Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies
- PMID: 37401063
- PMCID: PMC10323354
- DOI: 10.14245/ns.2346244.122
Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies
Abstract
Interbody fusion is a workhorse technique in lumbar spine surgery that facilities indirect decompression, sagittal plane realignment, and successful bony fusion. The 2 most commonly employed cage materials are titanium (Ti) alloy and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). While Ti alloy implants have superior osteoinductive properties they more poorly match the biomechanical properties of cancellous bones. Newly developed 3-dimensional (3D)-printed porous titanium (3D-pTi) address this disadvantage and are proposed as a new standard for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) devices. In the present study, the literature directly comparing 3D-pTi and PEEK interbody devices is systematically reviewed with a focus on fusion outcomes and subsidence rates reported in the in vitro, animal, and human literature. A systematic review directly comparing outcomes of PEEK and 3D-pTi interbody spinal cages was performed. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Mean Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score for cohort studies was 6.4. A total of 7 eligible studies were included, comprising a combination of clinical series, ovine animal data, and in vitro biomechanical studies. There was a total population of 299 human and 59 ovine subjects, with 134 human (44.8%) and 38 (64.4%) ovine models implanted with 3D-pTi cages. Of the 7 studies, 6 reported overall outcomes in favor of 3D-pTi compared to PEEK, including subsidence and osseointegration, while 1 study reported neutral outcomes for device related revision and reoperation rate. Though limited data are available, the current literature supports 3D-pTi interbodies as offering superior fusion outcomes relative to PEEK interbodies for LIF without increasing subsidence or reoperation risk. Histologic evidence suggests 3D-Ti to have superior osteoinductive properties that may underlie these superior outcomes, but additional clinical investigation is merited.
Keywords: Interbody implant; Lumbar fusion; Polyetherether ketone; Printed titanium; Systematic review.
Conflict of interest statement
Dr. Pham reports consultant fees with Medtronic and Thompson Surgical. The other authors have nothing to disclose.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Graft subsidence and reoperation after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a propensity score-matched and cost analysis of polyetheretherketone versus 3D-printed porous titanium interbodies.J Neurosurg Spine. 2023 May 12;39(2):187-195. doi: 10.3171/2023.4.SPINE22492. Print 2023 Aug 1. J Neurosurg Spine. 2023. PMID: 37178027
-
3D-printed titanium cages without bone graft outperform PEEK cages with autograft in an animal model.Spine J. 2022 Jun;22(6):1016-1027. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.12.004. Epub 2021 Dec 11. Spine J. 2022. PMID: 34906741
-
Bony ingrowth potential of 3D-printed porous titanium alloy: a direct comparison of interbody cage materials in an in vivo ovine lumbar fusion model.Spine J. 2018 Jul;18(7):1250-1260. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2018.02.018. Epub 2018 Feb 26. Spine J. 2018. PMID: 29496624 Free PMC article.
-
Titanium (Ti) cages may be superior to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes of spinal interbody fusions using Ti versus PEEK cages.Eur Spine J. 2021 May;30(5):1285-1295. doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06748-w. Epub 2021 Feb 8. Eur Spine J. 2021. PMID: 33555365 Review.
-
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.World Neurosurg. 2024 Mar;183:144-156. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.12.111. Epub 2023 Dec 23. World Neurosurg. 2024. PMID: 38145654 Review.
Cited by
-
Design and study of additively manufactured Three periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structured porous titanium interbody cage.Heliyon. 2024 Sep 20;10(18):e38209. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38209. eCollection 2024 Sep 30. Heliyon. 2024. PMID: 39364254 Free PMC article.
-
The ability of SPEEK to promote the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs on PEEK surfaces.Heliyon. 2024 Aug 18;10(16):e36448. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36448. eCollection 2024 Aug 30. Heliyon. 2024. PMID: 39253123 Free PMC article.
-
Endoscopic Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian Spine J. 2023 Dec;17(6):1139-1154. doi: 10.31616/asj.2023.0135. Epub 2023 Dec 18. Asian Spine J. 2023. PMID: 38105638 Free PMC article.
-
Commentary on "Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies".Neurospine. 2023 Jun;20(2):464-466. doi: 10.14245/ns.2346488.244. Epub 2023 Jun 30. Neurospine. 2023. PMID: 37401064 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
From the Editor-in-Chief: Featured Articles in the June 2023 Issue.Neurospine. 2023 Jun;20(2):413-414. doi: 10.14245/ns.2346622.311. Epub 2023 Jun 30. Neurospine. 2023. PMID: 37401059 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- Alvarez K, Nakajima H. Metallic scaffolds for bone regeneration. Materials (Basel) 2009;2:790–832.
-
- Wu SH, Li Y, Zhang YQ, et al. Porous titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium cage has better osseointegration and less micromotion than a poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in sheep vertebral fusion. Artif Organs. 2013;37:E191–201. - PubMed
-
- Tan JH, Cheong CK, Hey HWD. Titanium (Ti) cages may be superior to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes of spinal interbody fusions using Ti versus PEEK cages. Eur Spine J. 2021;30:1285–95. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources