ArticleNeurospine2023
Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies.
Article in Neurospine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and radiographic outcomes of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) with a 3D-printed porous titanium intervertebral cage.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Predictors of Interbody Fusion and Adjacent Segment Disease Following Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Pathologies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Evolution of Titanium Interbody Cages and Current Uses of 3D Printed Titanium in Spine Fusion Surgery.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
- 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
- Preclinical evaluation of lateral interbody fusions using 3D printed PEEK or 3D printed titanium cages.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Innovative Approaches for the Treatment of Spinal Disorders: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of orthopaedics and sports medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Healthcare Outcomes of Patients Treated with 3D-Printed-Titanium and PEEK Cages During Fusion Procedures in the Lumbar Spine.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- The Future of Bone Repair: Emerging Technologies and Biomaterials in Bone Regeneration.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Design and study of additively manufactured Three periodic minimal surface (TPMS) structured porous titanium interbody cage.Heliyon · 2024Article
- The ability of SPEEK to promote the proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs on PEEK surfaces.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Innovative Developments in Lumbar Interbody Cage Materials and Design: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- Endoscopic Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Article
- From the Editor-in-Chief: Featured Articles in the June 2023 Issue.Neurospine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
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.