Evaluation of Healthcare Outcomes of Patients Treated with 3D-Printed-Titanium and PEEK Cages During Fusion Procedures in the Lumbar Spine

Overview

Journal Med Devices (Auckl)

Publisher Dove Medical Press

Date 2025 Jan 21

PMID 39835282

Authors

Katherine A Corso

Andreas A Teferra

Annalisa Michielli

Kristin Corrado

Amy Marcini

Mark Lotito

Caroline Smith

Michelle Costa

Jill Ruppenkamp

Anna Wallace

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this observational, real-world study was to describe reoperation, revision, index healthcare utilization and hospital costs among patients treated with PEEK (polyetheretherketone) or 3D-printed-titanium cages during lumbar/lumbosacral posterior fusion procedures, either TLIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) or PLIF (posterior lumbar interbody fusion). Statistical comparisons were not conducted.

Methods: This was a descriptive, retrospective, observational study. Patients with PEEK (OPAL™, DePuy Synthes, Raynham, MA) or 3D-printed-titanium (CONDUIT™ TLIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion)/PLIF (posterior lumbar interbody fusion) Cage/EIT™ Cellular Titanium TLIF/PLIF Cage (DePuy Synthes, Raynham, MA)) spinal cages were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database between 1/1/2007 and 9/30/2022. Patients were required to have posterior approaches of the lumbar/lumbosacral spine and DDD, stenosis, back pain, instability, spondylolisthesis, or pseudarthrosis/failed prior surgery. Patient and procedure, healthcare utilization and hospital cost data were collected at the index surgery, and patients were followed up to 3 months for reoperation and 12 months for revision. All data were summarized descriptively, and no statistical comparisons were made between cage groups.

Results: A total of 5118 PEEK and 1189 3D-printed-titanium cage patients were included in this study. Among 3D-printed-titanium cages, 804 had PLIF and 345 had Curved TLIF cage types. Most PEEK cage patients were 18-64 years (61.9%), and 3D-printed-titanium was evenly distributed across age categories. The mean index hospital cost was ~$40,000, LOS was ~3 days, and discharge status to home/home health was ~85% for both; surgery time was 267 minutes for PEEK and 280 minutes for 3D-printed-titanium. The 0-3 month reoperation cumulative incidence was 1.0% for PEEK and 1.3% for 3D-printed-titanium. For revision, incidence within 0-3, 4-6, and 7-12 months was 1.2%, 0.6%, and 1.7% for PEEK and 1.6%, 0.5%, and 1.2% for 3D-printed-titanium. The mean costs per patient associated with reoperation and revision for the entire cohort were $220 and $1228 for PEEK and $290 and $1754 for 3D-printed-titanium.

Conclusion: This study provides real-world economic insights into an area where practice data are sparse, within hospital settings for PEEK and 3D-printed-titanium spinal cages. A key study limitation is the descriptive design in which potential confounding factors that may affect the outcome estimates are not addressed.

References

Hu Y, Niu C, Hsieh M, Tsai T, Chen W, Lai P . Cage positioning as a risk factor for posterior cage migration following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion - an analysis of 953 cases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019; 20(1):260. PMC: 6542074. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2630-0. View

Choi W, Kim J, Ryu K, Hur J, Seong J . Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion at L5-S1 through a Unilateral Approach: Technical Feasibility and Outcomes. Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016:2518394. PMC: 4940521. DOI: 10.1155/2016/2518394. View

Heary R, Parvathreddy N, Sampath S, Agarwal N . Elastic modulus in the selection of interbody implants. J Spine Surg. 2017; 3(2):163-167. PMC: 5506312. DOI: 10.21037/jss.2017.05.01. View

Massaad E, Fatima N, Kiapour A, Hadzipasic M, Shankar G, Shin J . Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature. Neurospine. 2020; 17(1):125-135. PMC: 7136087. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2040058.029. View

Goldstein C, Phillips F, Rampersaud Y . Comparative Effectiveness and Economic Evaluations of Open Versus Minimally Invasive Posterior or Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41 Suppl 8:S74-89. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001462. View

Patel N, OBryant S, Rogers C, Boyett C, Chakravarti S, Gendreau J . Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies. Neurospine. 2023; 20(2):451-463. PMC: 10323354. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2346244.122. View

Lin G, Park C, Hur J, Kim J . Time Course Observation of Outcomes between Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo). 2019; 59(6):222-230. PMC: 6580044. DOI: 10.2176/nmc.oa.2018-0194. View

Corso K, Kothari P, Corrado K, Michielli A, Ruppenkamp J, Bowden D . Early revision events among patients with a three dimensional (3D) printed cellular titanium or PEEK (polyetheretherketone) spinal cage for single-level lumbar spinal fusion. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2021; 19(2):195-201. DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2022.2020637. View

Wang M, Lerner J, Lesko J, McGirt M . Acute hospital costs after minimally invasive versus open lumbar interbody fusion: data from a US national database with 6106 patients. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011; 25(6):324-8. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e318220be32. View

10.

Kim D, Kwon O, Park J . Comparison Between 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages: 1-Year Outcome After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion. Neurospine. 2022; 19(3):524-532. PMC: 9537857. DOI: 10.14245/ns.2244140.070. View

11.

Kang M, You K, Choi J, Heo D, Chung H, Park H . Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using the biportal endoscopic techniques versus microscopic tubular technique. Spine J. 2021; 21(12):2066-2077. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.013. View

12.

Austin P . An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011; 46(3):399-424. PMC: 3144483. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2011.568786. View

13.

Huang K, Hazzard M, Thomas S, Chagoya G, Wilcox Vanden Berg R, Adogwa O . Differences in the outcomes of anterior versus posterior interbody fusion surgery of the lumbar spine: a propensity score-controlled cohort analysis of 10,941 patients. J Clin Neurosci. 2015; 22(5):848-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2014.11.016. View

14.

Doria C, Balsano M, Rampal V, Solla F . Minimally Invasive Far Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Cohort Study. Global Spine J. 2018; 8(5):512-516. PMC: 6149041. DOI: 10.1177/2192568218756908. View

15.

Choi W, Kim J, Hur J, Seong J . Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Banana-Shaped and Straight Cages: Radiological and Clinical Results from a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial. Neurosurgery. 2017; 82(3):289-298. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyx212. View

16.

Thayaparan G, Owbridge M, Linden M, Thompson R, Lewis P, DUrso P . Measuring the performance of patient-specific solutions for minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgery. J Clin Neurosci. 2019; 71:43-50. DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2019.11.008. View

17.

Rao P, Pelletier M, Walsh W, Mobbs R . Spine interbody implants: material selection and modification, functionalization and bioactivation of surfaces to improve osseointegration. Orthop Surg. 2014; 6(2):81-9. PMC: 6583242. DOI: 10.1111/os.12098. View

18.

Laratta J, Vivace B, Lopez-Pena M, Guzon F, Gonzalez-Cantalpeidra A, Jorge-Mora A . 3D-printed titanium cages without bone graft outperform PEEK cages with autograft in an animal model. Spine J. 2021; 22(6):1016-1027. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.12.004. View

19.

Enders J, Coughlin D, Mroz T, Vira S . Surface Technologies in Spinal Fusion. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2019; 31(1):57-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.nec.2019.08.007. View

20.

Deng Z, Zou Q, Wang L, Wang L, Xiu P, Feng G . Comparison between Three-Dimensional Printed Titanium and PEEK Cages for Cervical and Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Controlled Trial. Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(11):2889-2900. PMC: 10622287. DOI: 10.1111/os.13896. View