Corresponding Author Hyun-Jin Park Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Spine Center, Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, 1 Singil-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 07441, Korea Email: phjfrog@gmail.com
Ki-Han You and Samuel K. Cho contributed equally to this study as co-first authors.
• Received: March 3, 2024 • Revised: May 12, 2024 • Accepted: June 17, 2024
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is an emerging, minimally invasive technique performed under biportal endoscopic guidance. However, concerns regarding cage subsidence and sufficient fusion during BE-TLIF necessitate careful selection of an appropriate interbody cage to improve surgical outcomes. This study compared the fusion rate, subsidence, and other radiographic parameters according to the material and size of the cages used in BE-TLIF.
Methods
In this retrospective cohort study, patients who underwent single-segment BE-TLIF between April 2019 and February 2023 were divided into 3 groups: group A, regular-sized three-dimensionally (3D)-printed titanium cages; group B, regular-sized polyetheretherketone cages; and group C, large-sized 3D-printed titanium cages. Radiographic parameters, including lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, anterior and posterior disc heights, disc angle, and foraminal height, were measured before and after surgery. The fusion rate and severity of cage subsidence were compared between the groups.
Results
No significant differences were noted in the demographic data or radiographic parameters between the groups. The fusion rate on 1-year postoperative computed tomography was comparable between the groups. The cage subsidence rate was significantly lower in group C than in group A (41.9% vs. 16.7%, p=0.044). The severity of cage subsidence was significantly lower in group C (0.93±0.83) than in groups A (2.20±1.84, p=0.004) and B (1.79±1.47, p=0.048).
Conclusion
Cage materials did not affect the 1-year postoperative outcomes of BE-TLIF; however, subsidence was markedly reduced in large cages. Larger cages may provide more stable postoperative segments.
Minimally invasive spinal surgeries, including endoscopic spinal surgeries, are becoming increasingly popular. In particular, the use of biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) is increasing [1,2]. This technique merges the benefits of traditional posterior approaches with those of minimally invasive surgery. It involves accessing the surgical site through 2 skin incisions, each spaced 1 cm apart, facilitating the utilization of both hands via 2 distinct portals [3,4]. The application of biportal endoscopy to lumbar interbody fusion surgery provides a safer approach for interbody cage insertion [5-9], minimizing damage to the paraspinal muscles, improving early postoperative clinical outcomes, enabling faster rehabilitation, and reducing complications related to blood transfusion [5,10]. Despite these advantages, there are concerns about the fusion rate and cage subsidence when using biportal endoscopy. The disadvantages of BESS include a smaller amount of available autogenous bone and the potential loss of fusion material due to continuous irrigation. Hence, the selection of suitable cage material, which impacts both fusion rate and cage subsidence, is crucial.
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium are the most commonly used cage materials with distinct advantages and disadvantages. PEEK cages have the advantages of being radiolucent and biocompatible, with an elastic modulus similar to that of bone [11]. Titanium cages have good biocompatibility and better fusion rates [12,13], although they have a heightened risk of subsidence owing to their high elastic modulus. Recently, the incorporation of 3-dimensional (3D)-printing technology has resulted in a reduction in the elastic modulus [14]. Additionally, the creation of a porous structure has improved osteoinduction. Moreover, the surface area of the intervertebral cage affects the fusion rate and potential subsidence. Some lumbar interbody fusion studies have reported lower rates of cage subsidence associated with larger cages [15-17].
Therefore, to ensure appropriate interbody cage selection and to improve surgical outcomes, this study aimed to compare fusion rate, incidence and severity of cage subsidence, and other radiographic parameters according to cage material and size in biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
1. Study Design and Patient Characteristics
In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical charts and radiographic image analyses of 121 patients who underwent BE-TLIF between April 2019 and February 2023. This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine (approval number: 2024-01-002). The Institutional Review Board of Hallym University Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital granted an exemption from obtaining informed consent. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age 50–80 years; (2) refractory pain that was not controlled by conservative treatment for >3 months; and (3) single-level lumbar degenerative disease requiring fusion surgery. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) multilevel disease; (2) a history of prior surgery at the same level; (3) other pathologic conditions, such as fracture, tumor, infection, and inflammatory disease; (4) osteoporosis with a T score of -2.5 or lower; (5) endplate injury that occurred intraoperatively; or (6) lack of 1-year follow-up data.
Eventually, 86 patients were analyzed after excluding 35 patients: 19 lost to follow-up, 13 with intraoperative endplate injury, 1 with dural tear, and 2 with revision surgery due to suspected nonunion and incomplete decompression. Of these, 55 were in the 3D-printed cage group, and 31 were in the PEEK cage group. Patients with 3D-printed cages were divided into 2 groups: those with regular-sized cages (<400 mm2 area, n=31) and those with large cages (>400 mm2 area, n=24) (Fig. 1). The patients were categorized as follows: group A, regular 3D-printed titanium cage; group B, regular PEEK cage; and group C, large 3D-printed titanium cage.
