Abstract:Background context: Cage subsidence remains a serious complication after spinal fusion surgery. Novel porous designs in the cage body or endplate offer attractive options to improve subsidence and osseointegration performance. Purpose: To elucidate the relative contribution of a porous design in each of the two major domains (body and endplates) to cage stiffness and subsidence performance, using standardized mechanical testing methods, and to analyze the fusion progression via an established ovine interbody fusion model to support the mechanical testing findings. Study design/setting: A comparative preclinical study using standardized mechanical testing and established animal model. Methods: To isolate the subsidence performance contributed by each porous cage design feature, namely the stress-optimized body lattice (vs. a solid body) and microporous endplates (vs. smooth endplates), four groups of cages (two-by-two combination of these two features) were tested in: (1) static axial compression of the cage (per ASTM F2077) and (2) static subsidence (per ASTM F2267). To evaluate the progression of fusion, titanium cages were created with a microporous endplate and internal lattice architecture analogous to commercial implants used in subsidence testing and implanted in an endplate-sparing, ovine intervertebral body fusion model. Results: The cage stiffness was reduced by 16.7% by the porous body lattice, and by 16.6% by the microporous endplates. The porous titanium cage with both porous features showed the lowest stiffness with a value of 40.4±0.3 kN/mm (Mean±SEM) and a block stiffness of 1976.8±27.4 N/mm for subsidence. The body lattice showed no significant impact on the block stiffness (1.4% reduction), while the microporous endplates decreased the block stiffness significantly by 24.9% (p<.0001). All segments implanted with porous titanium cages were deemed rigidly fused by manual palpation, except one at 12 weeks, consistent with robotic ROM testing and radiographic and histologic observations. A reduction in ROM was noted from 12 to 26 weeks (4.1±1.6° to 2.2±1.4° in lateral bending, p<.05; 2.1±0.6° to 1.5±0.3° in axial rotation, p<.05); and 3.3±1.6° to 1.9±1.2° in flexion extension, p=.07). Bone in the available void improved with time in the central aperture (54±35% to 83±13%, p<.05) and porous cage structure (19±26% to 37±21%, p=.15). Conclusions: Body lattice and microporous endplates features can effectively reduce the cage stiffness, therefore reducing the risk of stress shielding and promoting early fusion. While body lattice showed no impact on block stiffness and the microporous endplates reduced the block stiffness, a titanium cage with microporous endplates and internal lattice supported bone ingrowth and segmental mechanical stability as early as 12 weeks in ovine interbody fusion. Clinical significance: Porous titanium cage architecture can offer an attractive solution to increase the available space for bone ingrowth and bridging to support successful spinal fusion while mitigating risks of increased subsidence.

Feasibility of the Non-Window-Type 3D-Printed Porous Titanium Cage in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial

The Efficacy Analysis for the Treatment with One Cage and Excised Local Bone Graft in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Trabecular Bone Remodeling After Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of Three-Dimensional Porous Tantalum and Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone Interbody Cages

The postoperative clinical effects of utilizing 3D printed (Ti6Al4V) interbody fusion cages in posterior lumbar fusion: A retrospective cohort study

Promotion of higher rates of early fusion using activated titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages in adults undergoing 1- and 2-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures: a randomized controlled trial

[Application of three-dimensional printed porous titanium alloy cage and poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion]

3D-printed titanium alloy cage in anterior and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar spine disease

Anisotropic Biomimetic Trabecular Porous Three-Dimensional-Printed Ti-6Al-4V Cage for Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Novel 3D printed lattice structure titanium cages evaluated in an ovine model of interbody fusion

In Vitro and In Vivo Comparison of Bone Growth Characteristics in Additive-Manufactured Porous Titanium, Nonporous Titanium, and Porous Tantalum Interbody Cages

Trabecular Bone Remodeling after Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Comparison of the Osseointegration in Three-Dimensional Porous Titanium Cages and Polyether-Ether-Ketone Cages

Subsidence and fusion performance of a 3D-printed porous interbody cage with stress-optimized body lattice and microporous endplates - a comprehensive mechanical and biological analysis

Biomechanical analysis of 3D printed porous extremely-low modulus Ti-24Nb-4Zr-8Sn lumbar interbody fusion cage-A finite element study

Reduced Subsidence With PEEK-Titanium Composite Versus 3D Titanium Cages in a Retrospective, Self-Controlled Study in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Biomechanical evaluation of an osteoporotic anatomical 3D printed posterior lumbar interbody fusion cage with internal lattice design based on weighted topology optimization

Evaluation of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: novel 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage

Biomechanical Comparison of Subsidence Between Patient-Specific and Non-Patient-Specific Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages

Biportal endoscopic extraforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using a 3D-printed porous titanium cage with large footprints: technical note and preliminary results

Randomized Controlled Trial of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Ti- and CaP-Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone Cages: Comparative Study of the 1-Year Radiological and Clinical Outcome

Finite Element Model Predicts the Biomechanical Performance of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion with Various Porous Additive Manufactured Cages.

Comparison of Titanium Mesh Cage, Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Polyamide Cage, and 3D-Printed Vertebral Body for Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion