Objective There is increased use of 3-dimensional (3D)-printing for manufacturing of interbody cages to create microscale surface features that promote bone formation. Those features may be vulnerable to abrasion and/or delamination during cage impaction. Our objective was to quantify loss of mass and changes in surface topography of 3D-printed titanium interbody cages due to surgical impaction.
Methods Eight surfaces of four 3D-printed titanium modular interbody fusion cages were tested. The cages were impacted into the Sawbones model with compression preload of either 200N or 400N using a guided 1-lb (0.45 kg) drop weight. Mass and surface roughness parameters of each endplate were recorded and compared for differences.
Results Significant weight loss was observed for the superior endplate group and for both 200N and 400N preloads. For pooled data comparison, significant postimpaction decreases were observed for mean roughness, root-mean-squared roughness, mean roughness depth, and total height of roughness profile. No significant differences were observed for profile skewness and kurtosis. There were significant changes in almost all roughness parameters in the anterior region of the cage postimpaction with significant changes in 2 out of 6 parameters in the middle, posterior, and central regions postimpaction.
Conclusion Three-dimensional-printed titanium interbody fusion cages underwent loss of mass and alteration in surface topography during benchtop testing replicating physiologic conditions. There was an endplate- and region-specific postimpaction change in roughness parameters. The anterior surface experienced the largest change in surface parameters postimpaction. Our results have implications for future cage design and pre-approval testing of 3D-printed implants.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Radiographic Evaluation of a Modular Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) Cage: Subsidence and Segmental Lordosis Harvinder Bhatti, Nathan R Wanderman, Jessica L Shellock, Richard D Guyer, Donna D Ohnmeiss, Kelly Van Schouwen, Nicholas Spina Cureus.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Objective This meta-analysis aims to refine the understanding of the optimal choice between different cage shapes in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) by systematically comparing perioperative data, radiological outcomes, clinical results, and complications associated with banana-shaped and straight bullet cages.
Methods A meticulous literature search encompassing PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, and Wanfang Data was executed up to October 5, 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on studies comparing banana-shaped and straight bullet cages in TLIF. The quality of included studies was assessed using appropriate tools such as the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for nonrandomized studies. Rigorous evaluations were performed for radiographic outcomes, including disc height (DH), segmental lordosis (SL), lumbar lordosis (LL), subsidence, and fusion rates. Clinical outcomes were meticulously evaluated using visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and complications.
Results The analysis incorporated 7 studies, involving 573 patients (297 with banana-shaped cages, 276 with straight cages), all with NOS ratings exceeding 5 stars. No statistically significant differences were observed in operative time, blood loss, or hospitalization between the 2 cage shapes. Banana-shaped cages exhibited greater changes in DH (p = 0.001), SL (p = 0.02), and LL (p = 0.01). Despite statistically higher changes in ODI for straight cages (26.33, p < 0.0001), the actual value remained similar to banana-shaped cages (26.15). Both cage types demonstrated similar efficacy in VAS, complication rates, subsidence, and fusion rates.
Conclusion Although banana-shaped cages can excel in restoring DH, SL, and LL, straight bullet cages can provide comparable functional improvements, pain relief, and complication rates.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Cage design-centric glider approach to full-endoscopic lumbar fusion: optimizing nerve root protection in facet-sparing and facet-resecting techniques Yu-Chia Hsu, Hao-Chun Chuang, Yuan-Fu Liu, Chao-Jui Chang, Yu-Meng Hsiao, Yi-Hung Huang, Keng-Chang Liu, Chien-Min Chen, Hyeun-Sung Kim, Cheng-Li Lin Asian Spine Journal.2026; 20(2): 343. CrossRef
Recovery outcomes for military personnel undergoing surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis induced by physical overload: a retrospective study Vasyl Melenko, Lyudmila Kravchuk, Dmytro Nozdrenko, Andriy Maznychenko, Tetiana Abramovych, Inna Sokolowska, Iakіv Fishchenko BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