2. Radiographic Parameters
Radiographic measurements were acquired using preoperative, immediate postoperative, and 1-year postoperative wholespine standing radiographs. The immediate postoperative radiograph was obtained 1- or 2-day postsurgery. Radiographs were analyzed for changes in lumbar lordosis, anterior and posterior disc heights, segmental lordosis, intervertebral disc angle, and intervertebral foraminal height in the operated segment. Radiographic parameters were measured using commonly used methods. Cage subsidence has been measured using various methods in previous studies. We evaluated the 1-year postoperative sagittal computed tomography (CT) images (2-mm slices) to assess cage subsidence. Cage subsidence was defined as sinking >2 mm in the cephalad and/or caudal endplates of the operated segment. This method was used to evaluate the incidence rate of cage subsidence. We also evaluated the severity of cage subsidence. The severity of the level was considered to be the maximum subsidence value measured by the above method. To evaluate cage position, the central point ratio (CPR) [18], we measured the ratio of the distance between the cage midpoint and the posterior superior corner of the lower vertebra, divided by the length of the superior endplate of the lower vertebra (Fig. 2). Anterior positioning was indicated when CPR was >0.5. Fusion status was also analyzed using 1-year postoperative CT. Fusion was classified according to the Bridwell classification [19], with classifications I and II defined as fusion and III and IV as nonfusion. The radiographic measurements were performed by 2 blinded independent orthopedic surgeons who did not participate in this study. For fusion grading, if the evaluators’ opinions differed, a final consensus was obtained between the authors.
3. Surgical Procedure
All surgeries were performed by a highly experienced singlespine surgeon. Under general endotracheal anesthesia, the patients were placed in a knee-flexed prone position on a radiolucent spinal table. The procedure was carried out using the multiportal approach technique [8]. Initially, central portals were created for central canal decompression and contralateral facet release. A single portal (M-portal) was created immediately superior to the midline of the intervertebral disc space. Another portal (M´ portal) was made approximately 1.5- to 2-cm caudal to perform central canal decompression through unilateral laminectomy and bilateral decompression. Decompression proceeded until reaching the contralateral facet, where contralateral facetectomy was performed to enhance segmental mobility and prevent subsidence during cage insertion. Subsequently, 2 additional portals (P+2 [L] and [R]) for the far-lateral approach were created approximately 2 cm laterally from the lateral margin of the pedicle. Ipsilateral facetectomy and foraminotomy were performed using these portals. This approach enables bilateral facetectomy, facilitating the collection of a relatively substantial amount of autobone, typically averaging 6–9 mL. Subsequently, the disc space was prepared. At this stage, using real-time imaging with biportal endoscopy allows for disc space preparation on the contralateral side, which is challenging to visualize in minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF). Cage insertion was then performed using all 4 portals. Before cage insertion, bone grafting was performed by mixing 3 mL of demineralized bone matrix (DBM) with autobone obtained from laminectomy and facetectomy. Initially, the inside of the cage was filled with fusion material, and any remaining material was packed on the anterior side of the disc space before cage insertion. The cage was inserted as parallel as possible to the coronal plane. Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation was uniformly carried out in all patients, with intraoperative C-arm imaging employed for confirmation (Figs. 3–5).
Both the 3D-printed titanium (regular size: EIT cellular titanium cage, DePuy Synthes, West Chester, PA, USA; large size: 3D XTLIF CAGE, Endovision Co., Ltd., Daegu, Korea) and PEEK cages (Lospa Is TLIF cage system, Corentec Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea) were used for interbody fusion. Cage size was classified based on the surface area using a 400-mm² standard. The surface area was calculated by multiplying the length and width of each cage. The cage height was tailored to match the disc space of the patient. A percutaneous pedicle screw system (Lospa Is MIS Spinal System; Corentec Co., Ltd.) was used for fixation. For achieving solid fusion, a consistent amount of 3 mL of DBM (OSG DBM Syringe, OSSGEN Co., Ltd., Daegu, Korea) was uniformly used in all patients.
4. Statistical Analyses
For continuous variables, each group was first tested for normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to determine the normality of data distribution. For normally distributed data, 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare continuous variables, with post hoc tests when significant differences were found. One-way ANOVA is a hypothesis test employed to ascertain whether there exists a notable difference among the means of 3 or more groups. Chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables such as fusion and subsidence rates between the 2 groups. Student t-test was used to assess the differences in the severity of cage subsidence. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 26.0 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA).
RESULTS
1. Demographic Data
We analyzed data from 86 patients. Among them, 31 received regular-sized 3D-printed titanium cages (group A), 31 received PEEK cages (group B), and 24 received large 3D-printed titanium cages (group C). No significant differences were noted in age, body mass index (BMI), bone mineral density, operation level, cage height, or CPR among the 3 groups (Table 1).
2. Radiographic Parameters
All radiographic parameters were measured using simple radiographs preoperatively, immediately postoperatively, and at 1 year postoperatively. We compared changes from preoperative to immediate postoperative measurements and from immediate postoperative to 1-year postoperative measurements for each variable but found no significant differences among the 3 groups (Table 2).
3. Fusion Rate and Cage Subsidence
The fusion rate was highest in group C, followed by group A and then group B, although the differences were not statistically significant. Fusion grade was also not significantly different among the 3 groups. The incidence of cage subsidence showed no significant difference between groups A and B, as well as between groups B and C. However, it was notably lower in group C than in group A despite using the same cage material. The cage subsidence severity was lowest in group C followed by groups B and A. group C had significantly lower cage subsidence severity than groups A and B (Table 3).
DISCUSSION
BE-TLIF is a viable option with good surgical outcomes [5-8], although the limited availability of autogenous bone and potential loss of fusion material due to continuous irrigation raises concerns about fusion, and cage size could potentially influence subsidence. In this study, we compared the fusion rate, subsidence, and other radiographic parameters based on the material and size of the cage used in BE-TLIF. We found that cage materials did not affect the 1-year postoperative outcomes, but cage subsidence was markedly reduced with larger cages in BE-TLIF.
