Early revision events among patients with a three dimensional (3D) printed cellular titanium or PEEK (polyetheretherketone) spinal cage for single-level lumbar spinal fusion

5Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction: Three-dimensional (3D) printed spinal cages are a new design of intervertebral body fusion devices. Clinical data on these devices are limited. The objective of this study was to describe six-month events for a new and older cage design. Methods: A retrospective, descriptive cohort study of patients that received a 3D-printed-titanium or PEEK (polyetheretherketone) cage with single-level lumbar fusion was performed using a United States hospital-based database. Outcomes evaluated were device-related revision and non-device related reoperation events 6 months after lumbar fusion. The 3D-printed-titanium and PEEK groups were propensity-score matched. Both unmatched and matched groups were descriptively analyzed. There were 93 and 2,082 patients with a 3D-printed-titanium and PEEK cage that met study criteria. The sample size was 93 patients per group after matching. Results: There were no occurrences of revisions in the 3D-printed-titanium and eleven occurrences in the PEEK group before matching; PEEK had no occurrences of revision after matching. Ten total reoperation events were identified. Discussion: Our findings suggest occurrence of 6-month revision or reoperation is similar or lower for both cages than reported in published literature. The low occurrence of early events for 3D-printed-titianium cages is promising. Further, real-world studies on 3D-printed cages are warranted.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Corso, K. A., Kothari, P., Corrado, K., Michielli, A., Ruppenkamp, J., & Bowden, D. (2022). 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 Review of Medical Devices, 19(2), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2022.2020637

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free