Literature Decoded

Living reprintoriginally published in Global Spine Journal 2026CC BY 4.0Read the version of record Opt out

Literature DecodedLiving reprint
Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

3D-Printed Titanium Cages for Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Result in Excellent Fusion Rates One Year After Surgery

Study first published in Global Spine Journal (2026), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Anna-Katharina Calek1*ORCID iD 0000-0002-5499-5096, Bettina Hochreiter1, Aaron J. Buckland2

172554Melbourne Orthopaedic Group, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Spine and Scoliosis Research Associates Australia, Melbourne, VIC, Australia272554Melbourne Orthopaedic Group, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Spine and Scoliosis Research Associates Australia, Melbourne, VIC, Australia*Corresponding author

Reprinted 2026-10-01 11 min read Living reprint · journal article Version of record: Global Spine Journal 2026Licence: CC BY 4.0

Reading mode
In plain languageStudy first published in Global Spine Journal (2026), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

Study first published in Global Spine Journal (2026), reprinted in full under its CC BY 4.0 licence.

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

Bottom line

What the evidence supports

How to read it

No plain-language summary has been written for this reprint yet. The authors' abstract and full text follow, unchanged apart from layout.

Limitations

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Disclaimer

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The paper

Full manuscript

Abstract

Study Design

Retrospective study.

Objective

To determine the fusion rate in patients undergoing anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and/or lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) with titanium cages.

Methods

Fusion at 1-year was assessed by computed tomography (CT) using Lenke-Bridwell classification. Flexion-extension lateral radiographs confirmed fusion if motion was <5° through the fused segment. Perioperative metrics including bone graft type, operative time, estimated blood loss, revisions within the first postoperative year, clinical outcome assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI).

Results

One hundred patients with a total of 137 fusion levels with 3DPTi cages were identified. In this cohort, 75% underwent primary surgery and 25% had a previous surgery. At 1-year post-op, 97.1% of interbody levels were fused (Grade I) on CT, and all levels appeared fused on flexion-extension radiographs. Four patients (4%) required additional surgery within the first two years. No revisions were required for cage subsidence/migration, or pseudoarthrosis. Median ODI significantly improved from 39 at baseline to 10 at 1-year (P = .001).

Conclusion

3D-printed titanium cages for ALIF and LLIF result in excellent fusion rates at one year postoperatively without the use of rhBMP-2.

Keywords: 3D-printed; titanium; cage; interbody fusion; ALIF; LLIF; fusion

Introduction

The use of anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) has increased in recent years due to their minimally invasive technique and efficacy in restoring coronal and sagittal alignment.1-3 Complications associated with interbody cages, such as subsidence, migration, and pseudarthrosis can result in loss of alignment, neurological compression, early screw loosening and recurrent pain 4. In addition to patient factors, such as low bone density, older age, female gender, and technical factors, such as endplate violation, that can negatively affect the outcome,5,6 cage materials play an important role.

Since the late 1990s, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages have been commonly used because of ease of ability to assess fusion, in addition to a modulus of elasticity closer to that of cortical bone than other biomaterials. 7 However, PEEK does not allow material integration with bone and may be associated with cage migration and pseudoarthrosis. 8 Engineered to reduce complications related to the interbody device itself, three-dimensional printed titanium (3DPTi) cages have recently been introduced. 9 3DPTi cages were developed after prior successful orthopaedic applications, where improvements in geometry that maximizes bone-to-implant contact, a surface roughness and porosity that provides better initial interference fit, and promote bone on-growth and in-growth. Whereas titanium is likely to be more osteoconductive and bioactive, 10 and its superiority over PEEK cages in terms of fusion rate has been demonstrated in posterior-based spinal fusion,11-13 the reports of titanium cages in anterior- or lateral-based spinal fusion are scarce.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the fusion rates of ALIF and LLIF utilizing 3DPTi cages assessed with computed tomography (CT) scans and flexion-extension lateral radiographs 1-year postoperatively in patients with adult degenerative pathologies.