The surgeon sequentially selected cages during the surgery, progressing from group A to C. Intraoperative endplate injury was observed in 13 cases: 6 in group A, 4 in group B, and 3 in group C, notably occurring more frequently during the early learning curve period (Table 4). Performing BE-TLIF in a limited endoscopic surgical field poses challenges, especially before mastering the learning curve. It is speculated that increased bony endplate injury during cage insertion, may contribute to cage subsidence. This phenomenon is not unique to BE-TLIF but can also occur in existing MIS-TLIF procedures [20]. Cases of intraoperative endplate injury that occurred during the learning curve were excluded from the study as they would have biased the study analyzing the effect of cage size and material on subsidence.
Cage subsidence following lumbar interbody fusion surgery has significant implications for postoperative decompression, particularly foraminal restenosis, and can influence fusion rates, as shown in some studies [21,22]. Restoration of disc height via cage height is critical in achieving indirect decompression of foraminal stenosis. However, if the cage subsides, reducing the disc height, restenosis may occur, leading to radiculopathy recurrence. Typical risk factors for cage subsidence include conditions such as osteoporosis, higher BMI, multifidus muscle atrophy, poor endplate bone quality, posterior cage positioning, and use of an excessively high cage [23,24]. Additionally, the use of a smaller cage surface area may increase cage subsidence risk, whereas the use of a larger surface area may decrease this risk [25,26].
Cage material type affects cage subsidence significantly. PEEK cages have the advantage of being radiolucent, allowing for easy postoperative assessment of fusion status, and given their high biocompatibility, they have few adverse effects [11,27]. Additionally, the elastic modulus of PEEK is similar to that of bone, reducing the likelihood of subsidence. In contrast, titanium cages exhibit strong corrosion resistance and stiffness, thereby providing excellent immediate postoperative stability. They are also osteoinductive and have favorable fusion rates [12,13,28]. However, with their high elastic moduli, the cage subsidence risk increases. Some previous meta-analyses comparing cage materials in lumbar interbody fusion reported that PEEK and titanium cages showed similar fusion rates but higher subsidence rates with titanium cages [29,30]. However, recent advances in 3D-printing technology have allowed the development of porous materials, and in vitro experiments have shown that a specific pore size is associated with more osteoblasts [31]. Application of 3D-printing technology allows implementation of this osteoblast-friendly pore size. Thus, the elastic modulus was reduced, and osteoinduction was further enhanced. Therefore, 3D-printed titanium cages may increase the fusion rate and reduce cage subsidence. A recent study comparing PEEK and 3D-printed titanium cages reported that 3D-printed titanium cages yielded a better fusion rate [32-35]. Similarly, in our study, the fusion rate in the 3D-printed titanium cage group was higher than PEEK, but not significantly.
The cage surface area is another important factor affecting the fusion rate and cage subsidence. Regular and large cages were used in this study. Larger 3D titanium cages resulted in a better fusion rate than regular cages of the same material, but this was not statistically significant. Both the cage subsidence rate and severity of subsidence of the large cage were significantly lower than those of the regular cage. A previous biomechanical study of cage type in lateral lumbar interbody fusion showed that wider cages with larger surface areas had greater biomechanical stability [36,37]. With a wider surface contact area, the pressure per unit area will likely decrease, potentially reducing the force between the cage and endplate. Consequently, the cage subsidence is expected to decrease. Additionally, in a study comparing regular-sized and large cages, less cage subsidence was observed in the large-cage group, similar to our study [15-17].
The anatomical structure of the vertebral body also influences cage subsidence. Because the endplate is more rigid in the peripheral region, called the epiphyseal ring, than in the central region of the vertebral body, a cage with a large footprint should be used to ensure proper positioning of the cage on both epiphyseal rings [38]. With a large cage, pedicle screw interference can occasionally stop cage subsidence, suggesting that a cage that extends to the screw position may increase the bone density during subsidence, potentially serving as a subsidence-preventive measure. Therefore, both the incidence and severity of cage subsidence are likely reduced in large cages.
In most previous studies comparing BE-TLIF and other minimally invasive TLIF procedures, no significant differences were found in surgical outcomes [5,39,40]. Despite concerns about the washout of the fusion material, BE-TLIF may yield similar results because of the detailed endplate preparation and real-time biportal endoscopic view. However, Park et al. [41] reported that BE-TLIF yielded less favorable results in terms of definite fusion than conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion, possibly due to inadequate autogenous bone harvesting, bone material washout, and the likelihood of complications such as cage subsidence or retropulsion. In a meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive TLIF (MIS-TLIF) and open TLIF, fusion rates of 80.5% and 91.1% were reported for MIS-TLIF and open TLIF, respectively [42]. In MIS-TLIF, similar to that in BE-TLIF, the amount of autogenous bone harvested during surgery was lower than that harvested during conventional open surgery. Concerns have been raised that the fusion rate could be lowered because of a limitation during endplate preparation, given the narrow working space using a tubular retractor. In comparison, BE-TLIF, which is similar to open lumbar surgery, is performed in a wide and free working space because of the advantages of biportal endoscopy. Additionally, because endplate preparation can be performed more carefully under direct endoscopic vision, a higher fusion rate is expected. Specifically, employing the far multiportal approach of biportal endoscopy allows for a relatively safer insertion of a large footprint cage through a more lateral corridor. Therefore, we consider BE-TLIF to be a viable option for proficient surgeons. Moreover, using a 3D-printed large titanium cage, as in this study, reduces concerns regarding conventional MIS-TLIF and can improve radiographic outcomes.
