Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
2024 ESMO Congress 2024 ERS Congress 2024 EASD Congress 2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on modern management of frailty

LIVE: Thursday 17th October 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Frailty has a significant impact on health and wellbeing, especially in older adults. Join our experts to understand the factors that contribute to the development of frailty and find out how to manage the condition and reduce the risk of disability, dependency, and mortality.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

14-07-2024 | REVIEW

Evolution of Titanium Interbody Cages and Current Uses of 3D Printed Titanium in Spine Fusion Surgery

Authors: Justin J. Lee, Freddy P. Jacome, David M. Hiltzik, Manasa S. Pagadala, Wellington K. Hsu

Published in: Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To summarize the history of titanium implants in spine fusion surgery and its evolution over time.

Recent Findings

Titanium interbody cages used in spine fusion surgery have evolved from solid metal blocks to porous structures with varying shapes and sizes in order to provide stability while minimizing adverse side effects. Advancements in technology, especially 3D printing, have allowed for the creation of highly customizable spinal implants to fit patient specific needs. Recent evidence suggests that customizing shape and density of the implants may improve patient outcomes compared to current industry standards. Future work is warranted to determine the practical feasibility and long-term clinical outcomes of patients using 3D printed spine fusion implants.

Summary

Outcomes in spine fusion surgery have improved greatly due to technological advancements. 3D printed spinal implants, in particular, may improve outcomes in patients undergoing spine fusion surgery when compared to current industry standards. Long term follow up and direct comparison between implant characteristics is required for the adoption of 3D printed implants as the standard of care.
Literature
1.
Patel NA, et al. Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies. Neurospine. 2023;20(2):451–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
Kobayashi K, et al. Epidemiological trends in spine surgery over 10 years in a multicenter database. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(8):1698–703.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Ragab A, Deshazo RD. Management of back pain in patients with previous back surgery. Am J Med. 2008;121(4):272–8.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Martin BI, et al. Reoperation rates following lumbar spine surgery and the influence of spinal fusion procedures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(3):382–7.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Weiner DK, et al. Low back pain in older adults: are we utilizing healthcare resources wisely? Pain Med. 2006;7(2):143–50.PubMedCrossRef
6.
McGirt MJ, et al. Lumbar Surgery in the Elderly Provides Significant Health Benefit in the US Health Care System: Patient-Reported Outcomes in 4370 Patients From the N2QOD Registry. Neurosurgery. 2015;77(Suppl 4):S125–35.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Parker SL, et al. Minimally invasive versus open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis: comparative effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. World Neurosurg. 2014;82(1–2):230–8.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Hodgson AR, Stock FE. Anterior Spine Fusion for the Treatment of Tuberculosis of the Spine: The Operative Findings and Results of Treatment in the First One Hundred Cases. JBJS. 1960;42(2):295–310.CrossRef
9.
O’Brien JP, et al. Simultaneous combined anterior and posterior fusion. A surgical solution for failed spinal surgery with a brief review of the first 150 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;203:191–5.CrossRef
10.
Kuslich SD, et al. The Bagby and Kuslich Method of Lumbar Interbody Fusion: History, Techniques, and 2-Year Follow-up Results of a United States Prospective. Multicenter Trial Spine. 1998;23(11):1267–78.PubMed
11.
Steffen T, Tsantrizos A, Aebi M. Effect of implant design and endplate preparation on the compressive strength of interbody fusion constructs. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(9):1077–84.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Spruit M, et al. Posterior reduction and anterior lumbar interbody fusion in symptomatic low-grade adult isthmic spondylolisthesis: short-term radiological and functional outcome. Eur Spine J. 2002;11(5):428–33.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
14.
Müller U, et al. Do human osteoblasts grow into open-porous titanium? Eur Cell Mater. 2006;11:8–15.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Olivares-Navarrete R, et al. Rough titanium alloys regulate osteoblast production of angiogenic factors. Spine J. 2013;13(11):1563–70.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Sul YT, et al. Optimum surface properties of oxidized implants for reinforcement of osseointegration: surface chemistry, oxide thickness, porosity, roughness, and crystal structure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20(3):349–59.PubMed