Materials and Methods

Patient data was reviewed from an institutional review board approved, prospectively and consecutively enrolled, single surgeon registry of adult patients in Australia between 2020 and 2024. Ethics committee approval was obtained before commencement of this study, and informed consent was obtained from each patient. Inclusion criteria included the use of 3DPTi cages (Modulus ALIF & Modulus XLIF; NuVasive Inc, San Diego, CA, USA) in skeletally mature patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative pathologies between L1 and S1. CT scan was performed at 1-year follow-up per standard of care. Patients treated with different cage designs, and for infection, fracture or tumor were excluded. The choice of approach was based on the patient’s anatomy as assessed by preoperative scans and previous surgery: while ALIF was used for all L5-S1 levels, LLIF or ALIF was used for the L4-5 level. 14 All surgeries were performed by the senior author.

The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of fusion at 1-year assessed on CT scans by a fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon. Fusion was graded according to Lenke-Bridwell et al through the interbody space. 15 Furthermore, flexion-extension lateral radiographs were assessed at 1-year postoperatively and fusion confirmed if < 5° range of motion was detected through the fused segment. 16 Furthermore, bone graft use, surgical time, estimated blood loss, intraoperative complications, revisions within the first two postoperative years, and clinical outcome as assessed by the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 1-year postoperatively were analyzed.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed in a descriptive fashion. Numeric variables were expressed as mean (±SD) or median (interquartile range (IQR)) according to data distribution and discrete outcomes as absolute and relative (%) frequencies. Normality was assessed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Repeated-measures analyses were performed with Friedman’s test. If the null hypothesis of Friedman’s test was rejected, post-hoc pairwise analyses were performed with Nemenyi’s test. Alpha risk was set to 5% (α = 0.05). Statistical analysis was performed with EasyMedStat (version 3.30; https://www.easymedstat.com/).

Results

Patient Characteristics

One hundred patients with a total of 137 levels were analyzed. In all considered levels a 3DPTi cage was used. Thirty-four (34%) patients were male and the median age was 65.8 years at surgery. One patient was a former smoker and there were no current smokers included in the cohort.

Further information on demographics and surgical characteristics is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.. Demographics and Surgical Characteristics.

Surgical Characteristics

Fifty-one (51%) patients underwent spinal fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis, 13 (13%) patients for adjacent segment disease, 19 (19%) patients for discogenic back pain, 15 (15%) patients for foraminal stenosis, two patients (2%) for facet arthropathy. Twenty-five patients underwent a revision procedure (decompression surgery or fusion surgery) and 75 patients a primary procedure. All patients had supplemental posterior instrumentation (89% percutaneous, 11% open), and 16% had direct decompression (81.3% tubular, 18.7% open).

The median operative time was 115 minutes (IQR: 89.6-150.8) with a median estimated blood loss of 100 mL (IQR: 50-100). The median length of hospital stay was 2 days (IQR: 1-3; Table 1).

Bone Grafts

Bone grafts were used in all cages in all patients. A detailed list of the type of bone graft used in each case is shown in Table 2. In the majority of cases (97.9%), only demineralized bone matrix fiber (DBM fiber) or Bioglass Fiber was used for cage/disc space grafting. Eleven cases (11%) were performed open with grafting of the posterior fusion site, and 90 cases (89%) had bone graft placed only through the cage into the disc space.

Table 2.. Bone Graft Characteristics.
Bone GraftCount (%)
Demineralized bone matrix fiber (DBM fiber)41 (41)
Bioglass fiber47 (47)
DBM fiber + autograft local9 (9)
Bone graft substitute (Tricalcium phosphate)2 (2)
DBM fiber + local autograft
+ Bioglass Fiber		1 (1)

Fusion Grading

Overall interbody fusion rate (Grade I) was 97.1% of levels (133/137) at 1-year postoperatively on CT grading (Table 3). Two ALIF levels and two LLIF levels at L4/5 demonstrated intact grafts with incomplete remodeling (Grade II according to Lenke-Bridwell et al. 15 ) at 1-year follow-up. The remaining ALIF and LLIF levels were Grade I (Figure 1A–B, Table 4).