A Review of Synthetic Bone Grafts in Lumbar Interbody Fusion Jaden Wise, Isabella Merem, Dahlia Wrubluski, Xuanzong Zhang, Ridge Weston, Min Shi, Maohua Lin, Frank D. Vrionis Bioengineering.2026; 13(3): 262. CrossRef
IMPACT OF INTERBODY CAGE GEOMETRY ON OUTCOMES OF MICRODISCECTOMY WITH INTERBODY FUSION Yevgenii Slynko, Roman Chamata, Olexander Potapov Eastern Ukrainian Medical Journal.2026; 14(1): 268. CrossRef
3D printed titanium banana interbody cages versus titanium-coated PEEK bullet cages for TLIF Connor C. Jacob, Ryan Eaton, Jacob Ward, Katelyn Sette, Seth Wilson, Matthieu D. Weber, Olivia Duru, Alexander Keister, Markus E. Harrigan, Andrew J. Grossbach, Stephanus Viljoen Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.2025; 249: 108731. CrossRef
Comparison of Sagittal Plane Correction With “Bullet” Versus “Banana” Type Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Devices Zach Pennington, Abdelrahman Hamouda, Michael Martini, Rahul Kumar, Anthony L. Mikula, Maria Astudillo Potes, Mohamad Bydon, Michelle J. Clarke, William E. Krauss, Ahmad N. Nassr, Brett A. Freedman, Arjun S. Sebastian, Jeremy L. Fogelson, Benjamin D. Elde Operative Neurosurgery.2025; 29(5): 624. CrossRef
Expandable cage technology in minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion: where are we and what does the future hold? Chibuikem A. Ikwuegbuenyi, Noah Willett, Evan Wang, Sean Inzerillo, Ibrahim Hussain Expert Review of Medical Devices.2025; 22(4): 349. CrossRef
‘Rebound Phenomenon’ – a Cause of Early Cage Back-out in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: Insights from Case Series of 1545 Patients Jvahar Jill, Sathish Muthu, Guna Pratheep Kalanchiam, Nalli Ramanathan Uvaraj Indian Journal of Orthopaedics.2025; 59(12): 2126. CrossRef
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) with Expandable Banana-Shaped Interbody Spacers—Institutional 5-Year Experience Martin N. Stienen, Lorenzo Bertulli, Gregor Fischer, Linda Bättig, Yesim Yildiz, Laurin Feuerstein, Francis Kissling, Thomas Schöfl, Felix C. Stengel, Daniele Gianoli, Stefan Motov, Ethan Schonfeld, Anand Veeravagu, Benjamin Martens, Nader Hejrati Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(15): 5402. CrossRef
Segmental lordosis in lumbar stabilization in patients with degenerative pathology: a non-systematic literature review O. N. Leonova, N. S. Kuzmin, E. S. Baykov, A. V. Krutko Russian Journal of Spine Surgery (Khirurgiya Pozvonochnika).2025; 22(3): 67. CrossRef
Comparison of full endoscopic lumbar discectomy combined with and without platelet-rich plasma injections for lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis Liangjie Lu, Keyi Xiao, Li-Ru He, Rui-Song Chen, Teng-Hui Zeng, Guang-Xun Lin Asian Spine Journal.2025; 19(5): 728. CrossRef
Radiographic Analysis of Endplate Coverage of a 3-Dimensional-Expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Implant Compared to Static TLIF and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Implants Jacob Mazza, Manhal Siddiqi, John Paul G. Kolcun, Dominick Richards, Richard G. Fessler Neurospine.2025; 22(4): 891. CrossRef
Objective To assess the impact of bilateral versus unilateral interbody cages on outcomes for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) procedures.
Methods A retrospective review for primary, elective, single-level MIS TLIF procedures with bilateral posterior instrumentation from 2008–2020 was performed. Patients were grouped according to unilateral or bilateral interbody cage use. Procedures performed without static interbody cages or indicated for trauma, infection, malignancy were excluded. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included visual analogue scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index, 12-item Short Form health survey physical composite score (SF-12 PCS), PatientReported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF). PROs were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Change in PROs (Δ) was calculated and compared between groups. Achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated using established values from the literature. Achievement rates were compared between groups using logistic regression.
Results The study included 151 patients, with 111 unilateral and 40 bilateral cage placements. Charlson Comorbidity Index, diabetes, and insurance status differed between groups (p < 0.050). Prevalence of degenerative and isthmic spondylolisthesis (both p ≤ 0.002), operative level (p = 0.003), and postoperative length of stay (p = 0.022) significantly differed between groups. The unilateral group had lower 1-year arthrodesis rates (p = 0.035). Preoperative VAS leg (p = 0.017) and SF-12 PCS (p = 0.045) were worse for the unilateral group. ΔPROMIS-PF was greater for the bilateral group at 2 years (p = 0.001). Majority of patients achieved an overall MCID for all PROs, except VAS leg (bilateral group).
