Work

Do Three-Dimensional Printed Porous Titanium Relative to Polyetheretherketone Interbody Cages Reduce Complications and Revisions after Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: Study Design Retrospective Cohort Study. Objectives To determine if 3D printed porous titanium (Ti) cages compared to non-porous polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages predicted improved fusion rate or clinical outcomes after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods All adult patients who underwent one- and two-level TLIF for degenerative conditions by a single surgeon at an academic center between 2017-2021 were retrospectively identified. Patients were dichotomized into porous Ti and non-porous PEEK interbody cage groups. Fusion status was assessed by at 6-months and 1-year postoperatively by CT Bridwell scale and flexion/extension X-Rays. Postoperative complications (CT-based subsidence, adjacent segment disease, reoperation rates) and interval changes in lumbar radiographic alignment at short- and long-term follow-up were determined. Univariate and multivariate analysis compared patient and surgical factors, fusion rates, alignment, and complications across interbody groups. Results A total of 136 patients with 169 unique fusion levels (125 Ti cages, 44 PEEK cages) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Ti relative to PEEK interbodies had significantly decreased surface area and increased height and lordosis. Ti cage use was associated with greater subsidence ( P < 0.001) but did not independently predict maximum subsidence on regression ( P = 0.109). In the overall cohort, there were no significant differences in fusion rates or lumbopelvic alignment between interbody groups. Reoperation (Ti: 10.9% vs PEEK: 28.6%, P = 0.026) and reoperation for pseudoarthrosis (Ti: 2.0% vs PEEK: 11.4%, P = 0.038) was significantly more likely in the PEEK relative to the Ti group. Conclusions Use of 3D printed porous Ti cages relative to non-porous PEEK cages may mitigate pseudoarthrosis related reoperation after TLIF.

Source: Global Spine Journal

DOI: 10.1177/21925682251339998