Table 3.. Total Fusion Grading.
Fusion Grading (ALIF + LLIF)§Levels (%)
Grade I135 (97.1)
Grade II4 (2.9)

§according to Lenke-Bridwell et al (Grade I: complete fusion – fusion with remodeling; Grade II: partial fusion – intact graft with incomplete remodeling, no lucency present; Grade III: unipolar pseudoarthrosis, Grade IV: bipolar pseudoarthrosis).

Grades I and II were considered to be fused.

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. CT scans at 1-year postoperatively. A-B: A patient who underwent single-level LLIF L2/3 with a Grade I fusion at 1-year postoperatively. C-D: A patient who underwent a single-level LLIF L4/5 with a Grade II fusion (partial fusion) at 1-year postoperatively.
Table 4.. Fusion Grading per Level After One Year.

§according to Lenke-Bridwell et al (Grade I: complete fusion, Grade II: partial fusion, Grade III: unipolar pseudoarthrosis, Grade IV: bipolar pseudoarthrosis).

92.7% of fusion levels (127/137) were assessed with lateral radiographs. On flexion-extension radiographs, all assessed levels were considered fused with a range of motion of less than two degrees (Table 5).

Table 5.. Evaluation of Fusion on Lateral Radiographs: Segmental Cobb Angle was Assessed on Flexion-Extension Radiographs/Sitting-Standing EOS Scans and the Difference was Calculated.
LevelNMean (SD)95% CIRange
L1/230.16° (0.47°)0.14°-0.43°0.38°-0.77°
L2/3160.28° (0.9°)−0.09°-0.77°−1.6°-1.7°
L3/4270.28° (0.98°)−0.42°-1.06°−1.74°-1.9°
L4/5510.41° (0.85°)0.19°-1.03°−2.06°-1.9°
L5/S1320.56° (0.94°)−0.04°-1.25°−1.65°-1.85°

Complications and Revisions

There were three intraoperative complications: two vascular injuries (common iliac vein) repaired with sutures, and one durotomy repaired with sutures and fibrin glue. Four patients (4%) required an unplanned reoperation within the first two years after the index surgery. However, no revision was required due to cage subsidence, migration, or pseudoarthrosis. The reasons and timings for reoperation are included in Table 6.

Table 6.. Reasons and Timings for Reoperation.
Reasons for Reoperation
Pedicle screw malposition2
Adjacent segment disease1
Persistent foraminal stenosis1
Timing for reoperation*
within the first 90 days2
between 90 days and two years2

*after the index procedure.

Patient Reported Outcomes

The median preoperative ODI was 39 points (IQR: 28.2-49.5). The median ODI significantly improved at 1-year postoperatively compared to baseline: 1-year ODI: 10 (IQR: 2-26.5), P = .001. There was no significant change in ODI after 6 months: 6 months vs 1 year postoperatively: 12.7 vs 10.0, P = .759 (Figure 2). The ODI showed no significant change in the further course (1 year vs 2 years).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.. ODI over time after lumbar fusion surgery. At 6-month follow-up, the ODI plateaued without further statistically significant improvement. The whiskers show the minimum and maximum values, the median is shown as a dot. The line connecting the median values graphically depicts the decrease in the median ODI over time. ***P < 0.001; **P = 0.01.

Discussion

This study demonstrates that using 3D-printed titanium cages for ALIF and LLIF in patients with single-, two-, or three-level fusions results in a 97.1% (Grade I and II) fusion rate as observed on CT imaging 1-year postoperatively.

This high fusion rate is likely attributed to the cage material and a combined anterior/lateral and posterior approach. Titanium is an excellent material for interbody devices due to its strength and biocompatibility. 17 This finding aligns with Malone et al., 18 who reported a similar fusion rate of 99.3% at 1-year postoperatively in patients undergoing LLIF with 3DPTi cages, underscoring the advantages of these interbody devices using tricalcium phosphate (TCP) as a bone graft substitute. Criticism of the use of TCP as a graft are that the radiopacity seen on imaging at 1-year may be a reflection of TCP that has not resorbed, and not of bridging bone. 19 Our fusion rates are supportive of the findings of Malone et al 18 albeit using DBM fibres or bioglass putty rather than TCP.

