Subsidence Rates Associated With Porous 3D-Printed Versus Solid Titanium Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Global Spine Journal Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-14 DOI:10.1177/21925682231157762
Nathaniel Toop, Joravar Dhaliwal, Andrew Grossbach, David Gibbs, Nihaal Reddy, Alexander Keister, Noah Mallory, David Xu, Stephanus Viljoen
{"title":"Subsidence Rates Associated With Porous 3D-Printed Versus Solid Titanium Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.","authors":"Nathaniel Toop, Joravar Dhaliwal, Andrew Grossbach, David Gibbs, Nihaal Reddy, Alexander Keister, Noah Mallory, David Xu, Stephanus Viljoen","doi":"10.1177/21925682231157762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective Cohort Study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine whether 3D-printed porous titanium (3DPT) interbody cages offer any clinical or radiographic advantage over standard solid titanium (ST) interbody cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A consecutive series of adult patients undergoing one- or two-level TLIF with either 3DPT or ST \"banana\" cages were analyzed for patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographic complications, and clinical complications. Exclusion criteria included clinical or radiographic follow-up less than 1 year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final cohort included 90 ST interbody levels from 74 patients, and 73 3DPT interbody levels from 50 patients for a total of 124 patients. Baseline demographic variables and comorbidity rates were similar between groups (<i>P</i> > .05). Subsidence of any grade occurred more frequently in the ST group compared with the 3DPT group (24.4% vs 5.5%, respectively, <i>P</i> = .001). Further, the ST group was more likely to have higher grades of subsidence than the 3DPT group (<i>P</i> = .009). All PROMs improved similarly after surgery and revision rates did not differ between groups (both <i>P</i> > .05). On multivariate analysis, significant positive correlators with increasing subsidence grade included greater age (<i>P</i> = .015), greater body mass index (<i>P</i> = .043), osteoporosis/osteopenia (<i>P</i> < .027), and ST cage type (<i>P</i> = .019).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When considering interbody material for TLIF, both ST and 3DPT cages performed well; however, 3DPT cages were associated with lower rates of subsidence. The clinical relevance of these findings deserves further randomized, prospective investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11418593/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682231157762","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Objective: To determine whether 3D-printed porous titanium (3DPT) interbody cages offer any clinical or radiographic advantage over standard solid titanium (ST) interbody cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF).

Methods: A consecutive series of adult patients undergoing one- or two-level TLIF with either 3DPT or ST "banana" cages were analyzed for patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographic complications, and clinical complications. Exclusion criteria included clinical or radiographic follow-up less than 1 year.

Results: The final cohort included 90 ST interbody levels from 74 patients, and 73 3DPT interbody levels from 50 patients for a total of 124 patients. Baseline demographic variables and comorbidity rates were similar between groups (P > .05). Subsidence of any grade occurred more frequently in the ST group compared with the 3DPT group (24.4% vs 5.5%, respectively, P = .001). Further, the ST group was more likely to have higher grades of subsidence than the 3DPT group (P = .009). All PROMs improved similarly after surgery and revision rates did not differ between groups (both P > .05). On multivariate analysis, significant positive correlators with increasing subsidence grade included greater age (P = .015), greater body mass index (P = .043), osteoporosis/osteopenia (P < .027), and ST cage type (P = .019).

Conclusions: When considering interbody material for TLIF, both ST and 3DPT cages performed well; however, 3DPT cages were associated with lower rates of subsidence. The clinical relevance of these findings deserves further randomized, prospective investigation.

经椎间孔腰椎椎体融合术中多孔三维打印钛笼与固体钛笼的相关沉降率
研究设计回顾性队列研究:确定在经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)中,3D打印多孔钛(3DPT)椎体间架与标准固体钛(ST)椎体间架相比是否具有临床或放射学优势:对使用 3DPT 或 ST "香蕉 "椎体间架进行一或两级 TLIF 的连续系列成年患者进行了患者报告结果指标 (PROM)、放射学并发症和临床并发症分析。排除标准包括临床或放射学随访不足1年:最终的队列包括74名患者的90个ST椎间孔水平和50名患者的73个3DPT椎间孔水平,共计124名患者。两组患者的基线人口统计学变量和合并症发生率相似(P > .05)。与 3DPT 组相比,ST 组发生任何级别下沉的频率更高(分别为 24.4% 对 5.5%,P = .001)。此外,ST 组比 3DPT 组更有可能出现更高级别的下沉(P = .009)。术后所有 PROMs 的改善情况相似,组间的翻修率也没有差异(P 均 > .05)。多变量分析显示,年龄越大(P = .015)、体重指数越大(P = .043)、骨质疏松症/骨质疏松症(P < .027)和ST保持架类型(P = .019)与下沉等级增加呈显著正相关:结论:在考虑 TLIF 的椎间孔材料时,ST 和 3DPT 骨架均表现良好;但 3DPT 骨架的下沉率较低。这些发现的临床意义值得进一步的随机前瞻性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信