Comparative Analysis of Radiologic Outcomes Between Polyetheretherketone and Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Cages After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Trabecular Bone Remodeling after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of the Osseointegration in Three-Dimensional Porous Titanium Cages and Polyether-Ether-Ketone Cages

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

Imaging changes in the vertebral body after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are determined to be trabecular bone remodeling (TBR). This study aimed to investigate the influence of cage materials on TBR and segment stabilization in PLIF by studying image changes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study reviewing 101 cases who underwent one-level PLIF with three-dimensional porous titanium (3DTi) cages (53 patients) or polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) cages (48 patients). Computed tomography images obtained 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively were examined for TBR, vertebral endplate cyst formation as an instability sign, cage subsidence, and clear zone around pedicle screw (CZPS).

RESULTS

No significant differences in the TBR-positivity rates were observed between the two cages at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. However, all 3DTi cage segments that were TBR-positive at 3 months postoperatively showed no CZPS and fewer final instability segments than the TBR-negative segments (0% vs 9%). In contrast, although the PEEK cage segments that were TBR-positive at 3 months postoperatively were not associated with future segmental stabilization, those that were TBR-positive at 1 year postoperatively had fewer final instability segments than the TBR-negative segments (0% vs 33%).

CONCLUSIONS

The 3DTi cage segments with TBR 3 months postoperatively showed significant final segmental stabilization, whereas TBR at 1 year rather than 3 months postoperatively was useful in determining final segmental stabilization for the PEEK cage segments. The timing of TBR, a new osseointegration assessment, were associated with the cage material.

Titanium Cages versus Polyetheretherketone Cages in Interbody Fusions: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The most widely adopted materials for interbody fusion implants are titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK), both of which have potential advantages and disadvantages. Despite the differences between PEEK and titanium, there is no consensus on which material provides better clinical and radiological outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the 2 cages.

METHODS

Four databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar) were queried since December 2001 up until December 2023. Clinical outcomes evaluated included rates of adverse events, radiographic outcomes, and patient-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Higher rates of subsidence and revision were reported in PEEK cages in the lumbar spine (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.006, respectively). In the cervical spine, no difference was observed between PEEK and titanium in any analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In the lumbar spine, titanium cages were shown to have a lower rate of subsidence and revision compared with PEEK cages. In the cervical spine, the difference between cages did not reach statistical significance in any of the analyzed outcomes.

Clinical Application of 3D-Printed Artificial Vertebral Body (3DP AVB): A Review

Introduction: The choice of prosthesis for vertebral body reconstruction (VBR) remains a controversial issue due to the lack of a reliable solution. The subsidence rate of the most commonly used titanium mesh cages (TMC) ranges from 42.5% to 79.7%. This problem is primarily caused by the differences in the elastic modulus between the TMC and bone. This review aims to summarize the clinical and radiological outcomes of new 3D-printed artificial vertebral bodies (3DP AVB). Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar was conducted to extract relevant studies. After screening the titles and abstracts, a total of 50 articles were selected for full-text analysis. Results: Preliminary data suggest fewer implant-related complications with 3DP AVB. Most comparative studies indicate significantly lower subsidence rates, reduced operation times and decreased intraoperative blood loss. However, the scarcity of randomized clinical trials and the high variability of the results warrant caution. Conclusion: Most literature data show an advantage of 3DP AVB in terms of the operation time, intraoperative blood loss and subsidence rate. However, long manufacturing times, high costs and regulatory issues are this technology's main drawbacks.

Effect of Cage Material and Size on Fusion Rate and Subsidence Following Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

OBJECTIVE

Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is an emerging, minimally invasive technique performed under biportal endoscopic guidance. However, concerns regarding cage subsidence and sufficient fusion during BE-TLIF necessitate careful selection of an appropriate interbody cage to improve surgical outcomes. This study compared the fusion rate, subsidence, and other radiographic parameters according to the material and size of the cages used in BE-TLIF.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients who underwent single-segment BE-TLIF between April 2019 and February 2023 were divided into 3 groups: group A, regular-sized three-dimensionally (3D)-printed titanium cages; group B, regular-sized polyetheretherketone cages; and group C, large-sized 3D-printed titanium cages. Radiographic parameters, including lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, anterior and posterior disc heights, disc angle, and foraminal height, were measured before and after surgery. The fusion rate and severity of cage subsidence were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences were noted in the demographic data or radiographic parameters between the groups. The fusion rate on 1-year postoperative computed tomography was comparable between the groups. The cage subsidence rate was significantly lower in group C than in group A (41.9% vs. 16.7%, p=0.044). The severity of cage subsidence was significantly lower in group C (0.93±0.83) than in groups A (2.20±1.84, p=0.004) and B (1.79±1.47, p=0.048).

CONCLUSION

Cage materials did not affect the 1-year postoperative outcomes of BE-TLIF; however, subsidence was markedly reduced in large cages. Larger cages may provide more stable postoperative segments.

The ability of SPEEK to promote the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs on PEEK surfaces

To investigate the ability of sulfonated polyetheretherketone (SPEEK) to promote the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) and compare the effects of different degrees of sulfonation (DS), SPEEK was made with two different DS. The L-SPEEK group had a lower DS, while the H-SPEEK group had a higher DS. The physicochemical properties of both species were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), capitilize Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), X-ray diffraction (XRD) and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). Then, proliferation and osteogenic differentiation between the two groups and with pure polyetheretherketone (PEEK) were compared after surface inoculation of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) revealed that the surface of the PEEK substrates could be smooth or coarse, and the degree of roughness increased with increasing sulfonation. FTIR spectroscopy showed that both the L-SPEEK and H-SPEEK samples contained sulfonic acid. TGA and XRD revealed that the components in the two groups were the same, but the intensities were different. After BMSC inoculation, a CCK8 assay revealed that the cells proliferated more on the H-SPEEK surface and little on the L-SPEEK surface compared with the PEEK surface. Then, osteogenic differentiation was verified by immunofluorescence staining for OCN and Runx2, which indicated that H-SPEEK had the greatest effect on improving differentiation. The results of alizarin red staining (ARS) and alkaline phosphatase staining (APS) also revealed this trend. Sulfonation can change the microsurface of PEEK, which can improve both BMSC proliferation and osteogenic differentiation.

Comparison of Lumbar Interbody Fusion with 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Cage Versus Polyetheretherketone Cage in Treating Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and radiological effectiveness of lumbar interbody fusion with a 3D-printed porous titanium (3D-PPT) cage versus a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.

METHODS

This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023461511). We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases for related studies from inception to September 3, 2023. Review Manager 5.3 was used to conduct this meta-analysis. The reoperation rate, complication rate, fusion rate, and subsidence rate were assessed using relative risk and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Ten articles reporting 9 studies comparing lumbar interbody fusion with 3D-PPT cages versus PEEK cages for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease were included. The subsidence rate at the 1-year follow-up in the 3D-PPT cage was significantly lower than that in the PEEK cage. The fusion rate in the 3D-PPT cage was significantly higher than that in the PEEK cage at the 6-month follow-up. No significant difference was identified between the 2 groups at the 12-month follow-up. No significant difference was identified between the 2 groups in terms of the complication rate and reoperation rate. There was a trend toward a lower complication rate and reoperation rate with the 3D-PPT cage.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the PEEK cage, the 3D-PPT cage may be a safer implant. The 3D-PPT cage was associated with a higher fusion rate and lower subsidence rate. The 3D-PPT cage may accelerate the intervertebral fusion process, improve the quality of fusion and prevent the occurrence of subsidence.