With improvements in geometry and porous surface, the biomechanical mismatch between implant and bone has been addressed, 20 creating ideal conditions for solid fusion. Additionally, the use of ALIF and/or LLIF as fusion techniques has advantages over open posterior based transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). These techniques use a large interbody cage with a wide footprint aperture for graft material, which indirectly decompresses neural structures through ligamentotaxis and realignment. This approach not only reduces procedural morbidity with less complications such as cerebrospinal fluid leakage, but also increases fusion rates. Comparable titanium PLIF or TLIF cages result in fusion rates ranging from 83.3% to 93%.11-13,21,22

Despite this, one must not overlook that anterior and lateral procedures can be accompanied by complications that do not occur in posterior-based fusion surgeries, though modern techniques have reduced these risks significantly. LLIF, particularly at L4-L5, carries a risk of neurological complications such as femoral neuropraxia, thigh pain, and hip flexor weakness, but these are generally low (<2%) and rarely persistent when standardized approaches are used. 23 ALIF procedures carry risks of vascular injury, retrograde ejaculation in males, bowel injury, and postoperative ileus. 24 Single-position techniques for both approaches minimize complications by eliminating repositioning, reducing operative time and hospital stay while maintaining safety and radiological outcomes. 25 Despite these advances, careful patient selection and anatomical planning remain essential to mitigate approach-specific risks.

Previous studies of ALIF and LLIF with PEEK interbody implants have reported satisfactory to good fusion rates ranging from 85% to 96.6%,26-29 which is considerably lower than the fusion rate found in this study. It should also be noted that the PEEK implants in the above-mentioned studies were used in combination with different biologics to increase the fusion rate and were evaluated according to different fusion grading criteria.

Unlike most other studies,29-31 in the present study, CT scans, which are more definitive, were used in combination with lateral flexion-extension or sitting-standing EOS scans to assess interbody fusion. On the CT scans, four levels demonstrated a Grade II fusion through the disc space after one year. These levels were in patients with poor preoperative bone mineral density, which inherently puts these patients at greater risk for subsidence or pseudoarthrosis. 32 To reduce the risk of such complications, preoperative teriparatide treatment should be considered, as it can improve volumetric bone mineral density and fine bone structure. 33 However, none of these four patients required revision surgery due to symptomatic pseudoarthrosis or cage subsidence. The reoperation rate in the present cohort was 4%, mostly due to fusion-related complications such as adjacent segment degeneration, persistent stenosis after indirect decompression, or screw malposition.

Assessment of the results of the radiographic evaluation, all levels evaluated were considered fused, with less than two degrees of range of motion detected between flexion and extension or sitting and standing. This finding is consistent with previous studies that have also highlighted the limitations of radiographs in accurately assessing fusion. Radiographs often result in higher false positive rates for fusion compared to CT scans. Lee et al. 34 and Santos et al. 35 thus concluded that CT scans are the more reliable method for visualizing bridging bone. Nevertheless, we believe that the combined assessment of fusion by lateral radiographs and CT scan is valuable and may help to allay concerns that fusion rates are overstated by CT.

Iliac crest autograft is still widely considered the gold standard for lumbar fusion, as higher fusion rates have been reported than with the use of allograft or synthetic bone graft substitutes. 36 However, harvesting iliac crest bone grafts is associated with donor-side morbidity and can result in persistent pain in up to 32% of cases, 37 which led to a growing interest in alternative bone graft materials. 38 Although the use of rhBMP-2 undoubtedly results in high fusion rates,37,39 the results of the present study suggest that its routine use is not necessary. Non-rhBMP grafts, particularly DBM or bioglass putty, combined with a titanium cage result in comparable fusion rates. This is relevant as rhBMP has been associated with adverse events such as heterotopic ossification, infection and wound seroma40-42 and is also associated with high costs. In the present study, rhBMP was not used due to the lack of availability in this country.

