Review
. 2022 Sep 8.
doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.35161.
Online ahead of print.
Affiliations
Affiliations
- 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
- 2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
- 3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
Item in Clipboard
Review
Hannah A Levy et al.
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater.
.
Display options
Format
. 2022 Sep 8.
doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.35161.
Online ahead of print.
Affiliations
- 1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
- 2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
- 3 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, USA.
Item in Clipboard
Display options
Format
Abstract
Spinal fusion surgeries are performed to treat a multitude of cervical and lumbar diseases that lead to pain and disability. Spinal interbody fusion involves inserting a cage between the spinal vertebrae, and is often utilized for indirect neurologic decompression, correction of spinal alignment, anterior column stability, and increased fusion rate. The long-term success of interbody fusion relies on complete osseointegration between the implant surface and vertebral end plates. Titanium (Ti)-based alloys and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody cages represent the most commonly utilized materials and provide sufficient mechanics and biocompatibility to assist in fusion. However, modification to the surface and bulk characteristics of these materials has been shown to maximize osseointegration and long-term stability. Specifically, the introduction of intrinsic porosity and surface roughness has been shown to affect spinal interbody mechanics, vascularization, osteoblast attachment, and ingrowth potential. This narrative review synthesizes the mechanical, in vitro, in vivo, and clinical effects on fusion efficacy associated with introduction of porosity in Ti (neat and alloy) and PEEK intervertebral implants.
Keywords:
interbody; osseointegration; porosity; spinal fusion.
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
REFERENCES
-
-
Fingar KR, Stocks C, Weiss AJ, et al. Most frequent operating room procedures performed in U.S. hospitals, 2003-2012. 2014 Dec. In: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs [Internet]. Rockville (MD): (US); Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (US); 2006. Statistical Brief #186.
-
-
-
Zdeblick TA, Phillips FM. Interbody cage devices. Spine. 2003;28:S2-S7.
-
-
-
Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Malham G, et al. Lumbar interbody fusion: techniques, indications and comparison of interbody fusion options including PLIF, TLIF, MI-TLIF, OLIF/ATP, LLIF and ALIF. J Spine Surg Hong Kong. 2015;1:2-18.
-
-
-
Rao PJ, Pelletier MH, Walsh WR, Mobbs RJ. Spine interbody implants: material selection and modification, functionalization and bioactivation of surfaces to improve Osseointegration: bioactivation of spine interbody implant surfaces. Orthop Surg. 2014;6:81-89.
-
-
-
Albrektsson T, Johansson C. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur Spine J. 2001;10:S96-S101.
-
Cite