17.
Textor M, et al. Properties and Biological Significance of Natural Oxide Films on Titanium and Its Alloys. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2001. p. 171–230.
18.
19.
Zhu Y, et al. “Effect of Elastic Modulus on Biomechanical Properties of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage.” J Mater Sci Technol. 2009;25:325–8.
20.
21.
Popov VV Jr, et al. Design and 3D-printing of titanium bone implants: brief review of approach and clinical cases. Biomed Eng Lett. 2018;8(4):337–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Zhang L, et al. Three-dimensional (3D) printed scaffold and material selection for bone repair. Acta Biomater. 2019;84:16–33.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Awad A, et al. 3D printing: Principles and pharmaceutical applications of selective laser sintering. Int J Pharm. 2020;586:119594.PubMedCrossRef
24.
25.
Van Norman GA. Expanded Patient Access to Investigational New Devices: Review of Emergency and Nonemergency Expanded Use, Custom, and 3D-Printed Devices. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2018;3(4):533–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
FDA, Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Medical Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Federal Information & News Dispatch, 2017: 57462.
27.
Kermavnar T, et al. Three-Dimensional Printing of Medical Devices Used Directly to Treat Patients: A Systematic Review. 3D Print Addit Manuf. 2021;8(6):366–408.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Yang, L., S. Bhaduri, and T.J. Webster, Biomaterials in translational medicine. 2018: Academic Press.
29.
Cheng BC, et al. A comparative study of three biomaterials in an ovine bone defect model. Spine J. 2020;20(3):457–64.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Wixted CM, et al. Three-dimensional Printing in Orthopaedic Surgery: Current Applications and Future Developments. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2021;5(4):e20.00230-11.PubMedPubMedCentral
31.
32.
33.
Minagar S, et al. Cell response of anodized nanotubes on titanium and titanium alloys. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013;101(9):2726–39.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Boccaccini AR, et al. Electrophoretic deposition of biomaterials. J R Soc Interface. 2010;7(Suppl 5(Suppl 5)):S581-613.PubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Shalom H, Feldman Y, Rosentsveig R, Pinkas I, Kaplan-Ashiri I, Moshkovich A, Perfilyev V, Rapoport L, Tenne R. Electrophoretic Deposition of Hydroxyapatite Film Containing Re-Doped MoS₂ Nanoparticles. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(3):657. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ijms19030657.
36.
37.
Kurella A, Dahotre NB. Review paper: surface modification for bioimplants: the role of laser surface engineering. J Biomater Appl. 2005;20(1):5–50.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Shin T, et al. A laser-aided direct metal tooling technology for artificial joint surface coating. Int J Precis Eng Manuf. 2017;18(2):233–8.CrossRef
39.
Kumar N, et al. Design and 3D printing of novel titanium spine rods with lower flexural modulus and stiffness profile with optimised imaging compatibility. Eur Spine J. 2023;32(6):1953–65.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Amelot A, Colman M, Loret J-E. Vertebral body replacement using patient-specific three–dimensional-printed polymer implants in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an encouraging preliminary report. The Spine Journal. 2018;18(5):892–9.PubMedCrossRef
41.
42.
Spetzger U, Frasca M, König SA. Surgical planning, manufacturing and implantation of an individualized cervical fusion titanium cage using patient-specific data. Eur Spine J. 2016;25(7):2239–46.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Chung KS, et al. Vertebral Reconstruction with Customized 3-Dimensional-Printed Spine Implant Replacing Large Vertebral Defect with 3-Year Follow-up. World Neurosurg. 2019;126:90–5.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Burnard JL, et al. 3D-printed spine surgery implants: a systematic review of the efficacy and clinical safety profile of patient-specific and off-the-shelf devices. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(6):1248–60.PubMedCrossRef
45.
46.
Brooke NS, et al. Preliminary experience of carbon fibre cage prostheses for treatment of cervical spine disorders. Br J Neurosurg. 1997;11(3):221–7.PubMedCrossRef
47.
48.
Yoon BJV, et al. Optimizing surface characteristics for cell adhesion and proliferation on titanium plasma spray coatings on polyetheretherketone. Spine J. 2016;16(10):1238–43.PubMedCrossRef
49.
McGilvray KC, et al. 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. 2018;18(7):1250–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Adl Amini D, et al. Evaluation of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: novel 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. Eur Spine J. 2021;30(8):2377–84.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Makino T, et al. Impact of mechanical stability on the progress of bone ongrowth on the frame surfaces of a titanium-coated PEEK cage and a 3D porous titanium alloy cage: in vivo analysis using CT color mapping. Eur Spine J. 2021;30(5):1303–13.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Makino T, et al. Comparison of Short-Term Radiographical and Clinical Outcomes After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With a 3D Porous Titanium Alloy Cage and a Titanium-Coated PEEK Cage. Global Spine J. 2022;12(5):931–9.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Segi N, Nakashima H, Shinjo R, Kagami Y, Machino M, Ito S, Ouchida J, Morishita K, Oishi R, Yamauchi I, Imagama S. Vertebral Endplate Concavity in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Tapered 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Cage versus Squared PEEK Cage. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023;59(2):372. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​medicina59020372​.
54.
Satake K, et al. Cage subsidence in lateral interbody fusion with transpsoas approach: intraoperative endplate injury or late-onset settling. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2017;1(4):203–10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Tohmeh AG, et al. Radiographical and clinical evaluation of extreme lateral interbody fusion: effects of cage size and instrumentation type with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(26):E1582-91.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Khan I, et al. Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Tritanium Posterolateral Cage (vs. Propensity-Matched Cohort of PEEK Cage). Spine Surg Relat Res. 2022;6(6):671–80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
Alan N, et al. Graft subsidence and reoperation after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a propensity score-matched and cost analysis of polyetheretherketone versus 3D-printed porous titanium interbodies. J Neurosurg Spine. 2023;39(2):187–95.PubMed
58.
Kim DY, Kwon OH, Park JY. Comparison Between 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages: 1-Year Outcome After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion. Neurospine. 2022;19(3):524–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
Wang Y, et al. Application of three-dimensional printed porous titanium alloy cage and poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022;36(9):1126–31.PubMed
60.
Lewandrowski KU, et al. Regional variations in acceptance, and utilization of minimally invasive spinal surgery techniques among spine surgeons: results of a global survey. J Spine Surg. 2020;6(Suppl 1):S260-s274.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
Mokawem M, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion rates with 3D-printed lamellar titanium cages using a silicate-substituted calcium phosphate bone graft. J Clin Neurosci. 2019;68:134–9.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Culler SD, Martin GM, Swearingen A. Comparison of adverse events rates and hospital cost between customized individually made implants and standard off-the-shelf implants for total knee arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today. 2017;3(4):257–63.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
63.
64.
Wu W, et al. A therapeutic delivery system for chronic osteomyelitis via a multi-drug implant based on three-dimensional printing technology. J Biomater Appl. 2016;31(2):250–60.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Park JY, et al. 3D printing technology to control BMP-2 and VEGF delivery spatially and temporally to promote large-volume bone regeneration. J Mater Chem B. 2015;3(27):5415–25.PubMedCrossRef
66.
67.
Chen L, et al. Enhancement in sustained release of antimicrobial peptide and BMP-2 from degradable three dimensional-printed PLGA scaffold for bone regeneration. RSC Adv. 2019;9(19):10494–507.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
68.
Yan L, et al. Finite element analysis of bone and implant stresses for customized 3D-printed orthopaedic implants in fracture fixation. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2020;58(5):921–31.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Roach DJ, et al. Utilizing computer vision and artificial intelligence algorithms to predict and design the mechanical compression response of direct ink write 3D printed foam replacement structures. Addit Manuf. 2021;41:101950.
Metadata
Title
Evolution of Titanium Interbody Cages and Current Uses of 3D Printed Titanium in Spine Fusion Surgery
Authors
Justin J. Lee
Freddy P. Jacome
David M. Hiltzik
Manasa S. Pagadala
Wellington K. Hsu
Publication date
14-07-2024
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
Electronic ISSN: 1935-9748
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-024-09912-z