Skip to main content

Evaluation of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: novel 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to compare the early subsidence rate (6–12 months) of standalone novel 3D-printed titanium (Ti) versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody cages after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF).

Method

A retrospective study of 113 patients (186 levels) who underwent LLIF surgery with Ti or PEEK cages was conducted. Early subsidence was measured in each treated level using the Marchi et al. classification in radiographs or CT scans acquired at 6–12 months follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression analyses with generalized mixed models, setting subsidence as the outcome variable and including cage type (Ti vs PEEK) as well as significant and trending variables (p < 0.10) in univariate analyses, were conducted.

Results

In total, 51 female and 62 male patients were analyzed. The median [IQR] age at surgery was 60.0 [51.0–70.0] years. Of the 186 levels, 119 levels were treated using PEEK and 67 levels with Ti cages. The overall subsidence rate for Grades I-III was significantly less in the Ti versus the PEEK group (p = 0.003). For high-grade subsidence (Grade II or III), Ti cages also demonstrated a subsidence rate (3.0%) that was significantly less compared to PEEK cages (18.5%) (p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis showed that patients treated with Ti cages were less likely to develop severe subsidence compared to those treated with PEEK (OR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.30) (p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that 3D-printed novel Ti cages had a significantly lower early subsidence rate compared to PEEK cages in standalone LLIF patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Code availability

N/A.

Availability of data and material

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.

    Ozgur BM, Aryan HE, Pimenta L, Taylor WR (2006) Extreme lateral interbody fusion (XLIF): a novel surgical technique for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 6:435–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Rentenberger C et al (2020) Perioperative risk factors for early revisions in stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 134:e657–e663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Salzmann SN, Shue J, Hughes AP (2017) Lateral lumbar interbody fusion—outcomes and complications. Current Rev Musculoskeletal Med 10:539–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Smith WD, Christian G, Serrano S, Malone KT (2012) A comparison of perioperative charges and outcome between open and mini-open approaches for anterior lumbar discectomy and fusion. J Clin Neurosci 19(5):673–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Campbell PG et al (2020) PEEK versus titanium cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis of subsidence. Neurosurg Focus 49(3):1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Pimenta L, Turner AWL, Dooley ZA, Parikh RD, Peterson MD (2012) Biomechanics of lateral interbody spacers: going wider for going stiffer. Sci World J 2012:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Okano I et al (1020) The association between endplate changes and risk for early severe cage subsidence among standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 45(23):E1580–E1587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Marchi L, Abdala N, Oliveira L, Amaral R, Coutinho E, Pimenta L (2013) Radiographic and clinical evaluation of cage subsidence after stand-alone lateral interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 19(1):110–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Krafft PR, Osburn B, Vivas AC, Rao G, Alikhani P (2020) Novel titanium cages for minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion: First assessment of subsidence. Spine Surg Relat Res 4(2):171–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Chatham LS, Patel VV, Yakacki CM, Dana Carpenter R (2017) Interbody spacer material properties and design conformity for reducing subsidence during lumbar interbody fusion. J Biomech Eng 139(5):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    McGilvray KC et al (2018) Bony ingrowth potential of 3D-printed porous titanium alloy: a direct comparison of interbody cage materials in an in vivo ovine lumbar fusion model. Spine J 18(7):1250–1260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Willems K, Lauweryns P, Verleye G (2019) Randomized controlled trial of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with Ti- and CaP-nanocoated polyetheretherketone cages: comparative study of the 1-year radiological and clinical outcome. Sci World J 13(6):575–587

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Najeeb S et al (2016) Bioactivity and osseointegration of peek are inferior to those of titanium : a systematic review. J Oral Implantol XLII:512–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Tan JH, Cheong CK, Hey HWD (2021) Titanium (Ti) cages may be superior to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes of spinal interbody fusions using Ti versus PEEK cages. Eur Spine J 2:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Shepherd JA, Schousboe JT, Broy SB, Engelke K, Leslie WD (2015) Executive summary of the 2015 ISCD position development conference on advanced measures from DXA and QCT: fracture prediction beyond BMD. J Clin Densitom 18(3):274–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Brown JK et al (2017) Asynchronously calibrated quantitative bone densitometry. J Clin Densitom 20(2):216–225

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kwon AJ, Hunter WD, Moldavsky M, Salloum K, Bucklen B (2016) Indirect decompression and vertebral body endplate strength after lateral interbody spacer impaction: cadaveric and foam-block models. J Neurosurg Spine 24(5):727–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Frisch RF, Luna IY, Brooks DM, Joshua G, O’Brien JR (2018) Clinical and radiographic analysis of expandable versus static lateral lumbar interbody fusion devices with two-year follow-up. J Spine Surg 4(1):62–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    McGilvray KC et al (2017) Evaluation of a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) titanium composite interbody spacer in an ovine lumbar interbody fusion model: biomechanical, microcomputed tomographic, and histologic analyses. Spine J 17(12):1907–1916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Massaad E, Fatima N, Kiapour A, Hadzipasic M, Shankar GM, Shin JH (2020) Polyetheretherketone versus titanium cages for posterior lumbar interbody fusion: meta-analysis and review of the literature. Neurospine 17(2):473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Han CM et al (2010) The electron beam deposition of titanium on polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and the resulting enhanced biological properties. Biomaterials 31(13):3465–3470

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Vadapalli S et al (1976) (2006) “Biomechanical rationale for using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for lumbar interbody fusion—a finite element study”, Spine (Phila. Pa 31(26):992–998

