Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimizing the Spinal Interbody Implant: Current Advances in Material Modification and Surface Treatment Technologies

  • Updates In Spine Surgery—Techniques, Biologics, and Non-Operative Management (W Hsu, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Interbody implants allow for fusion of the anterior column of the spine between vertebral body endplates. As rates of spinal fusion surgery have increased over the past several years, significant research has been devoted to optimizing both the mechanical and biologic properties of the interbody implant in order to promote bony fusion. The first interbody implants used decades ago were fashioned from cortical autograft. Currently, titanium alloy and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) are the most widely used and studied materials for this purpose. This review focuses on recent innovations in material modification and surface treatment techniques for both titanium and PEEK implants to maximize fusion rates in spinal surgery.

Recent Findings

Titanium has an elastic modulus much higher than native bone and however has better osseointegrative properties than PEEK. PEEK, however, has an elastic modulus closer to that of bone without any of the advantageous biologic properties that titanium has. Increasing porosity and surface roughness of titanium implants have been shown to improve the mechanical properties of titanium implants, while the biologic properties of PEEK have been enhanced using surface coating technology, either with titanium or with hydroxyapatite (HA).

Summary

Techniques such as increasing porosity, surface roughening, and surface coating are just some of the recent innovations aimed at optimizing both mechanical and biologic properties of interbody implants to promote spinal fusion. The future of interbody implant design will rely on continued improvements of PEEK and titanium implants as well as exploring new implant materials altogether.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Adogwa O, Parker SL, Shau D, Mendelhall SK, Cheng J, Aaronson O, et al. Long-term outcomes of revision fusion for lumbar pseudarthrosis: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15:393–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kornblum MB, Fischgrund JS, Herkowitz HN, Abraham DA, Berkower DL, Ditkoff JS. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis: a prospective long-term study comparing fusion and pseudarthrosis. Spine. 2004;29:726–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rao PJ, Pelletier MH, Walsh WR, Mobbs RJ. Spine interbody implants: material selection and modification, functionalization and bioactivation of surfaces to improve osseointegration. Orthop Surg. 2014;6:81–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Niu C-C, Liao J-C, Chen W-J, Chen L-H. Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23:310–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. •• McGilvray KC, Easley J, Seim HB, Regan D, Berven SH, Hsu WK, et al. Bony ingrowth potential of 3D-printed porous titanium alloy: a direct comparison of interbody cage materials in an in vivo ovine lumbar fusion model. Spine J. 2018;18:1250–60. 3D-printed porous titanium cages had increase bone in-growth and increased construct stiffness relative to PEEK and PSP cages in an ovine model.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials. 2007;28:4845–69.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Enders JJ, Coughlin D, Mroz TE, Vira S. Surface technologies in spinal fusion. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2020;31:57–64.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Leong JC, Chow SP, Yau AC. Titanium-mesh block replacement of the intervertebral disk. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994:52–63.