This study had some limitations. First, it was a retrospective study. Second, because this was a single-institution study involving a single surgeon, the sample size was small. Due to the small sample sizes in all 3 groups, there is a potential for selection bias stemming from an imbalance among them. BE-TLIF is a relatively new surgical technique; consequently, there has not been sufficient time to accumulate a substantial number of cases. Third, a clinical evaluation was not performed. Specifically, because fusion rate and cage subsidence were confirmed only radiographically, it was difficult to ascertain whether it contributed to symptom manifestation. However, we aimed to confirm the occurrence of radiographic cage subsidence and bony fusion. Therefore, whether a higher subsidence incidence yields worse clinical outcomes remains unclear. Compared with previous studies that evaluated cage subsidence through simple radiography, the cage subsidence rate in this study was slightly higher, possibly because the evaluation involved CT [21,22]. Additionally, cage artifacts appear to influence the measurement of cage subsidence using CT. Future studies incorporating long-term follow-up and randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are required. Despite these limitations, this study represents an investigation of cage material and size in terms of fusion rate, subsidence, and other radiographic parameters in BE-TLIF, which have not been reported concurrently to date.
CONCLUSION
The study findings revealed no significant difference in fusion rate according to cage material and size in BE-TLIF; however, cage subsidence was reduced with larger cage use. Once the insertion of a cage with a large footprint is familiarized with biportal endoscopic assistance, a 3D-printed large titanium cage could be a feasible option to reduce cage subsidence and increase the stability of the surgical segment during the follow-up period.
NOTES
Conflict of Interest
The authors have nothing to disclose.
Funding/Support
This study received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors
Radiographic parameters measurement. (A) The SL was defined as the angle subtended by the superior endplate line of upper vertebra and the inferior endplate line of lower vertebra. The DA was defined as the angle subtended by the inferior endplate line of upper vertebra and the superior endplate line of lower vertebra. (B) The ADH and PDH was defined as the distance between vertebrae at the anterior margin and posterior margin of intervertebral disc. The FH was defined as the distance between lower margin of upper pedicle and upper margin of lower pedicle. (C) Cage position was determined using the central point ratio (CPR), which was calculated by dividing the distance from the cage midpoint to the posterior superior corner of the lower vertebra by the length of the superior endplate of the same vertebra (B/A × 100%). Anterior positioning was indicated when CPR exceeded 0.5. (D) Measurement of cage subsidence. DA, disc angle; SL, segmental lordosis; ADH, anterior disc height; FH, foraminal height; PDH, posterior disc height.
Fig. 3.
A case of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a 3-dimentional (3D)-printed titanium cage with a large footprint. A 53-year-old female patient underwent surgery for low back pain and radiating right leg pain that could not be managed conservatively. (A–C) On preoperative radiographs, spondylolisthesis L4 on L5 and bilateral facet arthritis were observed. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed severe right neural foraminal stenosis and right lateral recess stenosis. (D–F) After surgery, the cage was appropriately inserted, and a well-decompressed neural foramen was observed. The patient’s pain markedly improved.
Fig. 4.
A case of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a polyetheretherketone cage. A 78-year-old female patient complained of severe lower back pain, radiating pain in both legs, and intermittent claudication for < 5 minutes. (A–C) On preoperative imaging, spondylolisthesis of L4 on L5 and severe central canal stenosis were observed. (D–F) After the surgery, the central canal was well decompressed, and the patient’s symptoms markedly improved.
Fig. 5.
Surgical technique of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. (A) Surgical incision. First, a single portal (M-portal) was created superior to the midline of the intervertebral disc space. Another portal (M´ portal) was made approximately 1.5- to 2-cm caudal to perform central canal decompression through unilateral laminectomy and bilateral decompression. Subsequently, 2 additional portals (P+2 [L] and [R]) for the far-lateral approach were created approximately 2 cm laterally from the lateral margin of the pedicle. Ipsilateral facetectomy and foraminotomy were performed using these portals. (B) After posterior decompression (ipsilateral side). (C) After contralateral facetectomy. (D) Entry site of cage insertion. (E) Endoscopic view of endplate preparation. (F) Cage trial insertion. (G) Autobone harvested from laminectomy. (H) Postoperative surgical wound.
Table 1.
Demographic data
Table 1.
Variable
Group A (n = 31)
Group B (n = 31)
Group C (n = 24)
p-value
Sex, male:female
9:22
14:17
14:10
0.078
Age (yr)
65.38 ± 8.16
69.67 ± 7.82
67.91 ± 6.94
0.096
BMI (kg/m2)
26.24 ± 4.21
25.00 ± 3.52
25.55 ± 3.05
0.414
BMD (T score)
-1.48 ± 1.13
-1.68 ± 0.72
-1.21 ± 0.93
0.204
Operation level
0.421
L2–3
2 (6.4)
1 (3.2)
0 (0)
L3–4
1 (3.2)
5 (16.1)
1 (4.1)
L4–5
20 (64.5)
17 (54.8)
17 (70.8)
L5–S1
8 (25.8)
8 (25.8)
6 (25.0)
Cage height (mm)
11.12 ± 1.43
11.12 ± 1.76
11.16 ± 1.20
0.995
Central point ratio
0.57 ± 0.059
0.60 ± 0.069
0.60 ± 0.070
0.382
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).
Group A, regular-sized 3-dimensionally (3D)-printed titanium cages; group B, regular-sized polyetheretherketone cages; group C, large-sized 3D-printed titanium cages; BMI, body mass index; BMD, bone mineral density.
