ArticleGlobal spine journal2024
Subsidence Rates Associated With Porous 3D-Printed Versus Solid Titanium Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
Article in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical and radiological outcomes of titanium cage versus polyetheretherketone cage in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison between Three-Dimensional Printed Titanium and PEEK Cages for Cervical and Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Controlled Trial.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Trial
- 3D-Printed and Biofabricated Scaffolds for Osteoporotic Bone Defect Repair: Mechanical Adaptation, Redox Control, Senescence Modulation and Osteoimmunomodulation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Are Ceramic Cages an Option for Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Comparative Biomechanical Numerical Study.JOR spine · 2026Article
- Clinical and radiologic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in biportal endoscopic TLIF: focus on endplate injury and subsidence.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing of a Spinal Interbody: Design Principles, Biomaterials, and Translational Considerations.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Preoperative imaging predictors of subsidence of 3D-printed artificial cervical vertebral bodies: a cohort study of 102 patients with nomogram development and validation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Outcomes comparison between novel hydroxyapatite enhanced polyetheretherketone and titanium implants after anterior lumbar interbody fusion.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Use of Double Cages for Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopy for minimally invasive spinal fusion: Advancements in biomaterials and clinical outcome optimization.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Review
- Radiographic and Clinical Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Versus 3D-Printed Titanium Cages in Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Single Institution's Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Influence of Frailty on Clinical and Radiological Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion-Analysis of a Controlled Cohort of 408 Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Top Three Healthcare Trends in Orthopaedics Affecting Musculoskeletal Care in the Elderly.Current aging science · 2025Review
- Advancements in Custom 3D-Printed Titanium Interbody Spinal Fusion Cages and Their Relevance in Personalized Spine Care.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- 3D-printed titanium alloy cage in anterior and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine disease.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRetrospective Cohort Study.
objectiveTo determine whether 3D-printed porous titanium (3DPT) interbody cages offer any clinical or radiographic advantage over standard solid titanium (ST) interbody cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF).
methodsA consecutive series of adult patients undergoing one- or two-level TLIF with either 3DPT or ST "banana" cages were analyzed for patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographic complications, and clinical complications. Exclusion criteria included clinical or radiographic follow-up less than 1 year.
resultsThe final cohort included 90 ST interbody levels from 74 patients, and 73 3DPT interbody levels from 50 patients for a total of 124 patients. Baseline demographic variables and comorbidity rates were similar between groups (
conclusionsWhen considering interbody material for TLIF, both ST and 3DPT cages performed well; however, 3DPT cages were associated with lower rates of subsidence. The clinical relevance of these findings deserves further randomized, prospective investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.