  9. Tsou H-K, Chi M-H, Hung Y-W, Chung C-J, He J-L. In vivo Osseointegration performance of titanium dioxide coating modified polyetheretherketone using arc ion plating for spinal implant application. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:328943.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD. A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine. 1993;18:2106–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ramakrishna S, Mayer J, Wintermantel E, Leong KW. Biomedical applications of polymer-composite materials: a review. Compos Sci Technol. 2001;61:1189–224.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Steinberg EL, Rath E, Shlaifer A, Chechik O, Maman E, Salai M. Carbon fiber reinforced PEEK optima--a composite material biomechanical properties and wear/debris characteristics of CF-PEEK composites for orthopedic trauma implants. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013;17:221–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Walsh WR, Bertollo N, Christou C, Schaffner D, Mobbs RJ. Plasma-sprayed titanium coating to polyetheretherketone improves the bone-implant interface. Spine J. 2015;15:1041–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Torstrick B, Evans N, Stevens H, Gall K, Guldberg R. Do surface porosity and pore size influence mechanical properties and cellular response to PEEK? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474:2373–83.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Noiset O, Schneider YJ, Marchand-Brynaert J. Fibronectin adsorption or/and covalent grafting on chemically modified PEEK film surfaces. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed. 1999;10:657–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McGilvray KC, Waldorff EI, Easley J, Seim HB, Zhang N, Linovitz RJ, et al. Evaluation of a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) titanium composite interbody spacer in an ovine lumbar interbody fusion model: biomechanical, microcomputed tomographic, and histologic analyses. Spine J. 2017;17:1907–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hanc M, Fokter SK, Vogrin M, Molicnik A, Recnik G. Porous tantalum in spinal surgery: an overview. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2016;26:1–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sagomonyants KB, Hakim-Zargar M, Jhaveri A, Aronow MS, Gronowicz G. Porous tantalum stimulates the proliferation and osteogenesis of osteoblasts from elderly female patients. J Orthop Res. 2011;29:609–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Fernández-Fairen M, Sala P, Dufoo M, Ballester J, Murcia A, Merzthal L. Anterior cervical fusion with tantalum implant: a prospective randomized controlled study. Spine. 2008;33:465–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. • Fernández-Fairen M, Alvarado E, Torres A. Eleven-Year Follow-Up of Two Cohorts of Patients Comparing Stand-Alone Porous Tantalum Cage Versus Autologous Bone Graft and Plating in Anterior Cervical Fusions. World Neurosurg. 2019;122:e156–67. Tantalum cages performed similarly to tri-cortical autograft in anterior cervical spine surgery with 11-year follow-up.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sinclair SK, Konz GJ, Dawson JM, Epperson RT, Bloebaum RD. Host bone response to polyetheretherketone versus porous tantalum implants for cervical spinal fusion in a goat model. Spine. 2012;37:E571–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bal BS, Rahaman MN. Orthopedic applications of silicon nitride ceramics. Acta Biomater. 2012;8:2889–98.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith MW, Romano DR, McEntire BJ, Bal BS. A single center retrospective clinical evaluation of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion comparing allograft spacers to silicon nitride cages. J Spine Surg. 2018;4:349–60.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Olivares-Navarrete R, Gittens RA, Schneider JM, Hyzy SL, Haithcock DA, Ullrich PF, et al. Osteoblasts exhibit a more differentiated phenotype and increased bone morphogenetic protein production on titanium alloy substrates than on poly-ether-ether-ketone. Spine J. 2012;12:265–72.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Cheng A, Humayun A, Cohen DJ, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. Additively manufactured 3D porous Ti-6Al-4V constructs mimic trabecular bone structure and regulate osteoblast proliferation, differentiation and local factor production in a porosity and surface roughness dependent manner. Biofabrication. 2014;6:045007.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Assad M, Jarzem P, Leroux MA, Coillard C, Chernyshov AV, Charette S, et al. Porous titanium-nickel for intervertebral fusion in a sheep model: part 1. Histomorphometric and radiological analysis. J Biomed Mater Res Part B Appl Biomater. 2003;64:107–20.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Otsuki B, Takemoto M, Fujibayashi S, Neo M, Kokubo T, Nakamura T. Pore throat size and connectivity determine bone and tissue ingrowth into porous implants: three-dimensional micro-CT based structural analyses of porous bioactive titanium implants. Biomaterials. 2006;27:5892–900.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Neo M, Matsushita T, Kokubo T, Doi K, et al. A novel synthetic material for spinal fusion: a prospective clinical trial of porous bioactive titanium metal for lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:1486–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Wu S-H, Li Y, Zhang Y-Q, Li X-K, Yuan C-F, Hao Y-L, et al. Porous titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium cage has better osseointegration and less micromotion than a poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in sheep vertebral fusion. Artif Organs. 2013;37:E191–201.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. •• 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;107:1386–92. 3D-printed microporous titanium cage showed similar mechanical properties to native bone and allowed for bony in-growth.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Shirazi-Adl A, Dammak M, Paiement G. Experimental determination of friction characteristics at the trabecular bone/porous-coated metal interface in cementless implants. J Biomed Mater Res. 1993;27:167–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Jasty M, Bragdon C, Burke D, O’Connor D, Lowenstein J, Harris WH. In vivo skeletal responses to porous-surfaced implants subjected to small induced motions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:707–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Deligianni DD, Katsala N, Ladas S, Sotiropoulou D, Amedee J, Missirlis YF. Effect of surface roughness of the titanium alloy Ti–6Al–4V on human bone marrow cell response and on protein adsorption. Biomaterials. 2001;22:1241–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Olivares-Navarrete R, Hyzy SL, Pan Q, Dunn G, Williams JK, Schwartz Z, et al. Osteoblast maturation on microtextured titanium involves paracrine regulation of bone morphogenetic protein signaling. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2015;103:1721–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosa AL, Beloti MM. Effect of cpTi surface roughness on human bone marrow cell attachment, proliferation, and differentiation. Braz Dent J. 2003;14:16–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gittens RA, Olivares-Navarrete R, McLachlan T, Cai Y, Hyzy SL, Schneider JM, et al. Differential responses of osteoblast lineage cells to nanotopographically-modified, microroughened titanium-aluminum-vanadium alloy surfaces. Biomaterials. 2012;33:8986–94.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim H-M, Himeno T, Kokubo T, Nakamura T. Process and kinetics of bonelike apatite formation on sintered hydroxyapatite in a simulated body fluid. Biomaterials. 2005;26:4366–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. de Groot K, Geesink R, Klein CP, Serekian P. Plasma sprayed coatings of hydroxylapatite. J Biomed Mater Res. 1987;21:1375–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hasegawa T, Inufusa A, Imai Y, Mikawa Y, Lim T-H, An HS. Hydroxyapatite-coating of pedicle screws improves resistance against pull-out force in the osteoporotic canine lumbar spine model: a pilot study. Spine J. 2005;5:239–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Jing W, Zhang M, Jin L, Zhao J, Gao Q, Ren M, et al. Assessment of osteoinduction using a porous hydroxyapatite coating prepared by micro-arc oxidation on a new titanium alloy. Int J Surg. 2015;24:51–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Wu X, Liu X, Wei J, Ma J, Deng F, Wei S. Nano-TiO2/PEEK bioactive composite as a bone substitute material: in vitro and in vivo studies. Int J Nanomedicine. 2012;7:1215–25.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Bonfield W. Hydroxyapatite-reinforced polyethylene as an analogous material for bone replacement. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1988;523:173–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ma R, Li Q, Wang L, Zhang X, Fang L, Luo Z, et al. Mechanical properties and in vivo study of modified-hydroxyapatite/polyetheretherketone biocomposites. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017;73:429–39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Han C-M, Lee E-J, Kim H-E, Koh Y-H, Kim KN, Ha Y, et al. The electron beam deposition of titanium on polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and the resulting enhanced biological properties. Biomaterials. 2010;31:3465–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Hoppe S, Albers CE, Elfiky T, Deml MC, Milavec H, Bigdon SF, et al. First results of a new vacuum plasma sprayed (VPS) titanium-coated carbon/PEEK composite cage for lumbar Interbody fusion. J Funct Biomater. 2018;9. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb9010023.

