ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
3D-printed tantalum artificial vertebral body or titanium mesh in anterior column reconstruction post-spondylectomy for thoracic vertebral tumors: a retrospective comparative cohort study and finite element analysis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Self-stabilizing zero-profile 3D-printed vertebral body versus traditional titanium mesh-cage with plate in anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: an open-label randomized controlled trial on efficacy and complications for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe optimal strategy for spinal reconstruction following total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) for spinal tumors remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a 3D-printed tantalum artificial vertebral body (AVB) in anterior column reconstruction by comparing its fusion efficiency and implant-related complications with those of traditional titanium mesh. In addition, this study elucidated biomechanical differences among titanium mesh, titanium AVB, and 3D-printed tantalum AVB using finite element (FE) analysis.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included patients who had undergone TES for thoracic spinal tumors, followed by anterior column reconstruction using 3D-printed tantalum AVBs or titanium mesh cages. Clinical outcomes, including Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) scale assessments, fusion rates, and complications, were evaluated. In addition, radiographic parameters, such as subsidence and Cobb angle, were measured and analyzed. Complementary FE models (T2-T10) compared von Mises stress, micro subsidence, and micro slippage across three reconstructions: titanium mesh (model A), titanium AVB (model B), and 3D-printed tantalum AVB (model C) under physiological loading.
resultsThe comparison between tantalum AVB and titanium mesh in the clinical cohort revealed similar operative metrics. However, tantalum AVB demonstrated superior outcomes for 2-year pain relief (VAS: 0.7 ± 0.6 vs. 1.8 ± 0.6; p < 0.05) and fusion rates (100% vs. 38.9%) than the titanium mesh. Titanium mesh was associated with a higher incidence of subsidence (66.7% > 1 mm; mean 4.1 mm) than tantalum (0.37 mm), and 33.3% of patients experienced rod fractures necessitating revision. Neurological improvement with an increase of at least one ASIA grade was observed in 95.2% of the patients. In the FE analysis, model A produced 2.03-fold higher von Mises stress levels than models B and C during right rotation (Δ = 5.351 MPa). Furthermore, model A exhibited a tenfold higher peak implant stress than models B and C (515.7 MPa vs. < 50 MPa). Regarding micro slippage and subsidence, model A showed the greatest micro subsidence during rotation, particularly in left rotation (Model A > Model B > Model C; Δ > 200%). Model C demonstrated minimal interface displacement.
conclusionsAVBs made of 3D-printed tantalum demonstrate superior biomechanical and clinical performance compared to titanium mesh for anterior reconstruction after TES. Tantalum significantly reduces endplate stress, implant subsidence, and hardware failure rates while promoting earlier fusion. Restricting postoperative trunk axial rotation may help mitigate mechanical complications.
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.