Trabecular Bone Remodeling After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Three-Dimensional Porous Tantalum and Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone Interbody Cages

Innovative Developments in Lumbar Interbody Cage Materials and Design: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

This review comprehensively examines the evolution and current state of interbody cage technology for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF). This review highlights the biomechanical and clinical implications of the transition from traditional static cage designs to advanced expandable variants for spinal surgery. The review begins by exploring the early developments in cage materials, highlighting the roles of titanium and polyetheretherketone in the advancement of LIF techniques. This review also discusses the strengths and limitations of these materials, leading to innovations in surface modifications and the introduction of novel materials, such as tantalum, as alternative materials. Advancements in three-dimensional printing and surface modification technologies form a significant part of this review, emphasizing the role of these technologies in enhancing the biomechanical compatibility and osseointegration of interbody cages. In addition, this review explores the increase in biodegradable and composite materials such as polylactic acid and polycaprolactone, addressing their potential to mitigate long-term implant-related complications. A critical evaluation of static and expandable cages is presented, including their respective clinical and radiological outcomes. While static cages have been a mainstay of LIF, expandable cages are noted for their adaptability to the patient's anatomy, reducing complications such as cage subsidence. However, this review highlights the ongoing debate and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the superiority of either cage type in terms of clinical outcomes. Finally, this review proposes future directions for cage technology, focusing on the integration of bioactive substances and multifunctional coatings and the development of patient-specific implants. These advancements aim to further enhance the efficacy, safety, and personalized approach of spinal fusion surgeries. Moreover, this review offers a nuanced understanding of the evolving landscape of cage technology in LIF and provides insights into current practices and future possibilities in spinal surgery.

Reduced Subsidence With PEEK-Titanium Composite Versus 3D Titanium Cages in a Retrospective, Self-Controlled Study in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective Study.

OBJECTIVES

To compare subsidence and radiographic fusion rates of titanium-surface polyetheretherketone (PEEK-Ti) and 3D-Titanium (3D-Ti) cages, implanted within the same patient concurrently, during multi-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF).

METHODS

Forty-eight patients were treated with both PEEK-Ti and 3D-Ti cages during 2- or 3-level TLIF and instrumented posterolateral fusion (108 spinal levels in all). Equivalent bone graft material was implanted within each patient. Radiographic analysis of CT and/or X-ray imaging was performed retrospectively for each spinal level throughout 12-month follow-up period. Fusion was defined as bridging trabecular bone and subsidence was incursion into one/both vertebral bodies >20% cage height. Outcomes were analyzed with Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

At 6-months post-operative follow-up, incidence of subsidence was significantly lower for PEEK-Ti cages, with 4.8% subsidence, compared to a 27.9% subsidence rate for 3D-Ti cages (P = .007). Fusion rates were comparable at 100% for PEEK-Ti and 95.5% for 3D-Ti. Results at 12-months showed similar but not statistically significant trends of less subsidence with PEEK-Ti than 3D-Ti cages (14.3% PEEK-Ti, 37.5% 3D-Ti), and similar fusion rates of 100% for PEEK-Ti and 91.7% for 3D-Ti. Thirty-nine out of 48 total patients were available for follow-up at 6 months and 20 patients at 12 months. CT availability at 6 and 12-months was 100% and 90%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A significantly lower subsidence rate was associated with a PEEK-Ti cage, compared to 3D-Ti, 6 months after TLIF. Results may not be generalized across technologies due to differences in cage designs; additional research studies are warranted.

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.