Conclusion While preoperative status and postoperative arthrodesis rates differed, patients achieved an MCID at similar rates regardless of use of unilateral or bilateral cages.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Impact of nonunion on patient-related outcomes after single level minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: A propensity score–matched analysis Tatsuya Yamamoto, Momotaro Kawai, Tomohisa Tabata, Yohei Takahashi, Jun Ogawa European Spine Journal.2026; 35(4): 1736. CrossRef
Comparative outcomes of unilateral and bilateral cage placement in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Stavros Stamiris, Dimitrios Stamiris, Elissavet Anestiadou, Athanasios Sarridimitriou, Angeliki Cheva, Antonia Loukousia, Vasilleios Vrangalas, Pavlos Christodoulou, Christos Karampalis Asian Spine Journal.2026; 20(2): 372. CrossRef
Is there a difference in unilateral versus bilateral facetectomy in an open or minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis Mario Cyriac Tchaya Tcheukado, George Nageeb, Jonathan Hintz, Michael Steinmetz, Mohamed Macki Surgical Neurology International.2026; 17: 110. CrossRef
Comparative analysis of single vs. double cage insertion in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: clinical and radiological outcomes Guisi Xie, Yanli Pan, Zhongshu Shan, Chan Wang Lei, Lek Hang Cheang, Jiaming Liang, Junfeng Shen, Wei Zhang, Chengyue Zhu Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Letter re: Letter to the Editor Concerning ‘Long-Term Incidence of Adjacent Segmental Pathology after Minimally Invasive vs. Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion’ Sitian Niu, Ranran Li, Jingzhi Wang Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(2): 1459. CrossRef
Long-Term Incidence of Adjacent Segmental Pathology After Minimally Invasive vs Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Jae-Won Shin, Yung Park, Sang-Ho Kim, Sung-Ryul Choi, Joong-Won Ha, Hak Sun Kim, Kyung-Soo Suk, Sung-Hwan Moon, Si-Young Park, Byung-Ho Lee, Ji-Won Kwon, Hee-Min Choi Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(2): 1457. CrossRef
Cost-effectiveness analysis of extended endoscopic lumbar foraminotomy (EELF) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF): a prospective observational study Jun-Hoe Kim, Hangeul Park, Chang-Hyun Lee, Chi Heon Kim Scientific Reports.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Long-Term Risk of Adjacent-Segment Disease in Isthmic Spondylolisthesis Treated with Posterior Interbody Fusion Delia Cannizzaro, Gabriele Capo, Matteo Gionso, Donato Creatura, Mario De Robertis, Carla Daniela Anania, Emanuele Stucchi, Emilia Bellina, Ali Baram, Carlo Brembilla, Massimo Tomei, Alessandro Ortolina, Emanuela Morenghi, Franco Servadei, Federico Pessin World Neurosurgery.2025; 196: 123822. CrossRef
Biomechanical Comparison of Transforaminal Interbody Fusion Implants: Static vs Expandable Cages and Unilateral Versus Bilateral Cages Clayton L. Rosinski, Nicole A. D. Watson, Michael E. Kritikos, Kirill V. Nourski, Anthony J. Marincovich, Tyson S. Matern, Prabin Shrestha, Patrick W. Hitchon Operative Neurosurgery.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Unilateral Versus Bilateral Cages in Lumbar Interbody Fusions: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes Mohammad Daher, Marven Aoun, Pierre El-Sett, Gaby Kreichati, Khalil Kharrat, Amer Sebaaly World Neurosurgery.2024; 186: 158. CrossRef
An evaluation of fusion status following lumbar fusion surgery utilizing multi-planar computed tomography Tariq Z. Issa, Yunsoo Lee, Jeremy Heard, Tyler W. Henry, Michael A. McCurdy, Nicholas Siegel, Caroline Zaworksi, Julia Dambly, Jose A. Canseco, Alan S. Hilibrand, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Gregory D. Schroeder, John Mangan, Mark Lambrechts, Christopher K. Kep European Spine Journal.2024; 33(9): 3545. CrossRef
Postoperative urinary retention after oblique lumbar interbody fusion under the systematic management protocol Joonsoo Lim, Jangyeob Lim, Asfandyar Khan, Chang-Hyun Lee, Jun-Hoe Kim, Sejin Choi, Tae-Shin Kim, Yunhee Choi, Chun Kee Chung, Sangwook T. Yoon, Kyoung-Tae Kim, Chi Heon Kim Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Commentary on “Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies” Yanting Liu, Siravich Suvithayasiri, Jin-Sung Kim Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 464. CrossRef
Comparison of Lumbosacral Fusion Grade in Patients after Transforaminal and Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Minimum 2‐Year Follow‐Up Jinping Liu, Rong Xie, Cynthia T. Chin, Priya Rajagopalan, Ping‐Guo Duan, Bo Li, Shane Burch, Sigurd H. Berven, Praveen V. Mummaneni, Dean Chou Orthopaedic Surgery.2023; 15(9): 2334. CrossRef
A Comparison of Radiographic Alignment between Bilateral and Unilateral Interbody Cages in Patients Undergoing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Mark James Lambrechts, Jeremy Heard, Nicholas D’Antonio, John Bodnar, Gregory Schneider, Evan Bloom, Jose Canseco, Barrett Woods, Ian David Kaye, Mark Kurd, Jeffrey Rihn, Alan Hilibrand, Gregory Schroeder, Alexander Vaccaro, Christopher Kepler Asian Spine Journal.2023; 17(4): 666. CrossRef
Morphometric Comparison of Interbody Fusion with Cage and Autograft at L4-L5 Levels versus Autograft Alone for Fusion Azmi Tufan, Feyza Karagöz Güzey, Abdurrahman Aycan Bagcilar Medical Bulletin.2023; 8(3): 293. CrossRef
Lumbar interbody fusion with bilateral cages using a biportal endoscopic technique with a third portal Chengyue Zhu, Liangping Zhang, Hao Pan, Wei Zhang Acta Neurochirurgica.2022; 164(9): 2343. CrossRef
Safety and efficacy of unilateral and bilateral pedicle screw fixation for lumbar degenerative diseases by transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis Rui Zhong, Xiali Xue, Runsheng Wang, Jing Dan, Chuanen Wang, Daode Liu Frontiers in Neurology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Objective This retrospective study aimed to compare vertebral endplate cyst formation (VECF), an early predictor for pseudoarthrosis, in different types of interbody cages.