The median ODI significantly improved at 1-year postoperatively compared to baseline. Observing the range of the ODI, it covers a wide span at both time points. This observation is consistent with expectations given that a predominant number of patients underwent multilevel fusion procedures.

There are several potential limitations to this study. First, the study population was relatively heterogeneous with patients undergoing single-level, two- or three-level interbody fusion. While this diversity can be seen as a strength, as the results show excellent fusion rates across the study cohort, suggesting that 3D-printed titanium cages provide reliable fusion rates even for larger surgeries in frail patients with poor biology, it also introduces variability that may affect the generalizability of the results. Secondly, one could argue that the follow-up period was short, but the main aim of this study was to report on the fusion rate, which reached almost 100% at 1-year. In this context, an extended follow-up period would not yield additional insights regarding fusion rates. Third, this study reports the results of a single-surgeon practice, which does not necessarily imply external validity. However, it allows for a homogeneous approach in terms of indications and surgical technique, including the use of bone graft, which might otherwise introduce bias.

Conclusion

3D-printed titanium cages for ALIF and LLIF result in excellent fusion rates at one year postoperatively without the use of rhBMP-2.

Disclaimer: The authors, their immediate families, and any research foundations with which they are affiliated have not received any financial payments or other benefits from any commercial entity related to the subject of this article.

Declarations

Authors Contributions: AKC: data collection, design of the study, results interpretation, manuscript writing and editing; BH: statistical analysis, results interpretation, manuscript writing and editing; AJB: conception, design of the study, results interpretation and manuscript editing.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Statement

Ethical Approval

The local ethical committee had given the approval for the study (HREC: 2020/ETH/9011)

ORCID iD

Anna-Katharina Calek https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5499-5096

Sources

References

42 references, in the article's own order. Citation numbers in the text are this list's numbers (36 records are cited).

  1. A retrospective comparison of radiographic and clinical outcomes in single-level degenerative lumbar disease undergoing anterior versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

    Moses ZB, Razvi S, Oh SY

    2021J Spine Surg 7:170–180 · PMID 34296029doi:10.21037/jss-20-673

  2. Surgical management of isthmic spondylolisthesis: a comparative study of postoperative outcomes between ALIF and TLIF

    Prost S, Giorgi H, Slimane MO

    2023Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 109:103560 · PMID 36702299doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2023.103560

  3. Preservation or restoration of segmental and regional spinal lordosis using minimally invasive interbody fusion techniques in degenerative lumbar conditions: a literature review

    Uribe JS, Myhre SL, Youssef JA

    2016SPINE 41(Suppl 8):S58 · PMID 26825789doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000001470

  4. Poor bone quality, multilevel surgery, and narrow and tall cages are associated with intraoperative endplate injuries and late-onset cage subsidence in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review

    Wu H, Shan Z, Zhao F, Cheung JPY

    2022Clin Orthop Relat Res 480:163–188 · PMID 34324459doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000001915

  5. The importance of the endplate for interbody cages in the lumbar spine

    Polikeit A, Ferguson SJ, Nolte LP, Orr TE

    2003Eur Spine J 12:556–561 · PMID 12783287doi:10.1007/s00586-003-0556-5

  6. Risk factors for intraoperative endplate injury during minimally-invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion

    Kim Y-H, Ha K-Y, Kim K-T

    2021Sci Rep 11:20149 · PMID 34635757doi:10.1038/s41598-021-99751-6

  7. Polyetheretherketone as a biomaterial for spinal applications

    Toth JM, Wang M, Estes BT, Scifert JL, Seim HB, Turner AS

    2006Biomaterials 27:324–334 · PMID 16115677doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.011

