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":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"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":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682231157762","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","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.