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Seaman S, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M, Torner JC, Hitchon PW (2017) Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: Meta-analysis and review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci 44:23–29

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Phan K, Hogan JA, Assem Y, Mobbs RJ (2016) PEEK-Halo effect in interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci 24:138–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Olivares-Navarrete R et al (2012) Osteoblasts exhibit a more differentiated phenotype and increased bone morphogenetic protein production on titanium alloy substrates than on poly-ether-ether-ketone. Spine J 12(3):265–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Stenport VF, Johansson CB (2008) Evaluations of bone tissue integration to pure and alloyed titanium implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 10(3):191–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Wu SH et al (2013) Porous titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium cage has better osseointegration and less micromotion than a poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in sheep vertebral fusion. Artif Organs 37(12):E191–E201

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Huiskes R, Weinans H, Van Rietbergen B (1992) The relationship between stress shielding and bone resorption around total hip stems and the effects of flexible materials. Clin Orthop Relat Res 274:124–134

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Arts M, Torensma B, Wolfs J (2020) Porous titanium cervical interbody fusion device in the treatment of degenerative cervical radiculopathy; 1-year results of a prospective controlled trial. Spine J 20(7):1065–1072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Silva-Bermudez P, Almaguer-Flores A, Garcia VI, Olivares-navarrete R, Rodil SE (2016) Enhancing the osteoblastic differentiation through nanoscale surface modifications. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 105:498–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Yoon BJV, Xavier F, Walker BR, Grinberg S, Cammisa FP, Abjornson C (2016) Optimizing surface characteristics for cell adhesion and proliferation on titanium plasma spray coatings on polyetheretherketone. Spine J 16(10):1238–1243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Macki M, Anand SK, Surapaneni A, Park P, Chang V (2019) Subsidence rates after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review. World Neurosurg 122:599–606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Agarwal N et al (2020) Impact of endplate-implant area mismatch on rates and grades of subsidence following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: an analysis of 623 levels. J Neurosurg Spine 33(1):12–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funds, grants or other support were received.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

DAA performed all measurements and grading, collected all the data and wrote the manuscript. IO analyzed the data and reviewed and edited the manuscript. LO help validating the grade of subsidence and reviewed and edited the manuscript. EC reviewed and edited the manuscript. JZ analyzed the data. JS wrote the research plan for IRB approval and was in charge of the clinical research process and the project administration. AAS designed the study and reviewed and edited the manuscript. FPC designed the study and reviewed and edited the manuscript. FPG designed the study and reviewed and edited the manuscript. APH designed the study, reviewed and edited the manuscript and supervised all aspects of the study. All authors have read and approved the final submitted manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander P. Hughes.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

DAA, IO, LO, JZ, EC, JS have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. AAS declares financial interests: Royalties: Ortho Development Corp; Private investments: Vestia Ventures MiRUS Investment LLC, ISPH II LLC, ISPH 3 LLC, VBros Venture Partners X Centinel Spine; Consulting: Clariance Inc, Kuros Bioscience AG, Medical Device Business Services Inc.; Speaking and Teaching Arrangements: DePuy Synthes Products Inc.; Trips/Travel: Medical Device Business Services Inc; Research Support: Spinal Kinetcs Inc. FPC declares financial interests: Royalties: NuVasive Inc; Private investments: Bonovo Orthopedics Inc, Healthpoint Capital Partners LP, ISPH II LLC, Ivy Healthcare Capital Partners LLC, Medical Device Partners II LLC, Medical Device Partners III LLC, Orthobond Corporation, Spine Biopharma LLC, Tissue Differentiation Intelligence LLC, VBVP VI LLC, Woven Orthopedics Technologies; Consulting: 4Web Medical/4Web Inc, Spine Biopharma LLC, Research Support: 4Web Medical/4Web Inc, Beatrice & Samuel A. Seaver Foundation; Non-financial interests: Scientific Advisory Board: Healthpoint Capital Partners LP, Orthobond Corporation, Spine Biopharma LLC, Woven Orthopedic Technologies. FPG declares financial interests: Royalties: NuVasive Inc, Ortho Development Corp, Zimmer Biomet Holdings INC; Stock Ownership: Bonovo Orthopedics Inc, Liventa Bioscience (AF Cell Medical), Paradigm Spine LLC, Healthpoint Capital Partners LP, Alphatec Holdings LLC, LANX Inc, Centinel Spine Inc (fka Raymedica LLC), Tissue Differentiation Intelligence LLC, Spine Kinetics Inc; Consulting: DePuy Synthes Spine, NuVasive Inc, Non-financial interests: Consulting: EIT Emerging Implant Technologies, Spineart USA Inc, Ethicon Inc,. APH declares financial interests: Research Support: 4Web Medical; Fellowship Support: NuVasive Inc, Kuros Bioscience B.V. (Fig. 1)

Ethics approval, Consent to participate and Consent for publication

This study was approved by our hospital’s Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of this study. (IRB# 2014–097).

Fig. 1
figure1

Cage subsidence examples; a titanium cage multilevel SA-LLIF (L2/L3 Grade III, L3/L4 Grade 0, L4/L5 Grade 0); b PEEK cage multilevel SA-LLIF (L2/L3 Grade 0, L3/L4 Grade 0, L4/L5 Grade III)

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adl Amini, D., Okano, I., Oezel, L. et al. Evaluation of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: novel 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. Eur Spine J 30, 2377–2384 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-021-06912-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • LLIF
  • Standalone
  • Cage subsidence
  • Titanium
  • PEEK
  • Lumbar fusion