Methods We reviewed 84 cases treated with single-level posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. We utilized a polyetheretherketone cage in 20 cases (group P), a titanium cage in 16 cases (group Ti), a titanium-coating polyetheretherketone cage in 13 cases (group TiP) and a porous tantalum cage in 35 cases (group Tn). VECF was evaluated comparing the computed tomography scans taken at day 0 and 6-month postoperation. We defined VECF (+) as enlargement of a pre-existing cyst or de novo formation of a cyst with the diameter over 2 mm. We calculated the adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as an indicator of association between different types of cages and VECF using a logistic regression model.
Results VECF was observed in 13 (65%), 7 (44%), 9 (69%), and 8 (23%) cases in groups P, Ti, TiP and Tn, respectively. VECF correlated with the type of cage (p = 0.04). In comparison with group P, the proportion of VECF (+) cases was lower in group Tn (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04–0.60) but not different in group Ti (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.10–2.20) and group TiP (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.21–5.28). No patient underwent additional surgery for the fused spinal level during the follow-up periods (average, 37.9 months; range, 6–76 months).
Conclusion VECF was the least in the porous Tn cage, suggesting its potential superiority for initial stability.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Comparative Effects of Porous Tantalum and Porous Titanium: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Youhao Wang, Zehao Jing, Lu Xu, Xu Yang, Renhua Ni, Hong Cai, Weishi Li The Journal of Arthroplasty.2026; 41(5): 1613. CrossRef
Sagittal Alignment and Clinical Outcomes After Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using a Single Expandable Cage: One Year Follow-up Sub-Ri Park, Namhoo Kim, Ji-Won Kwon, Kyung-Soo Suk, Hak-Sun Kim, Seong-Hwan Moon, Si-Young Park, Byung Ho Lee, Jae-Won Shin, Jin-Oh Park World Neurosurgery.2026; 205: 124698. CrossRef
Comprehensive Learning Curve, Clinical Outcomes, and Radiological Evaluation of Modified Trans-Kambin Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion at over 1-Year Follow-Up Kai-Ting Chien, Kai Hao Liao, Jian-You Li, Yueh-Ching Liu, Lei-Po Chen, Yu-Ching Huang, Yan-Shiang Lian, Ting-Kuo Chang World Neurosurgery.2026; 207: 124818. CrossRef
Lateral parallel insertion of large footprint cages in PLIF promotes early fusion and fewer endplate cysts Yuya Kanie, Shota Takenaka, Masayuki Furuya, Takahito Fujimori, Hikari Urakawa, Hiroki Hagizawa, Yuichiro Ukon, Takahiro Makino, Seiji Okada, Takashi Kaito European Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Vertebral Endplate Cavities with Titanium Cages in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Tarek Elfiky, Yaser El Mansy, Martin N. Stienen, Abdelrahman Sa'ed Alabsi, Mahmoud Nafady Journal of Neurological Surgery Part A: Central European Neurosurgery.2025; 86(05): 444. CrossRef
Clinical and radiological outcomes of titanium cage versus polyetheretherketone cage in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis Haozhong Wang, Hao Zhang, Changming Xiao, Kaiquan Zhang, Lisheng Qi Neurosurgical Review.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Improved Clinical and Radiological Outcomes with Double-Cage Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparative CT-Based Study Yu-Hao Huang, Jwo-Luen Pao Diagnostics.2025; 15(20): 2652. CrossRef
The Effectiveness of Tritanium Cages in Preventing Osteolytic Vertebral Endplate Cysts After Lumbar Interbody Fusion Shu Takeuchi, Tomoo Inoue, Toshiyuki Takahashi, Ryo Kanematsu, Manabu Minami, Junya Hanakita World Neurosurgery.2024; 184: e803. CrossRef
First clinical experience with posterior lumbar interbody fusion using a thermal-sprayed silver-containing hydroxyapatite-coated cage Tadatsugu Morimoto, Masatsugu Tsukamoto, Katsuhiro Aita, Nobuyuki Fujita, Masaaki Mawatari Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
An update of interbody cages for spine fusion surgeries: from shape design to materials Guangshen Li, Lei Yang, Gang Wu, Zhanyang Qian, Haijun Li Expert Review of Medical Devices.2022; 19(12): 977. CrossRef
Objective Lumbar fusion with implantation of interbody cage is a common procedure for treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. This study aims to compare the fusion and subsidence rates of titanium (Ti) versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody cages after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and investigate the effect of clinical and radiological outcomes following fusion on patient-reported outcomes.