  8. PEEK versus Ti interbody fusion devices: resultant fusion, bone apposition, initial and 26-week biomechanics

    Pelletier MH, Cordaro N, Punjabi VM, Waites M, Lau A, Walsh WR

    2012Clin Spine Surg 29:E208–E214 · PMID 22801456doi:10.1097/bsd.0b013e31826851a4

  9. Novel titanium cages for minimally invasive lateral lumbar interbody fusion: first assessment of subsidence

    Krafft PR, Osburn B, Vivas AC, Rao G, Alikhani P

    2020Spine Surg Relat Res 4:171–177 · PMID 32405565doi:10.22603/ssrr.2019-0089

  10. Bioactivity and osseointegration of PEEK are inferior to those of titanium - a systematic review

    Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zohaib S, Zafar MS

    2016J Oral Implant 42:512–516 · PMID 27560166doi:10.1563/aaid-joi-d-16-00072

  11. Comparison between three-dimensional printed titanium and PEEK cages for cervical and lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective controlled trial

    Deng Z, Zou Q, Wang L

    2023Orthop Surg 15:2889–2900 · PMID 37771127doi:10.1111/os.13896

  12. Outcome of Ti/PEEK versus PEEK cages in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

    Yao Y-C, Chou P-H, Lin H-H, Wang S-T, Chang M-C

    2023Glob Spine J 13:472–478 · PMID 33733888doi:10.1177/21925682211000323

  13. Comparative analysis of radiological outcomes between PEEK and 3D-printed titanium cages after transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion

    Sultana T, Hossain M, Jeong JH, Im S

    2023World Neurosurg 179:e241–e255 · PMID 37611804doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2023.08.056

  14. Anterior column reconstruction of the lumbar spine in the lateral decubitus position: anatomical and patient-related considerations for ALIF, anterior-to-psoas, and transpsoas LLIF approaches

    Buckland AJ, Ashayeri K, Leon C

    2022Eur Spine J 31:2175–2187 · PMID 35235051doi:10.1007/s00586-022-07127-9

  15. Anterior fresh frozen structural allografts in the thoracic and lumbar spine

    Bridwell KH, Lenke LG, McEnery KW, Baldus C, Blanke K

    1995Spine 20:1410–1418 · PMID 7676341doi:10.1097/00007632-199520120-00014

  16. Surgical Interbody Research Group–radiographic assessment of interbody fusion devices: fusion criteria for anterior lumbar interbody surgery

    Burkus JK, Foley K, Haid R, LeHuec J-C

    2001Neurosurg Focus 10:1–9 · PMID 16732627doi:10.3171/foc.2001.10.4.12

  17. Review on titanium and titanium based alloys as biomaterials for orthopaedic applications

    Kaur M, Singh K

    2019Mater Sci Eng: C 102:844–862 · PMID 31147056doi:10.1016/j.msec.2019.04.064

  18. Can a bioactive interbody device reduce the cost burden of achieving lateral lumbar fusion?

    Malone H, Mundis GM, Collier M

    2022J Neurosurg Spine 37:646–653 · PMID 36303478doi:10.3171/2022.4.spine211070

  19. Lumbar spinal fusion with β-TCP granules and variable Escherichia coli–derived rhBMP-2 dose

    Pelletier MH, Oliver RA, Christou C

    2014Spine J 14:1758–1768 · PMID 24486479doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2014.01.043

  20. Porous material based on spongy titanium granules: structure, mechanical properties, and osseointegration

    Rubshtein AP, Trakhtenberg ISH, Makarova EB

    2014Mater Sci Eng: C 35:363–369 · PMID 24411389doi:10.1016/j.msec.2013.11.020

  21. Comparison of fusion, subsidence, and clinical results between 3D-printed porous titanium cage and polyetheretherketone cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a minimum of 2 Years follow-up

    Yang JJ, Kim D-M, Park S

    2023World Neurosurg 177:e732–e741 · PMID 37419312doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2023.06.132

  22. 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

    Makino T, Takenaka S, Sakai Y, Yoshikawa H, Kaito T

    2022Glob Spine J 12:931–939 · PMID 33203254doi:10.1177/2192568220972334

  23. Single-position prone lateral lumbar interbody fusion increases operative efficiency and maintains safety in revision lumbar spinal fusion

    Buckland AJ, Proctor DJ, Thomas JA, Protopsaltis TS, Ashayeri K, Braly BA

    2024Spine 49:E19–E24 · PMID 37134133doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000004699

