Literature DB >> 36203279

Comparison Between 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages: 1-Year Outcome After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion.

Do-Yeon Kim1, O-Hyuk Kwon2, Jeong-Yoon Park2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional (3D)-printed titanium implants have been developed recently, but the utility is not yet proven. The aim of this study was to compare 3D-printed titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF).
METHODS: Between October 2018 and September 2021, we retrospectively analyzed 83 patients who underwent single-level MIS-TLIF (3D-printed titanium, 40; PEEK, 43). Radiologic parameters were assessed with x-ray and computed tomography (CT) at postoperative 1 week, 6 months, and 1 year. Clinical status was evaluated using Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale score, and Bridwell fusion grading was assessed on 6-month and 1-year postoperative CT.
RESULTS: There were no differences between the 2 groups in demographics and clinical outcomes. At 1-year of follow-up, the reported 3D-printed titanium fusion grades were grade I: 77.5% (31 patients), grade II: 17.5% (7 patients), and grade III: 5% (2 patients). The PEEK fusion grades were grade I: 51.2% (22 patients), grade II: 41.9% (18 patients), and grade III: 7.0% (3 patients). For overall fusion rate (grade I + II), there was no difference between the 2 cages (95.0% vs. 93.0%, p = 0.705), but grade I was reported at a higher incidence in 3D-printed titanium than PEEK (77.5% vs. 51.2%, p = 0.013). There was no difference between cages based on subsidence and complications.
CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in the overall fusion rate for MIS-TLIF surgery between 3D-printed titanium and PEEK, but the fusion grade was better in 3D-printed titanium than in PEEK. Long-term follow-up is required to verify the effectiveness.

Entities:  

Keywords:  3-dimensional-printed titanium; Fusion rate; Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; Polyetheretherketone

Year:  2022        PMID: 36203279      PMCID: PMC9537857          DOI: 10.14245/ns.2244140.070

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurospine        ISSN: 2586-6591


  39 in total

1.  PEEK versus metal cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiological comparative study.

Authors:  F Cuzzocrea; A Ivone; E Jannelli; A Fioruzzi; E Ferranti; R Vanelli; F Benazzo
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2018-12-10

2.  [Effect of Modic changes on fusion rate and cage subsidence after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion].

Authors:  M Y Wang; L Xu; Y Qiu; Q S Zhou; C Z Du; B P Qian; Z Z Zhu; B Wang; X Sun
Journal:  Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2019-12-17

3.  Fusion Rates of Intervertebral Polyetheretherketone and Titanium Cages without Bone Grafting in Posterior Interbody Lumbar Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Lumbar Instability.

Authors:  Christof von Wrangel; Ali Karakoyun; Kaye-Marie Buchholz; Olaf Süss; Theodoros Kombos; Johannes Woitzik; Peter Vajkoczy; Marcus Czabanka
Journal:  J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 1.268

4.  Design and fabrication of 3D-printed anatomically shaped lumbar cage for intervertebral disc (IVD) degeneration treatment.

Authors:  T Serra; C Capelli; R Toumpaniari; I R Orriss; J J H Leong; K Dalgarno; D M Kalaskar
Journal:  Biofabrication       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 9.954

5.  Porous fusion cage design via integrated global-local topology optimization and biomechanical analysis of performance.

Authors:  Hongwei Wang; Yi Wan; Quhao Li; Yan Xia; Xinyu Liu; Zhanqiang Liu; Xiaogai Li
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2020-08-06

Review 6.  3D-printed spine surgery implants: a systematic review of the efficacy and clinical safety profile of patient-specific and off-the-shelf devices.

Authors:  Joshua L Burnard; William C H Parr; Wen Jie Choy; William R Walsh; Ralph J Mobbs
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  Comparison of fusion rates following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone cages or titanium cages with transpedicular instrumentation.

Authors:  Osamu Nemoto; Takashi Asazuma; Yoshiyuki Yato; Hideaki Imabayashi; Hiroki Yasuoka; Akira Fujikawa
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-07-12       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 8.  Surface Modification Strategies to Improve the Osseointegration of Poly(etheretherketone) and Its Composites.

Authors:  Emily Buck; Hao Li; Marta Cerruti
Journal:  Macromol Biosci       Date:  2019-11-29       Impact factor: 4.979

9.  Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up.

Authors:  Yu Chen; Xinwei Wang; Xuhua Lu; Lili Yang; Haisong Yang; Wen Yuan; Deyu Chen
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages.

Authors:  Mario Cabraja; Soner Oezdemir; Daniel Koeppen; Stefan Kroppenstedt
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.