8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      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 Neurosurgery
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration.

          Osteoinduction is the process by which osteogenesis is induced. It is a phenomenon regularly seen in any type of bone healing process. Osteoinduction implies the recruitment of immature cells and the stimulation of these cells to develop into preosteoblasts. In a bone healing situation such as a fracture, the majority of bone healing is dependent on osteoinduction. Osteoconduction means that bone grows on a surface. This phenomenon is regularly seen in the case of bone implants. Implant materials of low biocompatibility such as copper, silver and bone cement shows little or no osteoconduction. Osseointegration is the stable anchorage of an implant achieved by direct bone-to-implant contact. In craniofacial implantology, this mode of anchorage is the only one for which high success rates have been reported. Osseointegration is possible in other parts of the body, but its importance for the anchorage of major arthroplasties is under debate. Ingrowth of bone in a porous-coated prosthesis may or may not represent osseointegration.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: Meta-analysis and review of the literature.

            Spinal interbody fusion is a standard and accepted method for spinal fusion. Interbody fusion devices include titanium (Ti) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with distinct biomechanical properties. Titanium and PEEK cages have been evaluated in the cervical and lumbar spine, with conflicting results in bony fusion and subsidence. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we reviewed the available literature evaluating Ti and PEEK cages to assess subsidence and fusion rates. Six studies were included in the analysis, 3 of which were class IV evidence, 2 were class III, and 1 was class II. A total of 410 patients (Ti-228, PEEK-182) and 587 levels (Ti-327, PEEK-260) were studied. Pooled mean age was 50.8years in the Ti group, and 53.1years in the PEEK group. Anterior cervical discectomy was performed in 4 studies (395 levels) and transforaminal interbody fusion in 2 studies (192 levels). No statistically significant difference was found between groups with fusion (OR 1.16, 95% C.I 0.59-2.89, p=0.686, I2=49.7%) but there was a statistically significant the rate of subsidence with titanium (OR 3.59, 95% C.I 1.28-10.07, p=0.015, I2=56.9%) at last follow-up. Titanium and PEEK cages are associated with a similar rate of fusion, but there is an increased rate of subsidence with titanium cage. Future prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate these cages using surgical and patient-reported outcomes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of 3D-printed porous tantalum and titanium scaffolds on osteointegration and osteogenesis

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                World Neurosurgery
                World Neurosurgery
                Elsevier BV
                18788750
                September 2023
                September 2023
                : 177
                : e732-e741
                Article
                10.1016/j.wneu.2023.06.132
                fb2a5e59-15d0-4a67-97e4-509f288d18e3
                © 2023

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-017

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-037

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-012

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-029

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-004

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article