ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2025
Use of Double Cages for Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThis study aimed to compare a 3-dimensional (3D)-printed titanium cage with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BETLIF) using a double cage construct, evaluate differences in fusion stability and subsidence between the 2 cage types, and analyze factors influencing subsidence.
methodsWe retrospectively examined 89 patients who underwent BETLIF using a double cage (3D-printed titanium, 48 levels; PEEK, 46 levels). Fusion status and subsidence were assessed using dynamic plain lateral lumbar spine radiographs and computed tomography images at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Fusion was graded according to the Bridwell system, and significant subsidence was defined as ≥2 mm endplate depression on computed tomography. Demographic and clinical variables, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, history of tobacco smoking, diabetes mellitus, bone mineral density measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, cage length, and cage material, were collected and analyzed as potential risk factors.
resultsAt 1-year follow-up, fusion grades were I (75.0%, 36 levels), II (20.8%, 10 levels), and III (4.2%, 2 levels) for 3D-printed titanium and I (53.2%, 25 levels), II (40.4%, 19 levels), and III (6.4%, 3 levels) for PEEK. The overall fusion rate (grades I and II) was similar for both cages (95.8% vs 93.6%,
conclusionsBoth double 3D-printed titanium and PEEK cages demonstrated high fusion rates with no significant differences in overall success. However, double 3D-printed titanium cages showed better early fusion grades and comparable subsidence to that of PEEK cages. Although long-term follow-up is necessary to ascertain efficacy, these findings suggest that 3D-printed titanium cages offer advantages in early fusion quality in BETLIF. Further research is needed to optimize cage arrangement, cage design, and surgical techniques to improve outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of double 3D-printed titanium cages is recommended in BETLIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.