Analysis of variance was used to compare demographic data among the 3 groups.
Table 2.
Radiographic parameters
Table 2.
Variable
Group A (n = 31)
Group B (n = 31)
Group C (n = 24)
p-value
Preop anterior disc height (mm)
11.39 ± 3.15
11.53 ± 4.40
12.55 ± 4.55
0.533
Postop anterior disc height (mm)
15.94 ± 2.95
14.62 ± 2.74
16.81 ± 3.51
0.094
1-year postop anterior disc height (mm)
14.99 ± 3.03
13.53 ± 2.91
16.17 ± 3.31
0.098
△Postop–preop
4.55 ± 2.88
3.08 ± 2.70
4.26 ± 3.62
0.145
△1-year postop–postop
-0.95 ± 1.00
-1.08 ± 1.03
-0.64 ± 0.55
0.201
Preop posterior disc height
7.75 ± 2.41
7.15 ± 2.77
7.20 ± 2.40
0.598
Postop posterior disc height (mm)
10.70 ± 2.81
10.30 ± 2.24
9.59 ± 1.47
0.211
1-year postop posterior disc height (mm)
9.90 ± 3.00
9.64 ± 2.21
8.94 ± 1.43
0.318
△Postop–preop
2.94 ± 2.29
3.15 ± 2.45
2.39 ± 2.27
0.480
△1-year postop–postop
-0.79 ± 1.27
-0.65 ± 1.36
-0.65 ± 0.67
0.862
Preop lumbar lordosis (°)
37.75 ± 12.30
38.25 ± 11.30
39.78 ± 12.52
0.119
Postop lumbar lordosis (°)
39.89 ± 11.49
39.02 ± 9.29
40.90 ± 10.23
0.387
1-year postop lumbar lordosis (°)
40.98 ± 14.10
38.75 ± 9.93
42.11 ± 12.69
0.294
△Postop–preop
2.13 ± 6.09
0.77 ± 6.45
1.11 ± 4.11
0.632
△1-year postop–postop
1.08 ± 4.27
-0.27 ± 2.49
1.21 ± 4.34
0.249
Preop segmental lordosis (°)
14.39 ± 6.58
14.95 ± 5.04
16.49 ± 7.54
0.132
Postop segmental lordosis (°)
15.57 ± 5.71
16.14 ± 3.33
18.08 ± 6.82
0.091
1-year postop segmental lordosis (°)
14.75 ± 5.98
15.12 ± 3.99
17.73 ± 7.12
0.279
△Postop–preop
1.17 ± 2.70
1.18 ± 4.12
1.59 ± 3.20
0.880
△1-year postop–postop
-0.82 ± 1.58
-1.01 ± 1.87
-0.35 ± 1.51
0.347
Preop disc angle (°)
6.00 ± 5.00
6.53 ± 4.52
6.78 ± 4.38
0.815
Postop disc angle (°)
8.08 ± 5.30
7.94 ± 4.45
9.38 ± 3.30
0.450
1-year postop disc angle (°)
6.95 ± 5.58
7.06 ± 4.06
8.75 ± 3.13
0.274
△Postop–preop
2.08 ± 3.99
1.41 ± 3.57
2.60 ± 3.40
0.489
△1-year postop–postop
-1.12 ± 2.07
-0.87 ± 2.06
-0.63 ± 1.73
0.656
Preop foraminal height (mm)
19.98 ± 2.55
19.00 ± 4.36
19.25 ± 3.75
0.552
Postop foraminal height (mm)
23.98 ± 2.98
21.57 ± 3.29
22.19 ± 3.18
0.111
1-year postop foraminal height (mm)
22.91 ± 2.91
20.65 ± 3.32
21.52 ± 2.98
0.189
△Postop–preop
3.00 ± 2.77
2.56 ± 3.56
2.93 ± 2.25
0.151
△1-year postop–postop
-1.07 ± 1.14
-0.91 ± 1.18
-0.66 ± 0.72
0.381
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
Group A, regular-sized 3-dimensionally (3D)-printed titanium cages; group B, regular-sized polyetheretherketone cages; group C, large-sized 3D-printed titanium cages; preop, preoperative; postop, postoperative; △, difference between 2 values.
Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare radiographic parameters among the 3 groups.
Table 3.
Fusion rate and cage subsidence among the 3 groups
Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.
*p<0.05, statistically significant differences.
†Bridwell interbody fusion grading system: grade 1 is defined as fusion with remodeling and trabeculae present; grade 2 is defined as an intact graft with incomplete remodeling and no lucency present; grade 3 is defined as an intact graft with potential lucency at the cranial or caudal end; and grade 4 is defined as absent fusion with collapse/resorption of the graft. The fusion rate, fusion grade, and cage subsidence rate were compared using the chi-square test.
Differences in the severity of subsidence between the groups were tested using Student t-test.
Table 4.
Surgical complications
Table 4.
Varaible
Group A (n = 45)
Group B (n = 44)
Group C (n = 32)
Intraoperative endplate injury
6 (13.3)
4 (9.0)
3 (9.3)
Dural tear
0 (0)
1 (2.2)
0 (0)
Revision surgery
1 (2.2)
1 (2.2)
0 (0)
Values are presented as number (%).
Group A, regular-sized 3-dimensionally (3D)-printed titanium cages; group B, regular-sized polyetheretherketone cages; group C, large-sized 3D-printed titanium cages.
REFERENCES
1. Simpson AK, Lightsey HM 4th, Xiong GX, et al. Spinal endoscopy: evidence, techniques, global trends, and future projections. Spine J 2022;22:64-74.
2. Chu PL, Wang T, Zheng JL, et al. Global and current research trends of unilateral biportal endoscopy/biportal endoscopic spinal surgery in the treatment of lumbar degenerative diseases: a bibliometric and visualization study. Orthop Surg 2022;14:635-43.
3. Choi JY, Park SM, Kim HJ, et al. Recent updates on minimally invasive spine surgery: techniques, technologies, and indications. Asian Spine J 2022;16:1013-21.
4. Park HJ, Park SM, Song KS, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of conventional and biportal endoscopic decompressive laminectomy in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis (endo-B trial): a protocol for a prospective, randomized, assessor-blind, multicenter trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021;22:1056.
5. Kang MS, You KH, Choi JY, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique. Spine J 2021;21:2066-77.
8. You KH, Hwang JY, Hong SH, et al. Biportal endoscopic extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints: technical note and preliminary results. Acta Neurochir 2023;165:1435-43.
10. Yu Q, Lu HG, Pan XK, et al. Unilateral biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion versus conventional interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar spine disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023;24:838.
11. Liao JC, Niu CC, Chen WJ, et al. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage filled with cancellous allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop 2008;32:643-8.
12. Nemoto O, Asazuma T, Yato Y, et al. Comparison of fusion rates following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone cages or titanium cages with transpedicular instrumentation. Eur Spine J 2014;23:2150-5.
13. 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;19:524-32.
14. Provaggi E, Leong JJH, Kalaskar DM. Applications of 3D printing in the management of severe spinal conditions. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2017;231:471-86.
15. Kim SJ, Lee YS, Kim YB, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of a new cage for direct lateral lumbar interbody fusion. Korean J Spine 2014;11:145-51.
17. Wu J, Feng Q, Yang D, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of different sizes of 3D-printed cage in lumbar interbody fusion-a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023;24:85.
18. Landham PR, Don AS, Robertson PA. Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction. Eur Spine J 2017;26:2843-50.
19. Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, et al. Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine. Do they work if combined with posterior fusion and instrumentation in adult patients with kyphosis or anterior column defects? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1995;20:1410-8.
20. Jitpakdee K, Sommer F, Gouveia E, et al. Expandable cages that expand both height and lordosis provide improved immediate effect on sagittal alignment and short-term clinical outcomes following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF). J Spine Surg 2024;10:55-67.
21. Oh KW, Lee JH, Lee JH, et al. The correlation between cage subsidence, bone mineral density, and clinical results in posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Clin Spine Surg 2017;30:E683-89.
22. Lewandrowski KU, Ransom NA, Yeung A. Subsidence induced recurrent radiculopathy after staged two-level standalone endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion with a threaded cylindrical cage: a case report. J Spine Surg 2020;6(Suppl 1):S286-93.
25. Tohmeh AG, Khorsand D, Watson B, 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:E1582-91.
26. Zhao L, Xie T, Wang X, et al. Clinical and radiological evaluation of cage subsidence following oblique lumbar interbody fusion combined with anterolateral fixation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022;23:214.
29. Seaman S, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M, et al. Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: meta-analysis and review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci 2017;44:23-9.
30. Tan JH, Cheong CK, Hey HWD. 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 2021;30:1285-95.
31. Li P, Jiang W, Yan J, et al. A novel 3D-printed cage with microporous structure and in vivo fusion function. J Biomed Mater Res A 2019;107:1386-92.
32. Yang JJ, Kim DM, Park SH. Comparison of fusion, subsidence, and clinical results between 3d-printed porous titanium cage and polyetheretherketone cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a minimum of 2 years follow-up. World Neurosurg 2023 Jul 5 S1878-8750(23):00915-4. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2023.06.132. [Epub].
33. Sultana T, Hossain M, Jeong JH, et al. Comparative analysis of radiologic outcomes between polyetheretherketone and three dimensional-printed titanium cages after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg 2023;179:e241-55.
34. Singhatanadgige W, Tangchitcharoen N, Kerr SJ, et al. A comparison of polyetheretherketone and titanium-coated polyetheretherketone in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a randomized clinical trial. World Neurosurg 2022;168:e471-9.
35. Chang SY, Kang DH, Cho SK. Innovative developments in lumbar interbody cage materials and design: a comprehensive narrative review. Asian Spine J 2024;18:444-57.
37. Lambrechts MJ, Heard J, D’Antonio N, et al. A comparison of radiographic alignment between bilateral and unilateral interbody cages in patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Asian Spine J 2023;17:666-75.
38. Zhang X, Wu H, Chen Y, et al. Importance of the epiphyseal ring in OLIF stand-alone surgery: a biomechanical study on cadaveric spines. Eur Spine J 2021;30:79-87.
39. Kim JE, Yoo HS, Choi DJ, et al. Comparison of minimal invasive versus biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for single-level lumbar disease. Clin Spine Surg 2021;34:E64-71.
40. Wang Q, Chang S, Dong JF, et al. Comparing the efficacy and complications of unilateral biportal endoscopic fusion versus minimally invasive fusion for lumbar degenerative diseases: a systematic review and mate-analysis. Eur Spine J 2023;32:1345-57.
41. Park MK, Park SA, Son SK, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion (ULIF) compared with conventional posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): 1-year follow-up. Neurosurg Rev 2019;42:753-61.
42. Heemskerk JL, Oluwadara Akinduro O, Clifton W, et al. Long-term clinical outcome of minimally invasive versus open single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. Spine J 2021;21:2049-65.
Development and Validation of a Predictive Model and Web-Based Calculator for Cage Subsidence After Midline Lumbar Interbody Fusion (MIDLIF) Surgery Mingzheng Zhao, Honghao Yang, Shixuan Guo, Jun Miao, Zepei Zhang, Yangpu Zhang, Kuan Li, Fengqi Cheng, Jing Su, Yaoshen Zhang, Yong Hai, Yuzeng Liu Global Spine Journal.2026; 16(3): 1423. CrossRef
Influence of surgical technique, interbody characteristics, and radiographic parameters on fusion rates across the disc space and posterolateral elements following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion Zach Pennington, Abdelrahman Hamouda, Omar Hafz, Anthony L. Mikula, Michelle J. Clarke, William E. Krauss, Brett A. Freedman, Melvin D. Helgeson, Ahmad N. Nassr, Arjun S. Sebastian, Jeremy L. Fogelson, Benjamin D. Elder Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery.2026; 261: 109285. 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
Advancements in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a narrative review Penghui Lv, Lu Li, Sichao Cheng, Jincheng Bai, Jianjun Chang European Journal of Medical Research.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
Clinical and radiologic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in biportal endoscopic TLIF: focus on endplate injury and subsidence Tae Hoon Kang, Geumho Lee, Byungjun Kang, Jeongwoon Han, Hyun-jin Park, Minjoon Cho, Jae Hyup Lee Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
En bloc discectomy via anterior lumbar approach: a technical note Harmantya Mahadhipta, Amri Muhyi, Muhamad Abdul Harist Fadhlizain, Mitchel Mitchel, Karina Sylvana Gani, Erica Kholinne SICOT-J.2026; 12: 19. CrossRef
Clinical outcomes and radiologic parameters of percutaneous endoscopic posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using rammed-earth technique Qingyang Kang, Zhilin Ge, Jiheng Zhan, Xuzhou Li, Guanwei Huang, Guoyi Su Frontiers in Surgery.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Titanium-coated PEEK versus 3D-printed porous titanium cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A meta-analysis Youngmin Yu, Thomas Cho, Jiayong Liu Journal of Orthopaedics.2026; 77: 124. CrossRef
Clinical and radiological outcomes following biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: A comparative study of three interbody cage strategies Ju-Eun Kim, Hee Soo Kim, Daniel K. Park World Neurosurgery: X.2026; 31: 100604. CrossRef
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Double-Cage Full Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion : A Retrospective Cohort Study Chi Ho Kim, Pius Kim, Chang Il Ju, Jong Hun Seo Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society.2026; 69(4): 596. CrossRef
Preoperative coronal magnetic resonance imaging: a critical evaluation of the Kambin’s triangle for the transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedure Koopong Siribumrungwong, Bunyaporn Wuttiworawanit, Punnawit Pinitchanon, Chanon Chiarnpattanodom, Thongchai Suntharapa Asian Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Impact of endplate–graft geometric matching on cage subsidence following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis Youchen Ye, Hao Li, Fangcai Li BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
3D-Printed Porous Titanium versus Polyetheretherketone Cages in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial with Bone Mineral Density Stratification Jae-Won Shin, Mun-Su Park, Ji-Won Kwon, Sang-Ho Kim, Joonoh Seo, Hak-Sun Kim, Kyung-Soo Suk, Seong Hwan Moon, Si-Young Park, Byung Ho Lee The Spine Journal.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Risk factors influencing cage retropulsion following lumbar interbody fusion in treating degenerative lumbar diseases: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis Yong Liu, Hongyu Chen, Xiaoming Hu, Xiaokun Wu, Xiangui Yu, Hai Chen, Wenxiong Zhang, Limin Du Journal of Orthopaedic Science.2025; 30(5): 768. CrossRef
Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) Versus Full-Endoscopic/Percutaneous TLIF With a Large-Footprint Interbody Cage: A Comparative Observational Study Christian Morgenstern, Francisco Nogueras, Geoffrey Delbos, Rudolf Morgenstern Global Spine Journal.2025; 15(6): 2910. CrossRef
Goutallier grading of psoas major and lumbar extensor muscles as a predictor of cage subsidence and reoperation following transforaminal and posterior lumbar interbody fusion Frank Vazquez, Alex Tang, Ara Khoylyan, Tan Chen The Spine Journal.2025; 25(11): 2514. CrossRef
In vitro comparison of endplate preparation in biportal endoscopic and microscopic tubular transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures Min-Seok Kang, Samuel K. Cho, Samuel Q. Li, Fady Y. Hijji, Jun S. Kim, Sang-Min Park, Ki-Han You, Hyun-Jin Park The Spine Journal.2025; 25(10): 2326. CrossRef
Development and internal validation of a risk score for subsidence of expandable spacers in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery Martin N. Stienen, Lorenzo Bertulli, Linda Bättig, Yesim Yildiz, Gregor Fischer, Laurin Feuerstein, Francis Kissling, Thomas Schöfl, Felix C. Stengel, Felix Corr, Silvio Heinig, Nader Hejrati, Daniele Gianoli, Stefan Motov, Michael Betz, Benjamin Martens Brain and Spine.2025; 5: 104322. CrossRef
Novel Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy-Assisted Lumbar Fusion With Dual Hybrid Cage Insertion: A Technical Note With Case Presentation Jisoo Ha, Kuldeep Bansal, Chang-Wook Kim, Do-Hyoung Kim, Shreenidhi Kulkarni, Hee-Don Han Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2025; 10(2): 230. CrossRef
A Novel Switching Portal Technique in Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Technical Notes and Comparative Outcomes Yun-Da Li, Chi-An Luo, Yung-Hsueh Hu, Wen-Chien Chen, Tsung-Ting Tsai, Po-Liang Lai, Tsai-Sheng Fu World Neurosurgery.2025; 203: 124511. CrossRef
Biportal Endoscopic Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using the Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage: Technical Note and Case Illustration Tran Vu Hoang Duong, Phan Quang Son, Le Tan Bao, Luc Dinh Phuong, Phan Dinh Thanh Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2025; 10(2): 303. CrossRef
Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Cages With Different Sized Windows Chengkun Zhao, Shijie Wang, Jingjing Zhang, Hegang Niu, Yun Cao, Hui Tao, Cailiang Shen, Yinshun Zhang Spine.2025; 50(22): 1556. CrossRef
Comparative Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Banana-Shaped Versus Straight Cages in Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study Nguyen Ngoc Thoi, Nguyen Le Hoang Tuan, Le Tuong Vien, Nguyen Thanh Nhan, Hoang Nguyen Anh Tuan, Nguyen Van Thanh, Tran Nguyen Phuong, Bui Hong Thien Khanh Journal of Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery and Technique.2025; 10(2): 172. 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
Fig. 2. Radiographic parameters measurement. (A) The SL was defined as the angle subtended by the superior endplate line of upper vertebra and the inferior endplate line of lower vertebra. The DA was defined as the angle subtended by the inferior endplate line of upper vertebra and the superior endplate line of lower vertebra. (B) The ADH and PDH was defined as the distance between vertebrae at the anterior margin and posterior margin of intervertebral disc. The FH was defined as the distance between lower margin of upper pedicle and upper margin of lower pedicle. (C) Cage position was determined using the central point ratio (CPR), which was calculated by dividing the distance from the cage midpoint to the posterior superior corner of the lower vertebra by the length of the superior endplate of the same vertebra (B/A × 100%). Anterior positioning was indicated when CPR exceeded 0.5. (D) Measurement of cage subsidence. DA, disc angle; SL, segmental lordosis; ADH, anterior disc height; FH, foraminal height; PDH, posterior disc height.
Fig. 3. A case of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a 3-dimentional (3D)-printed titanium cage with a large footprint. A 53-year-old female patient underwent surgery for low back pain and radiating right leg pain that could not be managed conservatively. (A–C) On preoperative radiographs, spondylolisthesis L4 on L5 and bilateral facet arthritis were observed. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed severe right neural foraminal stenosis and right lateral recess stenosis. (D–F) After surgery, the cage was appropriately inserted, and a well-decompressed neural foramen was observed. The patient’s pain markedly improved.
Fig. 4. A case of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a polyetheretherketone cage. A 78-year-old female patient complained of severe lower back pain, radiating pain in both legs, and intermittent claudication for < 5 minutes. (A–C) On preoperative imaging, spondylolisthesis of L4 on L5 and severe central canal stenosis were observed. (D–F) After the surgery, the central canal was well decompressed, and the patient’s symptoms markedly improved.
Fig. 5. Surgical technique of biportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. (A) Surgical incision. First, a single portal (M-portal) was created superior to the midline of the intervertebral disc space. Another portal (M´ portal) was made approximately 1.5- to 2-cm caudal to perform central canal decompression through unilateral laminectomy and bilateral decompression. Subsequently, 2 additional portals (P+2 [L] and [R]) for the far-lateral approach were created approximately 2 cm laterally from the lateral margin of the pedicle. Ipsilateral facetectomy and foraminotomy were performed using these portals. (B) After posterior decompression (ipsilateral side). (C) After contralateral facetectomy. (D) Entry site of cage insertion. (E) Endoscopic view of endplate preparation. (F) Cage trial insertion. (G) Autobone harvested from laminectomy. (H) Postoperative surgical wound.
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Effect of Cage Material and Size on Fusion Rate and Subsidence Following Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).
Group A, regular-sized 3-dimensionally (3D)-printed titanium cages; group B, regular-sized polyetheretherketone cages; group C, large-sized 3D-printed titanium cages; BMI, body mass index; BMD, bone mineral density.
Analysis of variance was used to compare demographic data among the 3 groups.
Table 2. Radiographic parameters
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
Group A, regular-sized 3-dimensionally (3D)-printed titanium cages; group B, regular-sized polyetheretherketone cages; group C, large-sized 3D-printed titanium cages; preop, preoperative; postop, postoperative; △, difference between 2 values.
Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare radiographic parameters among the 3 groups.
Table 3. Fusion rate and cage subsidence among the 3 groups
Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard deviation.
p<0.05, statistically significant differences.
Bridwell interbody fusion grading system: grade 1 is defined as fusion with remodeling and trabeculae present; grade 2 is defined as an intact graft with incomplete remodeling and no lucency present; grade 3 is defined as an intact graft with potential lucency at the cranial or caudal end; and grade 4 is defined as absent fusion with collapse/resorption of the graft. The fusion rate, fusion grade, and cage subsidence rate were compared using the chi-square test.
Differences in the severity of subsidence between the groups were tested using Student t-test.
Table 4. Surgical complications
Values are presented as number (%).
Group A, regular-sized 3-dimensionally (3D)-printed titanium cages; group B, regular-sized polyetheretherketone cages; group C, large-sized 3D-printed titanium cages.
, Samuel K. Cho2,*
