An update of interbody cages for spine fusion surgeries: from shape design to materials

References

• Fretes N, Vellios E, Sharma A, et al. Radiographic and functional outcomes of bisphosphonate use in lumbar fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Spine J. 2020 Feb;29(2):272–281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Jonbergen HP, Spruit M, Anderson PG, et al. Anterior cervical interbody fusion with a titanium box cage: early radiological assessment of fusion and subsidence. Spine J. 2005 Nov-Dec;5(6):645–649. discussion 649.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tye GW, Graham RS, Broaddus WC, et al. Graft subsidence after instrument-assisted anterior cervical fusion. J Neurosurg. 2002 Sep;97(2 Suppl):186–192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Lü G, Wang B, et al. A comparison of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using self-locking stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage with ACDF using cage and plate in the treatment of three-level cervical degenerative spondylopathy: a retrospective study with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2016 Jul;25(7):2255–2262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon ST, Konopka JA, Wang JC, et al. ACDF graft selection by surgeons: survey of AOSpine members. Global Spine J. 2017 Aug;7(5):410–416.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimmel JJ, Poeschmann MS, Horsting PP, et al. PEEK cages in lumbar fusion: mid-term clinical outcome and radiologic fusion. Clin Spine Surg. 2016 Jun;29(5):E252–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canseco JA, Karamian BA, DiMaria SL, et al. Static VERSUS EXPANdable Polyether Ether Ketone (PEEK) interbody cages: a comparison of one-year clinical and radiographic outcomes for one-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. World Neurosurg. 2021 Aug;152:e492–e501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao YC, Chou PH, Lin HH, et al. Outcome of Ti/PEEK Versus PEEK cages in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Global Spine J. 2021 Mar;18:21925682211000323.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell PG, Cavanaugh DA, Nunley P, et al. PEEK versus titanium cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis of subsidence. Neurosurg Focus. 2020 Sep;49(3):E10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singhatanadgige W, Sukthuayat A, Tanaviriyachai T, et al. Risk factors for polyetheretherketone cage subsidence following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2021 Sep;163(9):2557–2565.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canseco JA, Karamian BA, Patel PD, et al. PEEK versus titanium static interbody cages: a comparison of 1-year clinical and radiographic outcomes for 1-level TLIFs. Clin Spine Surg. 2021 Oct 1;34(8):E483–E493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villavicencio AT, Nelson EL, Rajpal S, et al. Prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial comparing PEEK and allograft spacers in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgeries. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2022 Aug 1;47(15):1043–1054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts MP, Wolfs JFC, Corbin TP. Porous silicon nitride spacers versus PEEK cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical and radiological results of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2017 Sep;26(9):2372–2379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moo IH, Kam CJW, Lai MWS, et al. A comparison of contiguous two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using a structural allograft versus a Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage: the results of a three-year follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 May 28;21(1):331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buyuk AF, Onyekwelu I, Gaffney CJ, et al. Symptomatic pseudarthrosis requiring revision surgery after 1- or 2-level ACDF with plating: peek versus allograft. J Spine Surg. 2020 Dec;6(4):670–680.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang M, Chou D, Chang CC, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion performed using structural allograft or polyetheretherketone: pseudarthrosis and revision surgery rates with minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019 Dec;13:1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Yson SC, Sembrano JN, Santos ER. Comparison of allograft and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage subsidence rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). J Clin Neurosci. 2017 Apr;38:118–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryu WHA, Richards D, Kerolus MG, et al. Nonunion rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparison of polyetheretherketone vs structural allograft implants. Neurosurgery. 2021 Jun 15;89(1):94–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, et al. A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Oct 15;25(20):2646–2654. discussion 2655.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pflugmacher R, Schleicher P, Gumnior S, et al. Biomechanical comparison of bioabsorbable cervical spine interbody fusion cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004 Aug 15;29(16):1717–1722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007 Oct 1;32(21):2310–2317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tortolani PJ, Cunningham BW, Vigna F, et al. A comparison of retraction pressure during anterior cervical plate surgery and cervical disc replacement: a cadaveric study. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006 Jul;19(5):312–317.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• He S, Zhou Z, Shao X, et al. Comparing the bridge-type zero-profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) interbody fusion cage system and Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) with plating and cage system in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Orthop Surg. 2022 Jun;14(6):1100–1108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholz M, Schnake KJ, Pingel A, et al. A new zero-profile implant for stand-alone anterior cervical interbody fusion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Mar;469(3):666–673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao S, Liang Z, Wei W, et al. Zero-profile anchored cage reduces risk of postoperative dysphagia compared with cage with plate fixation after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J. 2017 Apr;26(4):975–984.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbagallo GM, Romano D, Certo F, et al. Zero-P: a new zero-profile cage-plate device for single and multilevel ACDF. A single institution series with four years maximum follow-up and review of the literature on zero-profile devices. Eur Spine J. 2013 Nov;22(Suppl 6):S868–78.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• He S, Zhou Z, Lv N, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with zero-profile anchored spacer-ROI-C-fixation and combined intervertebral cage and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective study from a single center. Med Sci Monit. 2021 Aug 15;27:e931050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin ZY, Teng Y, Wang HZ, et al. Comparative analysis of cage subsidence in anterior cervical decompression and fusion: zero profile anchored spacer (ROI-C) vs. conventional cage and plate construct. Front Surg. 2021 Oct 27;8:736680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin JJ. Comparison of adjacent segment degeneration, cervical alignment, and clinical outcomes after one- and multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Neurospine. 2019 Sep;16(3):589–600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wo J, Lv Z, Wang J, et al. Biomechanical analysis of cervical artificial disc replacement using cervical subtotal discectomy prosthesis. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021 Jul 14;9:680769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Martino A, Papalia R, Albo E, et al. Cervical spine alignment in disc arthroplasty: should we change our perspective? Eur Spine J. 2015 Nov;24(Suppl 7):810–825.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kontakis M, Marques C, Löfgren H, et al. Artificial disc replacement and adjacent-segment pathology: 10-year outcomes of a randomized trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2021 Dec;17:1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Li Z, Wu H, Chu J, et al. Motion analysis of dynamic cervical implant stabilization versus anterior discectomy and fusion: a retrospective analysis of 70 cases. Eur Spine J. 2018 Nov;27(11):2772–2780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang SH, Xiao FR, Lai DM, et al. A dynamic interbody cage improves bone formation in anterior cervical surgery: a porcine biomechanical study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021 Nov 1;479(11):2547–2558.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Purushothaman Y, Yoganandan N, Jebaseelan D, et al. External and internal responses of cervical disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a finite element modeling study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2020 Jun;106:103735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. 2015 Dec;1(1):2–18.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fokter SK. Update review and clinical presentation on chronic low back pain treated by AxiaLIF. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2011;21:39–42.
   Google Scholar
• Kienle A, Krieger A, Willems K, et al. Resistance of coated polyetheretherketone lumbar interbody fusion cages against abrasion under simulated impaction into the disc space. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2019 Apr-Jun;17(2):2280800018782854.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohiorhenuan IE, Walker CT, Zhou JJ, et al. Predictors of subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2022 Mar;4:1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Xu DS, Walker CT, Godzik J, et al. Minimally invasive anterior, lateral, and oblique lumbar interbody fusion: a literature review. Ann Transl Med. 2018 Mar;6(6):104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannestra AF, Peterson MD, Parker SR, et al. MIS expandable interbody spacers: a literature review and biomechanical comparison of an expandable MIS TLIF With Conventional TLIF and ALIF. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Apr;41(Suppl 8):S44–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keorochana G, Setrkraising K, Woratanarat P, et al. Clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for treatment of degenerative lumbar disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev. 2018 Jul;41(3):755–770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph JR, Smith BW, La Marca F, et al. Comparison of complication rates of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus. 2015 Oct;39(4):E4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein CL, Macwan K, Sundararajan K, et al. Perioperative outcomes and adverse events of minimally invasive versus open posterior lumbar fusion: meta-analysis and systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Mar;24(3):416–427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calvachi-Prieto P, McAvoy MB, Cerecedo-Lopez CD, et al. Expandable versus static cages in minimally invasive lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2021 Jul;151:e607–e614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang CC, Chou D, Pennicooke B, et al. Long-term radiographic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020 Nov;13:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Massie LW, Zakaria HM, Schultz LR, et al. Assessment of radiographic and clinical outcomes of an articulating expandable interbody cage in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for spondylolisthesis. Neurosurg Focus. 2018 Jan;44(1):E8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armocida D, Pesce A, Cimatti M, et al. Minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using expandable cages: increased risk of late postoperative subsidence without a real improvement of perioperative outcomes: a clinical monocentric study. World Neurosurg. 2021 Dec;156:e57–e63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SK, Elbashier OM, Lee SC, et al. Can posterior stand-alone expandable cages safely restore lumbar lordosis? A minimum 5-year follow-up study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Sep 29;15(1):442.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Pan A, Zhou L, et al. Comparison of unilateral pedicle screw fixation and interbody fusion with PEEK cage vs. standalone expandable fusion cage for the treatment of unilateral lumbar disc herniation. Arch Med Sci. 2018 Oct;14(6):1432–1438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stickley C, Philipp T, Wang E, et al. Expandable cages increase the risk of intraoperative subsidence but do not improve perioperative outcomes in single level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2021 Jan;21(1):37–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie T, Pu L, Zhao L, et al. Influence of coronal-morphology of endplate and intervertebral space to cage subsidence and fusion following oblique lumbar interbody fusion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Jul 4;23(1):633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silber JS, Anderson DG, Daffner SD, et al. Donor site morbidity after anterior iliac crest bone harvest for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jan 15;28(2):134–139.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnee CL, Freese A, Weil RJ, et al. Analysis of harvest morbidity and radiographic outcome using autograft for anterior cervical fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997 Oct 1;22(19):2222–2227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landriel FA, Hem S, Goldschmidt E, et al. Polyetheretherketone interbody cages versus autogenous iliac crest bone grafts with anterior fixation for cervical disc disease. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013 Apr;26(2):61–67.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shao MH, Zhang F, Yin J, et al. Titanium cages versus autogenous iliac crest bone grafts in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion treatment of patients with cervical degenerative diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017 May;33(5):803–811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Rath B, Tingart M, et al. Role of implants surface modification in osseointegration: a systematic review. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2020 Mar;108(3):470–484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X, et al. Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013 Jul;22(7):1539–1546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seaman S, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M, et al. Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: meta-analysis and review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci. 2017 Oct;44:23–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel DV, Yoo JS, Karmarkar SS, et al. Interbody options in lumbar fusion. J Spine Surg. 2019 Jun;5(Suppl 1):S19–S24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials. 2007 Nov;28(32):4845–4869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan C, Hao L, Hussein A, et al. Ti-6Al-4V triply periodic minimal surface structures for bone implants fabricated via selective laser melting. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2015 Nov;51:61–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma R, Tang T. Current strategies to improve the bioactivity of PEEK. Int J Mol Sci. 2014 Mar 28;15(4):5426–5445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmed AF, Al Dosari MAA, Al Kuwari A, et al. The outcomes of stand alone polyetheretherketone cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop. 2021 Jan;45(1):173–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noordhoek I, Koning MT, Jacobs WCH, et al. Incidence and clinical relevance of cage subsidence in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018 Apr;160(4):873–880.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makino T, Takenaka S, Sakai Y, et al. Comparison of Short-term radiographical and clinical outcomes after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with a 3d porous titanium alloy cage and a titanium-coated PEEK cage. Global Spine J. 2022 Jun;12(5):931–939.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li P, Jiang W, Yan J, et al. A novel 3D printed cage with microporous structure and in vivo fusion function. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2019 Jul;107(7):1386–1392.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olivares-Navarrete R, Hyzy SL, Slosar PJ, et al. Implant materials generate different peri-implant inflammatory factors: poly-ether-ether-ketone promotes fibrosis and microtextured titanium promotes osteogenic factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Mar 15;40(6):399–404.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kashii M, Kitaguchi K, Makino T, et al. Comparison in the same intervertebral space between titanium-coated and uncoated PEEK cages in lumbar interbody fusion surgery. J Orthop Sci. 2020 Jul;25(4):565–570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasegawa T, Ushirozako H, Shigeto E, et al. The titanium-coated PEEK cage maintains better bone fusion with the endplate than the PEEK cage 6 months after PLIF surgery: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Aug 1;45(15):E892–E902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakaura H, Ikegami D, Fujimori T, et al. Surgical outcomes after posterior lumbar interbody fusion using traditional trajectory screw fixation or cortical bone trajectory screw fixation: a comparative study between the polyetheretherketone cage and the same shape titanium-coated polyetheretherketone cage. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2021 Oct;209:106945.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnake KJ, Fleiter N, Hoffmann C, et al. PLIF surgery with titanium-coated PEEK or uncoated PEEK cages: a prospective randomised clinical and radiological study. Eur Spine J. 2021 Jan;30(1):114–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sakaura H, Ikegami D, Fujimori T, et al. Early fusion status after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with cortical bone trajectory screw fixation or traditional trajectory screw fixation: a comparison between the titanium-coated polyetheretherketone cage and the same shape polyetheretherketone cage. Clin Spine Surg. 2022 Feb 1;35(1):E47–E52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu C, He M, Mao L, et al. Titanium-interlayer mediated hydroxyapatite coating on polyetheretherketone: a prospective study in patients with single-level cervical degenerative disc disease. J Transl Med. 2021 Jan 6;19(1):14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qin J, Yang D, Maher S, et al. Micro- and nano-structured 3D printed titanium implants with a hydroxyapatite coating for improved osseointegration. J Mater Chem B. 2018 May 21;6(19):3136–3144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan B, Cheng Q, Zhao R, et al. Comparison of osteointegration property between PEKK and PEEK: effects of surface structure and chemistry. Biomaterials. 2018 Jul;170:116–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frankenberger T, Graw CL, Engel N, et al. Sustainable surface modification of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants by hydroxyapatite/silica coating-an in vivo animal study. Materials (Basel). 2021 Aug 16;14(16):4589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu X, Ibrahim M, Liu Z, et al. Biofunctional Mg coating on PEEK for improving bioactivity. Bioact Mater. 2018 Feb 13;3(2):139–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu X, Li Y, Wang L, et al. Triple-functional polyetheretherketone surface with enhanced bacteriostasis and anti-inflammatory and osseointegrative properties for implant application. Biomaterials. 2019 Aug;212:98–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanawa T. A comprehensive review of techniques for biofunctionalization of titanium. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2011 Dec;41(6):263–272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Apaza-Bedoya K, Tarce M, Benfatti CAM, et al. Synergistic interactions between corrosion and wear at titanium-based dental implant connections: a scoping review. J Periodontal Res. 2017 Dec;52(6):946–954.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandhu HS, Toth JM, Diwan AD, et al. Histologic evaluation of the efficacy of rhBMP-2 compared with autograft bone in sheep spinal anterior interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002 Mar 15;27(6):567–575.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Assad M, Jarzem P, Leroux MA, et al. Porous titanium-nickel for intervertebral fusion in a sheep model: part 1. Histomorphometric and radiological analysis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2003 Feb 15;64(2):107–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng SL, Das S, Ting YP, et al. Benefits and biosafety of use of 3D-printing technology for titanium biomedical implants: a pilot study in the rabbit model. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Aug 6;22(16):8480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alan N, Vodovotz L, Muthiah N, et al. Subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion using a 3D-printed porous titanium interbody cage: single-institution case series. J Neurosurg Spine. 2022 May 20;37(5):663–669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan H, Deng S, Tang W, et al. Highly porous 3D printed tantalum scaffolds have better biomechanical and microstructural properties than titanium scaffolds. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Sep 28;2021:2899043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanc M, Fokter SK, Vogrin M, et al. Porous tantalum in spinal surgery: an overview. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016 Jan;26(1):1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Piglionico S, Bousquet J, Fatima N, et al. Titanium implants: enhanced mineralized matrix formation after stem cells proliferation and differentiation. J Clin Med. 2020 Nov 13;9(11):3657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel MS, McCormick JR, Ghasem A, et al. Tantalum: the next biomaterial in spine surgery? J Spine Surg. 2020 Mar;6(1):72–86.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lu M, Xu S, Lei ZX, et al. Application of a novel porous tantalum implant in rabbit anterior lumbar spine fusion model: in vitro and in vivo experiments. Chin Med J (Engl). 2019 Jan 5;132(1):51–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo Y, Wu J, Xie K, et al. Study of bone regeneration and osteointegration effect of a novel selective laser-melted titanium-tantalum-niobium-zirconium alloy scaffold. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2019 Dec 9;5(12):6463–6473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasaki M, Umegaki M, Fukunaga T, et al. Vertebral endplate cyst formation in relation to properties of interbody cages. Neurospine. 2021 Mar;18(1):170–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou Z, Wei F, Huang S, et al. In vivo magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of porous tantalum interbody fusion devices in a porcine spinal arthrodesis model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 Oct 1;40(19):1471–1478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plantz MA, Minardi S, Lyons JG, et al. Osteoinductivity and biomechanical assessment of a 3D printed demineralized bone matrix-ceramic composite in a rat spine fusion model. Acta Biomater. 2021. Jun 127: 146–158•• A promising material for intervertebral fusion is proposed
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roohani-Esfahani SI, Dunstan CR, Li JJ, et al. Unique microstructural design of ceramic scaffolds for bone regeneration under load. Acta Biomater. 2013 Jun;9(6):7014–7024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newsom ET, Sadeghpour A, Entezari A, et al. Design and evaluation of 3D-printed Sr-HT-Gahnite bioceramic for FDA regulatory submission: a Good Laboratory Practice sheep study. Acta Biomater. 2022. Jan 19;S1742–7061(22):00045–9.•• Study on cervical interbody fusion cage of bioceramic in large animals
   Google Scholar
• Song Y, Wu H, Gao Y, et al. Zinc Silicate/Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Collagen Scaffolds Promote Angiogenesis and Bone Regeneration via the p38 MAPK Pathway in Activated Monocytes. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2020 Apr 8;12(14):16058–16075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daentzer D, Willbold E, Kalla K, et al. Bioabsorbable interbody magnesium-polymer cage: degradation kinetics, biomechanical stiffness, and histological findings from an ovine cervical spine fusion model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 Sep 15;39(20):E1220–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo X, Xu H, Zhang F, et al. Bioabsorbable high-purity magnesium interbody cage: degradation, interbody fusion, and biocompatibility from a goat cervical spine model. Ann Transl Med. 2020 Sep;8(17):1054.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Volpe RH, Mistry D, Patel VV, et al. Dynamically crystalizing liquid-crystal elastomers for an expandable endplate-conforming interbody fusion cage. Adv Healthc Mater. 2020 Jan;9(1):e1901136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang M, Xiang D, Chen Y, et al. An artificial PVA-BC composite that mimics the biomechanical properties and structure of a natural intervertebral disc. Materials (Basel). 2022 Feb 16;15(4):1481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma R, Virk S, Qureshi S. Interbody fusions in the lumbar spine: a review. HSS J. 2020 Jul;16(2):162–167.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huang G, Pan ST, Qiu JX. The clinical application of porous tantalum and its new development for bone tissue engineering. Materials (Basel). 2021 May 18;14(10):2647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parthasarathy J, Starly B, Raman S, et al. Mechanical evaluation of porous titanium (Ti6Al4V) structures with electron beam melting (EBM). J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2010 Apr;3(3):249–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taniguchi N, Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, et al. Effect of pore size on bone ingrowth into porous titanium implants fabricated by additive manufacturing: an in vivo experiment. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2016 Feb;59:690–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang H, Su K, Su L, et al. Comparison of 3D-printed porous tantalum and titanium scaffolds on osteointegration and osteogenesis. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019 Nov;104:109908.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma L, Wang X, Zhao N, et al. Integrating 3D printing and biomimetic mineralization for personalized enhanced osteogenesis, angiogenesis, and osteointegration. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2018 Dec 12;10(49):42146–42,154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han Q, Wang C, Chen H, et al. Porous tantalum and titanium in orthopedics: a review. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2019 Nov 11;5(11):5798–5824.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Z, Yan X, Yin S, et al. Influence of the pore size and porosity of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V ELI porous scaffold on cell proliferation, osteogenesis and bone ingrowth. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2020 Jan;106:110289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen YN, Chang CW. Computational comparison of three different cage porosities in posterior lumbar interbody fusion with porous cage. Comput Biol Med. 2021 Dec;139:105036.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelly CN, Wang T, Crowley J, et al. High-strength, porous additively manufactured implants with optimized mechanical osseointegration. Biomaterials. 2021. Dec 279: 121206• Mechanical studies on large animals and porous structures