  24. Lateral decubitus single position anterior–posterior (AP) fusion shows equivalent results to minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion at one-year follow-up

    Ashayeri K, Thomas JA, Braly B

    2022Eur Spine J 31:2227–2238 · PMID 35551483doi:10.1007/s00586-022-07226-7

  25. Lateral decubitus single position anterior posterior surgery improves operative efficiency, improves perioperative outcomes, and maintains radiological outcomes comparable with traditional anterior posterior fusion at minimum 2-year follow-up

    Buckland AJ, Braly BA, O’Malley NA

    2023Spine J 23:685–694 · PMID 36641035doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2023.01.001

  26. Fusion after minimally disruptive anterior lumbar interbody fusion: analysis of extreme lateral interbody fusion by computed tomography

    Rodgers WB, Gerber EJ, Patterson JR

    2010SAS J 4:63–66 · PMID 25802651doi:10.1016/j.esas.2010.03.001

  27. Fusion rate following extreme lateral lumbar interbody fusion

    Berjano P, Langella F, Damilano M

    2015Eur Spine J 24:369–371 · PMID 25893332doi:10.1007/s00586-015-3929-7

  28. Clinical outcome and fusion rates after the first 30 extreme lateral interbody fusions

    Malham GM, Ellis NJ, Parker RM, Seex KA

    2012Sci World J 2012:246989 · PMID 23213282doi:10.1100/2012/246989

  29. Radiological evaluation of anterior lumbar fusion using PEEK cages with adjacent vertebral autograft in spinal deformity long fusion surgeries

    Ni J, Zheng Y, Liu N

    2015Eur Spine J 24:791–799 · PMID 25618451doi:10.1007/s00586-014-3745-5

  30. PEEK versus titanium cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis of subsidence

    Campbell PG, Cavanaugh DA, Nunley P

    2020Neurosurg Focus 49:E10 · PMID 32871573doi:10.3171/2020.6.focus20367

  31. Custom-made trabecular titanium implants for the treatment of lumbar degenerative discopathy via ALIF/XLIF techniques: rationale for use and preliminary results

    Tartara F, Bongetta D, Pilloni G, Colombo EV, Giombelli E

    2020Eur Spine J 29:314–320 · PMID 31696335doi:10.1007/s00586-019-06191-y

  32. Preventing pseudoarthrosis and proximal junctional kyphosis how to deal with the osteoporotic spine

    Karikari IO, Metz LN

    2018Neurosurg Clin N Am 29:365–374 · PMID 29933804doi:10.1016/j.nec.2018.03.005

  33. Teriparatide improves volumetric bone mineral density and fine bone structure in the UIV+1 vertebra, and reduces bone failure type PJK after surgery for adult spinal deformity

    Yagi M, Ohne H, Konomi T

    2016Osteoporos Int 27:3495–3502 · PMID 27341809doi:10.1007/s00198-016-3676-6

  34. A comparison of dynamic views using plain radiographs and thin-section three-dimensional computed tomography in the evaluation of fusion after posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery

    Lee H-S, Lee JH, Lee J-H

    2013Spine J 13:1200–1207 · PMID 24075026doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2013.07.436

  35. Radiologic assessment of interbody fusion using carbon fiber cages

    Santos ERG, Goss DG, Morcom RK, Fraser RD

    2003Spine 28:997–1001 · PMID 12768137doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000061988.93175.74

  36. Single or double-level anterior interbody fusion techniques for cervical degenerative disc disease

    Jacobs W, Willems PC, Limbeek JV

    2011Cochrane Database Syst Rev 19(1):CD004958 · PMID 15495130doi:10.1002/14651858.cd004958.pub2

  37. Radiographic assessment of interbody fusion using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein type 2

    Burkus JK, Dorchak JD, Sanders DL

    2003Spine 28:372–377 · PMID 12590213doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000048469.45035.b9

