Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interbody fusion is a workhorse technique in lumbar spine surgery that facilities indirect decompression, sagittal plane realignment, and successful bony fusion. The 2 most commonly employed cage materials are titanium (Ti) alloy and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). While Ti alloy implants have superior osteoinductive properties they more poorly match the biomechanical properties of cancellous bones. Newly developed 3-dimensional (3D)-printed porous titanium (3D-pTi) address this disadvantage and are proposed as a new standard for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) devices. In the present study, the literature directly comparing 3D-pTi and PEEK interbody devices is systematically reviewed with a focus on fusion outcomes and subsidence rates reported in the in vitro, animal, and human literature. A systematic review directly comparing outcomes of PEEK and 3D-pTi interbody spinal cages was performed. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Mean Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score for cohort studies was 6.4. A total of 7 eligible studies were included, comprising a combination of clinical series, ovine animal data, and in vitro biomechanical studies. There was a total population of 299 human and 59 ovine subjects, with 134 human (44.8%) and 38 (64.4%) ovine models implanted with 3D-pTi cages. Of the 7 studies, 6 reported overall outcomes in favor of 3D-pTi compared to PEEK, including subsidence and osseointegration, while 1 study reported neutral outcomes for device related revision and reoperation rate. Though limited data are available, the current literature supports 3D-pTi interbodies as offering superior fusion outcomes relative to PEEK interbodies for LIF without increasing subsidence or reoperation risk. Histologic evidence suggests 3D-Ti to have superior osteoinductive properties that may underlie these superior outcomes, but additional clinical investigation is merited.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".