  46. • Makino T, Kaito T, Sakai Y, Takenaka S, Yoshikawa H. Computed tomography color mapping for evaluation of bone ongrowth on the surface of a titanium-coated polyetheretherketone cage in vivo: a pilot study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97:e12379. 54% of Ti-coated PEEK cages demonstrated bony on-growth using color CT mapping.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Barkarmo S, Wennerberg A, Hoffman M, Kjellin P, Breding K, Handa P, et al. Nano-hydroxyapatite-coated PEEK implants: a pilot study in rabbit bone. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2013;101:465–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Johansson P, Jimbo R, Naito Y, Kjellin P, Currie F, Wennerberg A. Polyether ether ketone implants achieve increased bone fusion when coated with nano-sized hydroxyapatite: a histomorphometric study in rabbit bone. Int J Nanomedicine. 2016;11:1435–42.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. •• Johansson P, Barkarmo S, Hawthan M, Peruzzi N, Kjellin P, Wennerberg A. Biomechanical, histological, and computed X-ray tomographic analyses of hydroxyapatite coated PEEK implants in an extended healing model in rabbit. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2018;106:1440–7. HA-coated PEEK screws demonstrated increased removal torque in an animal model.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kienle A, Graf N, Wilke H-J. Does impaction of titanium-coated interbody fusion cages into the disc space cause wear debris or delamination? Spine J. 2016;16:235–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kienle A, Krieger A, Willems K, Wilke H-J. Resistance of coated polyetheretherketone lumbar interbody fusion cages against abrasion under simulated impaction into the disc space. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2019;17:2280800018782854.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Spine Hospital, NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, 5141 Broadway, 3 Field West-022, New York, NY, 10034, USA

    Paul J. Park & Ronald A. Lehman

Authors
  1. Paul J. Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ronald A. Lehman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul J. Park.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Paul J. Park, MD declares he has no conflict of interest to declare related to this publication.

Ronald A. Lehman, MD declares he has no conflict of interest to declare related to this publication.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Updates In Spine Surgery—Techniques, Biologics, and Non-Operative Management

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, P.J., Lehman, R.A. Optimizing the Spinal Interbody Implant: Current Advances in Material Modification and Surface Treatment Technologies. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 13, 688–695 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09673-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-020-09673-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation