Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37780834›Full record

ArticleJOR spine2023

Novel 3D printed lattice structure titanium cages evaluated in an ovine model of interbody fusion.

James W Johnson, Ben Gadomski, Kevin Labus, Holly Stewart, Brad Nelson, Howie Seim, Dan Regan, Devin von Stade, Cambre Kelly, Phillip Horne and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JOR spine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Ovine models of intervertebral disc degeneration.Annals of translational medicine · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Comparison of osseointegration in 3D-printed hexanium titanium cages and PEEK cervical cages: In-vivo ovine cervical fusion model.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

James W JohnsonOrthopaedic Bioengineering Research Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7465-3854
Ben GadomskiOrthopaedic Bioengineering Research Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1434-0551
Kevin LabusOrthopaedic Bioengineering Research Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.
Holly StewartPreclinical Surgical Research Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.
Brad NelsonPreclinical Surgical Research Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.
Howie SeimPreclinical Surgical Research Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.
Dan ReganDept. of Microbiology, Immunology, & Pathology Flint Animal Cancer Center Fort Collins Colorado USA.
Devin von StadeOrthopaedic Bioengineering Research Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.
Cambre Kellyrestor3d, Inc. Durham North Carolina USA.
Phillip HorneDuke Health Raleigh North Carolina USA.
Ken Gallrestor3d, Inc. Durham North Carolina USA.
Jeremiah EasleyPreclinical Surgical Research Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.

Funding

Biomedical Research Training for VeterinariansT32OD010437 · OD · COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Gregg A Dean, KELLY S SANTANGELO · 2012 to 2026
$6.2M
NIH HHS T32 OD010437
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The use of intervertebral cages within the interbody fusion setting is ubiquitous. Synthetic cages are predominantly manufactured using materials such as Ti and PEEK. With the advent of additive manufacturing techniques, it is now possible to spatially vary complex 3D geometric features within interbody devices, enabling the devices to match the stiffness of native tissue and better promote bony integration. To date, the impact of surface porosity of additively manufactured Ti interbody cages on fusion outcomes has not been investigated. Thus, the objective of this work was to determine the effect of implant endplate surface and implant body architecture of additive manufactured lattice structure titanium interbody cages on bony fusion. Methods: Biomechanical, microcomputed tomography, static and dynamic histomorphometry, and histopathology analyses were performed on twelve functional spine units obtained from six sheep randomly allocated to body lattice or surface lattice groups. Results: Nondestructive kinematic testing, microcomputed tomography analysis, and histomorphometry analyses of the functional spine units revealed positive fusion outcomes in both groups. These data revealed similar results in both groups, with the exception of bone-in-contact analysis, which revealed significantly improved bone-in-contact values in the body lattice group compared to the surface lattice group. Conclusion: Both additively manufactured porous titanium cage designs resulted in increased fusion outcomes as compared to PEEK interbody cage designs as illustrated by the nondestructive kinematic motion testing, static and dynamic histomorphometry, microcomputed tomography, and histopathology analyses. While both cages provided for similar functional outcomes, these data suggest boney contact with an interbody cage may be impacted by the nature of implant porosity adjacent to the vertebral endplates.

Indexed as

3D printingspinal fusiontitanium cage

Identifiers

PMID37780834
PMCPMC10540818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.