@upmc.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Interbody fusion is commonly utilized for arthrodesis and stability among patients undergoing spine surgery. Over the last few decades, interbody device materials, such as titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK), have been replacing traditional autografts and allografts for interbody fusion. As such, with the exponential growth of bioengineering, a large variety cage surface technologies exist. Different combinations of cage component materials and surface modifications have been created to optimize interbody constructs for surgical use. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of common surface technologies, their performance in the clinical setting, and recent modifications and material combinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a comprehensive review of the literature on titanium and PEEK as medical devices between 1964 and 2021. We searched five major databases, resulting in 4974 records. Articles were screened for inclusion manually by two independent reviewers, resulting in 237 articles included for review. CONCLUSION: Interbody devices have rapidly evolved over the last few decades. Biomaterial and biomechanical modifications have allowed for continued design optimization. While titanium has a high osseointegrative capacity, it also has a high elastic modulus and is radio-opaque. PEEK, on the other hand, has a lower elastic modulus and is radiolucent, though PEEK has poor osseointegrative capacity. Surface modifications, material development advancements, and hybrid material devices have been utilized in search of an optimal spinal implant which maximizes the advantages and minimizes the disadvantages of each interbody material.
INTRODUCTION: Interbody fusion is commonly utilized for arthrodesis and stability among patients undergoing spine surgery. Over the last few decades, interbody device materials, such as titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK), have been replacing traditional autografts and allografts for interbody fusion. As such, with the exponential growth of bioengineering, a large variety cage surface technologies exist. Different combinations of cage component materials and surface modifications have been created to optimize interbody constructs for surgical use. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of common surface technologies, their performance in the clinical setting, and recent modifications and material combinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a comprehensive review of the literature on titanium and PEEK as medical devices between 1964 and 2021. We searched five major databases, resulting in 4974 records. Articles were screened for inclusion manually by two independent reviewers, resulting in 237 articles included for review. CONCLUSION: Interbody devices have rapidly evolved over the last few decades. Biomaterial and biomechanical modifications have allowed for continued design optimization. While titanium has a high osseointegrative capacity, it also has a high elastic modulus and is radio-opaque. PEEK, on the other hand, has a lower elastic modulus and is radiolucent, though PEEK has poor osseointegrative capacity. Surface modifications, material development advancements, and hybrid material devices have been utilized in search of an optimal spinal implant which maximizes the advantages and minimizes the disadvantages of each interbody material.
Authors: Frank Kandziora; Georg Schollmeier; Matti Scholz; Jan Schaefer; Alexandra Scholz; Gerhard Schmidmaier; Ralf Schröder; Herman Bail; Georg Duda; Thomas Mittlmeier; Norbert P Haas Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Zdeňka Novotná; Silvie Rimpelová; Petr Juřík; Martin Veselý; Zdeňka Kolská; Tomáš Hubáček; Jakub Borovec; Václav Švorčík Journal: Nanoscale Res Lett Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 4.703
Authors: Sven Hoppe; Christoph E Albers; Tarek Elfiky; Moritz C Deml; Helena Milavec; Sebastian F Bigdon; Lorin M Benneker Journal: J Funct Biomater Date: 2018-03-14
Authors: Nora Bloise; Erik I Waldorff; Giulia Montagna; Giovanna Bruni; Lorenzo Fassina; Samuel Fang; Nianli Zhang; Jiechao Jiang; James T Ryaby; Livia Visai Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 6.208