  38. The use of bioabsorbable implants in the spine

    Vaccaro AR, Singh K, Haid R

    2003Spine J 3:227–237 · PMID 14589204doi:10.1016/s1529-9430(02)00412-6

  39. Bone morphogenetic protein use in spine surgery—complications and outcomes: a systematic review

    Faundez A, Tournier C, Garcia M, Aunoble S, Huec J-CL

    2016Int Orthop 40:1309–1319 · PMID 26961193doi:10.1007/s00264-016-3149-8

  40. Retrograde ejaculation after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using rhBMP-2: a cohort controlled study

    Carragee EJ, Mitsunaga KA, Hurwitz EL, Scuderi GJ

    2011Spine J 11:511–516 · PMID 21612985doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2011.02.013

  41. Complications in the use of rhBMP-2 in PEEK cages for interbody spinal fusions

    Vaidya R, Sethi A, Bartol S, Jacobson M, Coe C, Craig JG

    2008J Spinal Disord Tech 21:557–562 · PMID 19057248doi:10.1097/bsd.0b013e31815ea897

  42. Neurologic impairment from ectopic bone in the lumbar canal: a potential complication of off-label PLIF/TLIF use of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2)

    Wong DA, Kumar A, Jatana S, Ghiselli G, Wong K

    2008Spine J 8:1011–1018 · PMID 18037352doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2007.06.014

Article record

The record

Status

Living reprint · journal article Journal version available

Status
Version of record: Global Spine Journal 2026
Journal version
Global Spine Journal (2026) · doi:10.1177/21925682251344557
Confirmed
2025-06-01
Licence
CC BY 4.0

This reprint has no DOI of its own: cite the journal article.

The journal's version is the version of record. This page re-typesets it under the article's licence; where they differ, the journal's version is authoritative.

Version history

  1. Published in Global Spine Journal2025-06-01
  2. Living reprint on Literature Decoded2026-10-01
  3. Reprinted here2026-10-01
  4. This HTML2026-10-01

Cite this article

Citation
Calek A, Hochreiter B, Buckland AJ. 3D-Printed Titanium Cages for Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Result in Excellent Fusion Rates One Year After Surgery. Global Spine J. 2026;16(1):341–348. doi:10.1177/21925682251344557
BibTeX
@article{Calek20263DPrinted,
  title     = {3D-Printed Titanium Cages for Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Result in Excellent Fusion Rates One Year After Surgery},
  author    = {Anna-Katharina Calek and Bettina Hochreiter and Aaron J. Buckland},
  journal   = {Global Spine Journal},
  year      = {2026},
  volume    = {16},
  number    = {1},
  pages     = {341–348},
  doi       = {10.1177/21925682251344557},
  pmid      = {40451613},
  publisher = {SAGE Publications}
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - 3D-Printed Titanium Cages for Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Result in Excellent Fusion Rates One Year After Surgery
AU  - Anna-Katharina Calek
AU  - Bettina Hochreiter
AU  - Aaron J. Buckland
JO  - Global Spine Journal
PY  - 2026
VL  - 16
IS  - 1
SP  - 341
EP  - 348
DO  - 10.1177/21925682251344557
PB  - SAGE Publications
SN  - 2192-5682
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251344557
ER  -

Cite the original article (the version of record), not this reprint.

Take it with you

One self-contained HTML file: the text, data and figures, readable offline.

Disclaimer and limitations

Educational summary of research findings; not medical advice. Discuss care decisions with a qualified clinician.

The findings apply to the included study populations and may not generalise to every person or setting.

Licence and attribution

This page reproduces 3D-Printed Titanium Cages for Anterior and Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Result in Excellent Fusion Rates One Year After Surgery by Anna-Katharina Calek, Bettina Hochreiter, Aaron J. Buckland, first published in Global Spine Journal 2026;16(1):341–348, doi:10.1177/21925682251344557, PMID 40451613, PMC12127342. © The Author(s) 2025. It is used under the CC BY 4.0 licence.

Changes made:

The words, data, figures and conclusions are the authors’. Literature Decoded is not the publisher of record and does not claim endorsement by the authors or the journal. The version of record is the journal’s; cite it.

Licence statement in the article: “This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).”

Are you an author of this article? Claim it or ask us to take it down.

Cite this article

Living reprint · journal article