Methods A systematic search strategy of 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane) was conducted using different MeSH (medical subject headings) terms until January 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed and random-effect models based upon the heterogeneity (I2) to estimate the association between interbody cages and the measured outcomes.
Results A total of 1,094 patients from 11 studies were reviewed. The final analysis included 421 patients (38.5%) who had lumbar surgery using a Ti and/or a Ti-coated interbody cage and 673 patient (61.5%) who had lumbar surgery using a PEEK cage. Overall, PEEK interbody devices were associated with a significantly lower fusion rate compared with Ti interbody devices (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41–0.93; p = 0.02). There was no difference in subsidence rates between Ti and PEEK groups (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.54–1.52; p = 0.71). Also, there were no statistically significant differences in visual analogue scale (VAS)-low back pain (p = 0.14) and Japanese Orthopedic Association scale (p = 0.86) between the 2 groups. However, the PEEK group had lower odds of leg pain after surgery compared to the Ti group (OR [VAS-leg], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.28–0.94; p = 0.003).
Conclusion Ti and Ti-coated PEEK cages used for posterior lumbar interbody fusion are associated with similar rates of subsidence, but a higher rate of fusion compared to PEEK interbody cages. Randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess the effect of cage materials and potential factors that could influence the outcomes of interbody lumbar fusion.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Impact of Cage Material (PEEK vs. Titanium) on Subsidence, Fusion, and Patient-reported Outcomes After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Forrest Hamrick, Robert B. Kim, Andrew T. Dailey, Erica F. Bisson, Mark A. Mahan, Marcus D. Mazur Clinical Spine Surgery.2026; 39(5): E208. CrossRef
Evaluation of three methods of coaxial endoscopic lumbar fusion for treating lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective cohort study Wenbo Diao, Xueya Feng, Yuanli Li, Jian Gao, Haoran Chen, Qianchun Li Neurosurgical Review.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Unilateral Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF) Using 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Cages Compared With Open TLIF: A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Rates Sang Hyub Lee, Junghan Seo, Dain Jeong, Sang Youp Han, Dong Hyun Lee, Jae-Won Jang, Dong-Geun Lee, Choon Keun Park Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2026; 11(Suppl 1): S28. CrossRef
Osteointegration and Fusion After TLIF: Trabecular Titanium Cage with SVF-Hydrogel Compared with PEEK Cage. Murat U. Baidarbekov, Zhangir N. Ipmagambetov, Nailya DeLellis, Olzhas S. Bekarissov, Margulan S. Abdikalikov, Daniyar Zh. Yestay Orthopedic Reviews.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Reduced Subsidence With PEEK-Titanium Composite Versus 3D Titanium Cages in a Retrospective, Self-Controlled Study in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Ali Chahlavi Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(3): 1598. CrossRef
A comprehensive review on the State of the Art in the research and development of poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) biomaterial-based implants Prabaha Sikder Acta Biomaterialia.2025; 191: 29. CrossRef
3D printed titanium banana interbody cages versus titanium-coated PEEK bullet cages for TLIF Connor C. Jacob, Ryan Eaton, Jacob Ward, Katelyn Sette, Seth Wilson, Matthieu D. Weber, Olivia Duru, Alexander Keister, Markus E. Harrigan, Andrew J. Grossbach, Stephanus Viljoen Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.2025; 249: 108731. CrossRef
Verification of the Cage Stability and the Superiority of Titanium Coating in the Bone Fusion of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Polyetheretherketone Cages Kazutaka Masamoto, Shimei Tanida, Bungo Otsuki, Shunsuke Fujibayashi Cureus.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Evaluation of Healthcare Outcomes of Patients Treated with 3D-Printed-Titanium and PEEK Cages During Fusion Procedures in the Lumbar Spine Katherine Corso, Andreas Teferra, Annalisa Michielli, Kristin Corrado, Amy Marcini, Mark Lotito, Caroline Smith, Michelle Costa, Jill Ruppenkamp, Anna Wallace Medical Devices: Evidence and Research.2025; Volume 18: 37. CrossRef
Radiographic and Clinical Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Versus 3D-Printed Titanium Cages in Lumbar Interbody Fusion—A Single Institution’s Experience Diang Liu, Julie L. Chan, Art Eleanore, Kristin DeCost, Justin Luk, Lissette C. Neukam, Tasneem Zaihra Rizvi, Zhibang Lin, Zoher Ghogawala, Subu N. Magge, Andrew Y. Yew, Robert G. Whitmore Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(6): 1813. CrossRef
Expandable cage technology in minimally invasive transforaminal interbody fusion: where are we and what does the future hold? Chibuikem A. Ikwuegbuenyi, Noah Willett, Evan Wang, Sean Inzerillo, Ibrahim Hussain Expert Review of Medical Devices.2025; 22(4): 349. CrossRef
Clinical and radiological outcomes of titanium cage versus polyetheretherketone cage in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis Haozhong Wang, Hao Zhang, Changming Xiao, Kaiquan Zhang, Lisheng Qi Neurosurgical Review.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Understanding the influence of cage and instrumentation strategies with oblique lumbar interbody fusion for grade I spondylolisthesis – A comprehensive biomechanical modeling study Mathieu Chayer, Philippe Phan, Pierre-Jean Arnoux, Zhi Wang, Jeremy J. Rawlinson, Olumide Aruwajoye, Carl-Éric Aubin The Spine Journal.2025; 25(10): 2312. CrossRef
Preclinical evaluation of lateral interbody fusions using 3D printed PEEK or 3D printed titanium cages William Robert Walsh, Matthew Pelletier, Dan Wills, Tian Wang, Max Lloyd, Michael Veldman, Nick Cordaro, Mark Brady North American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ).2025; 23: 100756. CrossRef
‘Rebound Phenomenon’ – a Cause of Early Cage Back-out in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: Insights from Case Series of 1545 Patients Jvahar Jill, Sathish Muthu, Guna Pratheep Kalanchiam, Nalli Ramanathan Uvaraj Indian Journal of Orthopaedics.2025; 59(12): 2126. CrossRef
Application of Biocomposite Hydrogel With Developed Trabecular Cage in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Clinical Case Report Murat U. Baidarbekov, Olzhas S. Bekarisov, Zhangir N. Ipmagambetov, Margulan S. Abdigalikov, Agzam A. Akimbekov Clinical Medicine Insights: Case Reports.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Unilateral biportal endoscopy for minimally invasive spinal fusion: Advancements in biomaterials and clinical outcome optimization Song Fu, Li-Chuan Hou, Xiao-Ling Huang, Wei Zhao, Feng-Ming Wang, Ya-Nan Wang World Journal of Orthopedics.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Development and Validation of Interpretable Machine Learning Models Incorporating Paraspinal Muscle Quality to Predict Cage Subsidence Risk Following Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Haifu Sun, Wenxiang Tang, Lei Deng, Xingyu You, Zhairui Shen, Xiao Sun, Jun Zou, Fanguo Lin, Zhonglai Qian, Huilin Yang, Hao Liu Spine.2025; 50(20): 1375. CrossRef
Analysis of the anti-subsidence mechanical properties of novel 3D-printed titanium cages compared to conventional titanium cages Huiming Yang, Yuhang Wang, Junxian Miao, Jiangtao Wang, Hao Li, Yang Zhang, Liang Yan, Biao Wang Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Advances in Titanium-Based Biomaterial for Human Bone Scaffolds: Narrative Review on Design, Fabrication, Surface Engineering, Implantation, and Biological Evaluation Sichale W. Fita, Mirosław Bonek, Anna Woźniak, Sebastian Sławski Materials.2025; 18(23): 5421. CrossRef
Analysis of Clinical Indicators of Surgical Treatment of Degenerative Spinal Diseases Operated with Posterior Access Using the PEEK Cage Murat Umirkhanovich Baidarbekov, Olzhas Sapargalievich Bekarissov, Zhangir Narimanovich Ipmagambetov, Alexandr Yuryevich Chsherbina, Margulan Serikbayevich Abdikalikov, Rinat Akhmetrizovich Chekaev, Kaldygul Musaevna Yeldashbaeva West Kazakhstan Medical Journal.2025; 67(4): 410. CrossRef
Clinical and radiological results of TLIF surgery with titanium-coated PEEK or uncoated PEEK cages: a prospective single-centre randomised study P. Vanek, N. Svoboda, O. Bradac, J. Malik, R. Kaiser, D. Netuka European Spine Journal.2024; 33(1): 332. CrossRef
Feasibility analysis of wireless power delivery to implanted sensors of XLIF patients Subhas C. Mukhopadhyay, Isaac Senn, Vivek Ramakrishna, Boby George, Gangadhara Prusty, Ashish Diwan International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
3D-printed porous titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of subsidence Shu-Xin Liu, Teng-Hui Zeng, Chien-Min Chen, Li-Ru He, An-Ping Feng, Shang-Wun Jhang, Guang-Xun Lin Frontiers in Medicine.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Outcome of Ti/PEEK Versus PEEK Cages in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Yu-Cheng Yao, Po-Hsin Chou, Hsi-Hsien Lin, Shih-Tien Wang, Ming-Chau Chang Global Spine Journal.2023; 13(2): 472. CrossRef
A novel injectable hydrogel containing polyetheretherketone for bone regeneration in the craniofacial region Mahdieh Alipour, Marjan Ghorbani, Masume Johari khatoonabad, Marziyeh Aghazadeh Scientific Reports.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Near-Surface Nanomechanics of Medical-Grade PEEK Measured by Atomic Force Microscopy Marco Bontempi, Rosario Capozza, Andrea Visani, Milena Fini, Gianluca Giavaresi, Alessandro Gambardella Polymers.2023; 15(3): 718. CrossRef
Effect of Interbody Implants on the Biomechanical Behavior of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Study Hangkai Shen, Jia Zhu, Chenhui Huang, Dingding Xiang, Weiqiang Liu Journal of Functional Biomaterials.2023; 14(2): 113. CrossRef
Titanium‑coated polyetheretherketone cages vs. polyetheretherketone cages in lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta‑analysis Songfeng Li, Xiyong Li, Xiaohui Bai, Yunlu Wang, Pengfei Han, Hongzhuo Li Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies Neal A. Patel, Sinead O’Bryant, Christopher D. Rogers, Candler K. Boyett, Sachiv Chakravarti, Julian Gendreau, Nolan J. Brown, Zach A. Pennington, Neill B. Hatcher, Cathleen Kuo, Luis Daniel Diaz-Aguilar, Martin H. Pham Neurospine.2023; 20(2): 451. CrossRef
Response to the letter to the editor regarding “Vertebral bone quality score independently predicts cage subsidence following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion” Mohamed A.R. Soliman, Alexander O. Aguirre, Cathleen C. Kuo, Rehman Ali Baig, Asham Khan, Jeffrey P. Mullin, John Pollina The Spine Journal.2023; 23(8): 1239. CrossRef
Development and validation of a risk prediction model for cage subsidence after instrumented posterior lumbar fusion based on machine learning: a retrospective observational cohort study Tuotuo Xiong, Ben Wang, Wanyuan Qin, Ling Yang, Yunsheng Ou Frontiers in Medicine.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Feasibility of Non-window Three-Dimensional–Printed Porous Titanium Cage in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Pilot Trial Dae-Woong Ham, Chan-Woo Jung, Dong-Gune Chang, Jae Jun Yang, Kwang-Sup Song Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery.2023; 15(6): 960. CrossRef
Morphometric Comparison of Interbody Fusion with Cage and Autograft at L4-L5 Levels versus Autograft Alone for Fusion Azmi Tufan, Feyza Karagöz Güzey, Abdurrahman Aycan Bagcilar Medical Bulletin.2023; 8(3): 293. CrossRef
Relationship between the elastic modulus of the cage material and the biomechanical properties of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A logarithmic regression analysis based on parametric finite element simulations Teng Lu, Jiakun Ren, Zhongwei Sun, Jing Zhang, Kai Xu, Lu Sun, Pinglin Yang, Dong Wang, Yueyun Lian, Jingjing Zhai, Yali Gou, Yanbing Ma, Shengfeng Ji, Xijing He, Baohui Yang Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine.2022; 214: 106570. CrossRef
3D-printed titanium cages without bone graft outperform PEEK cages with autograft in an animal model Joseph L. Laratta, Bradley J. Vivace, Mónica López-Peña, Fernando Muñoz Guzón, Antonio Gonzalez-Cantalpeidra, Alberto Jorge-Mora, Rosa Maria Villar-Liste, Laura Pino-Lopez, Alexandr Lukyanchuk, Erik Arden Taghizadeh, Jesús Pino-Minguez The Spine Journal.2022; 22(6): 1016. CrossRef
Comparative Study of Cage Subsidence in Single-Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Akihiko Hiyama, Daisuke Sakai, Hiroyuki Katoh, Satoshi Nomura, Masato Sato, Masahiko Watanabe Journal of Clinical Medicine.2022; 11(5): 1374. CrossRef
A Review of Biomimetic Topographies and Their Role in Promoting Bone Formation and Osseointegration: Implications for Clinical Use Michael B. Berger, Paul Slosar, Zvi Schwartz, David J. Cohen, Stuart B. Goodman, Paul A. Anderson, Barbara D. Boyan Biomimetics.2022; 7(2): 46. CrossRef
Choice of Spinal Interbody Fusion Cage Material and Design Influences Subsidence and Osseointegration Performance Guy Fogel, Nicholas Martin, Gregory M. Williams, Jesse Unger, Christian Yee-Yanagishita, Matthew Pelletier, William Walsh, Yun Peng, Michael Jekir World Neurosurgery.2022; 162: e626. CrossRef
Approaches to Biofunctionalize Polyetheretherketone for Antibacterial: A Review Yihan Wang, Shutao Zhang, Bin’en Nie, Xinhua Qu, Bing Yue Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Evolution of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium interbody devices for spinal procedures: a comprehensive review of the literature Nallammai Muthiah, Yagiz Ugur Yolcu, Nima Alan, Nitin Agarwal, David Kojo Hamilton, Alp Ozpinar European Spine Journal.2022; 31(10): 2547. CrossRef
Biodegradable interbody cages for lumbar spine fusion: Current concepts and future directions Markus Laubach, Philipp Kobbe, Dietmar W. Hutmacher Biomaterials.2022; 288: 121699. CrossRef
Vertebral bone quality score independently predicts cage subsidence following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Mohamed A.R. Soliman, Alexander O. Aguirre, Cathleen C. Kuo, Nicco Ruggiero, Shady Azmy, Asham Khan, Moleca M. Ghannam, Neil D. Almeida, Patrick K. Jowdy, Jeffrey P. Mullin, John Pollina The Spine Journal.2022; 22(12): 2017. CrossRef
A Comparison of Polyetheretherketone and Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Randomized Clinical Trial Weerasak Singhatanadgige, Nattapat Tangchitcharoen, Stephen J. Kerr, Teerachat Tanasansomboon, Wicharn Yingsakmongkol, Vit Kotheeranurak, Worawat Limthongkul World Neurosurgery.2022; 168: e471. CrossRef
Complications in Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review of Clinically Used Cages Francesca Veronesi, Maria Sartori, Cristiana Griffoni, Marcelo Valacco, Giuseppe Tedesco, Paolo Francesco Davassi, Alessandro Gasbarrini, Milena Fini, Giovanni Barbanti Brodano Journal of Clinical Medicine.2022; 11(21): 6279. CrossRef
Biomechanical comparison of subsidence performance among three modern porous lateral cage designs Christian Yee-Yanagishita, Guy Fogel, Brooke Douglas, Gregory Essayan, Brijesh Poojary, Nicholas Martin, Gregory M. Williams, Yun Peng, Michael Jekir Clinical Biomechanics.2022; 99: 105764. CrossRef
An alternative method to evaluate lumbar interbody fusion status focusing on position change of screw-rod constructs Atsushi Yamamoto, Satoru Tanioka, Masashi Fujimoto, Hirofumi Nishikawa, Yusuke Kamei, Munenari Ikezawa, Fujimaro Ishida, Takahiro Miyazaki, Hidenori Suzuki, Masaki Mizuno European Radiology.2022; 33(3): 1545. CrossRef
Surgical outcome of minimal invasive oblique lateral interbody fusion with percutaneous pedicle screw fixation in the treatment of adult degenerative scoliosis Jun Seok Lee, Dong Wuk Son, Su Hun Lee, Soon Ki Sung, Sang Weon Lee, Geun Sung Song, Young Ha Kim, Chang Hwa Choi Medicine.2022; 101(48): e31879. CrossRef
Superior Osteo-Inductive and Osteo-Conductive Properties of Trabecular Titanium vs. PEEK Scaffolds on Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A Proof of Concept for the Use of Fusion Cages Enrico Ragni, Carlotta Perucca Orfei, Alessandro Bidossi, Elena De Vecchi, Natale Francaviglia, Alberto Romano, Gianluca Maestretti, Fulvio Tartara, Laura de Girolamo International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2021; 22(5): 2379. CrossRef
Comparison of MRI Visualization Following Minimally Invasive and Open TLIF: A Retrospective Single-Center Study Vadim A. Byvaltsev, Andrei A. Kalinin, Morgan B. Giers, Valerii V. Shepelev, Yurii Ya. Pestryakov, Mikhail Yu. Biryuchkov Diagnostics.2021; 11(5): 906. CrossRef
Polyetheretherketone for orthopedic applications: a review Yi-Hsun Yu, Shih-Jung Liu Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering.2021; 32: 100687. CrossRef
A Prospective, Multi-Center, Double-Blind, Randomized Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of the Synthetic Bone Graft Material DBM Gel with rhBMP-2 versus DBM Gel Used during the TLIF Procedure in Patients with Lumbar Disc Disease Seung-Jae Hyun, Seung Hwan Yoon, Joo Han Kim, Jae Keun Oh, Chang-Hyun Lee, Jun Jae Shin, Jiin Kang, Yoon Ha Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2021; 64(4): 562. CrossRef
Anterior Bridging Bone in a Newly Designed Cage for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Radiographic and Finite Element Analysis Jeongik Lee, Seung-Hwan Chang, Hyung-Chul Cho, Kwang-Sup Song World Neurosurgery.2021; 154: e389. CrossRef
PEEK Versus Titanium Static Interbody Cages Jose A. Canseco, Brian A. Karamian, Parthik D. Patel, Srikanth N. Divi, Tyler Timmons, Haydn Hallman, Ryan Nachwalter, Joseph K. Lee, Mark F. Kurd, D. Greg Anderson, Jeffrey A. Rihn, Alan S. Hilibrand, Christopher K. Kepler, Alexander R. Vaccaro, Gregory Clinical Spine Surgery.2021; 34(8): E483. CrossRef
Efficacy for Whitlockite for Augmenting Spinal Fusion Su Yeon Kwon, Jung Hee Shim, Yu Ha Kim, Chang Su Lim, Seong Bae An, Inbo Han International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2021; 22(23): 12875. CrossRef
Polyetheretherketone and Its Composites for Bone Replacement and Regeneration Chengzhu Liao, Yuchao Li, Sie Chin Tjong Polymers.2020; 12(12): 2858. CrossRef
PEEK versus titanium cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis of subsidence Peter G. Campbell, David A. Cavanaugh, Pierce Nunley, Philip A. Utter, Eubulus Kerr, Rishi Wadhwa, Marcus Stone Neurosurgical Focus.2020; 49(3): E10. CrossRef
First
Prev
