ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Evaluation of Healthcare Outcomes of Patients Treated with 3D-Printed-Titanium and PEEK Cages During Fusion Procedures in the Lumbar Spine.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shaping the future of spinal implants: advancing bioactive composites with 3D printing for next-generation surgical care.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- 3D-printed porous titanium versus PEEK interbody cages in lumbar fusion: biomechanical rationale, clinical evidence, and emerging indications.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Is Ti-Coated PEEK Superior to PEEK for Lumbar and Cervical Fusion Procedures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Evaluating the Efficacy of a Novel Titanium Cage System in ALIF and LLIF: A Retrospective Clinical and Radiographic Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The objective of this observational, real-world study was to describe reoperation, revision, index healthcare utilization and hospital costs among patients treated with PEEK (polyetheretherketone) or 3D-printed-titanium cages during lumbar/lumbosacral posterior fusion procedures, either TLIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) or PLIF (posterior lumbar interbody fusion). Statistical comparisons were not conducted. Methods: This was a descriptive, retrospective, observational study. Patients with PEEK (OPAL™, DePuy Synthes, Raynham, MA) or 3D-printed-titanium (CONDUIT™ TLIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion)/PLIF (posterior lumbar interbody fusion) Cage/EIT™ Cellular Titanium TLIF/PLIF Cage (DePuy Synthes, Raynham, MA)) spinal cages were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database between 1/1/2007 and 9/30/2022. Patients were required to have posterior approaches of the lumbar/lumbosacral spine and DDD, stenosis, back pain, instability, spondylolisthesis, or pseudarthrosis/failed prior surgery. Patient and procedure, healthcare utilization and hospital cost data were collected at the index surgery, and patients were followed up to 3 months for reoperation and 12 months for revision. All data were summarized descriptively, and no statistical comparisons were made between cage groups. Results: A total of 5118 PEEK and 1189 3D-printed-titanium cage patients were included in this study. Among 3D-printed-titanium cages, 804 had PLIF and 345 had Curved TLIF cage types. Most PEEK cage patients were 18-64 years (61.9%), and 3D-printed-titanium was evenly distributed across age categories. The mean index hospital cost was ~$40,000, LOS was ~3 days, and discharge status to home/home health was ~85% for both; surgery time was 267 minutes for PEEK and 280 minutes for 3D-printed-titanium. The 0-3 month reoperation cumulative incidence was 1.0% for PEEK and 1.3% for 3D-printed-titanium. For revision, incidence within 0-3, 4-6, and 7-12 months was 1.2%, 0.6%, and 1.7% for PEEK and 1.6%, 0.5%, and 1.2% for 3D-printed-titanium. The mean costs per patient associated with reoperation and revision for the entire cohort were $220 and $1228 for PEEK and $290 and $1754 for 3D-printed-titanium. Conclusion: This study provides real-world economic insights into an area where practice data are sparse, within hospital settings for PEEK and 3D-printed-titanium spinal cages. A key study limitation is the descriptive design in which potential confounding factors that may affect the outcome estimates are not addressed.
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.