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu MH, Lee MH, Wu C, et al. In vitro and in vivo comparison of bone growth characteristics in additive-manufactured porous titanium, nonporous titanium, and porous tantalum interbody cages. Materials (Basel). 2022 May 20;15(10):3670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan CT, Lin CH, Huang YK, et al. Design of customize interbody fusion cages of Ti64ELI with gradient porosity by selective laser melting process. Micromachines (Basel). 2021 Mar 15;12(3):307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Afshar M, Pourkamali Anaraki A, Montazerian H. Compressive characteristics of radially graded porosity scaffolds architectured with minimal surfaces. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2018 Nov 1;92:254–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunt JP, Begley MR, Block JE. Truss implant technology™ for interbody fusion in spinal degenerative disorders: profile of advanced structural design, mechanobiologic and performance characteristics. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2021 Aug;18(8):707–715.• A new porous structure design, taking into account the mechanics.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torstrick FB, Lin ASP, Safranski DL, et al. Effects of surface topography and chemistry on Polyether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK) and titanium osseointegration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Apr 15;45(8):E417–E424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang G, Shen L, Zhao J, et al. Design and compressive behavior of controllable irregular porous scaffolds: based on voronoi-tessellation and for additive manufacturing. ACS Biomater Sci Eng. 2018 Feb 12;4(2):719–727.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deering J, Dowling KI, DiCecco LA, et al. Selective Voronoi tessellation as a method to design anisotropic and biomimetic implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2021 Apr;116:104361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burnard JL, Parr WCH, Choy WJ, et al. 3D-printed spine surgery implants: a systematic review of the efficacy and clinical safety profile of patient-specific and off-the-shelf devices. Eur Spine J. 2020 Jun;29(6):1248–1260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu N, Wei F, Liu X, et al. Reconstruction of the upper cervical spine using a personalized 3D-printed vertebral body in an adolescent with ewing sarcoma. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Jan;41(1):E50–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin X, Jiang L, Yang J, et al. Application of biodegradable 3D-printed cage for cervical diseases via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF): an in vitro biomechanical study. Biotechnol Lett. 2017 Sep;39(9):1433–1439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velásquez-García LF, Kornbluth Y. Biomedical applications of metal 3D printing. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2021 Jul 13;23:307–338. • The application of metal 3D printing technology is introduced in detail
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Sun C, Zhu J, et al. 3D printed porous titanium cages filled with simvastatin hydrogel promotes bone ingrowth and spinal fusion in rhesus macaques. Biomater Sci. 2020 Aug 7;8(15):4147–4156.•• Cervical vertebra experiments in large animals and primates.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kodama J, Chen H, Zhou T, et al. Antibacterial efficacy of quaternized chitosan coating on 3D printed titanium cage in rat intervertebral disc space. Spine J. 2021 Jul;21(7):1217–1228.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassous NJ, Jones CL, Webster TJ. 3-D printed Ti-6Al-4V scaffolds for supporting osteoblast and restricting bacterial functions without using drugs: predictive equations and experiments. Acta Biomater. 2019 Sep 15;96:662–673.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fokter S, Rečnik G. The use of porous tantalum cages in the treatment of unremitting spondylodiscitis: a case report. ZdravVestn. 2018;87(1–2):41–48.
   Google Scholar
• Fialho L, Grenho L, Fernandes MH, et al. Porous tantalum oxide with osteoconductive elements and antibacterial core-shell nanoparticles: a new generation of materials for dental implants. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2021 Jan;120:111761.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hua L, Qian H, Lei T, et al. 3D-printed porous tantalum coated with antitubercular drugs achieving antibacterial properties and good biocompatibility. Macromol Biosci. 2022 Jan;22(1):e2100338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hua L, Lei T, Qian H, et al. 3D-printed porous tantalum: recent application in various drug delivery systems to repair hard tissue defects. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2021 May;18(5):625–634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar