Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
The 1-y sagittal (A, C) and coronal (B, D) computed tomography postoperative images demonstrating lumbar lateral interbody fusion with polyetheretherketone (A, B) (Coroent XL, Nuvasive, San Diego, CA) and 3-dimensional-printed titanium cages (C, D) (Modulus, Nuvasive, San Diego, CA).
- Figure 2
Lateral (A) and anteroposterior (B) x-ray imaging and sagittal (C) and coronal (D) computed tomography images of a patient treated with a block titanium transforaminal lumbar interbody implant 4 y prior. Note the subsidence of the superior end plate of L5 and the extensive radiographic artifact making evaluation of arthrodesis difficult. The absence of haloing around the pedicle screws to suggest screw loosening makes fusion seem probable, and dynamic imaging from this patient showed no excessive motion.
Tables
- Table
Comparison of implant characteristics among different materials utilized in interbody cages.
Implant Material Effective Modulus (GPa)7–11 Porosity Surface Chemistry Topography Shear Resistance Cortical bone 18 + + + Yes PEEK 4 − − − Yes Ti 110 +/− + +/− Yes Ti-coated PEEK 110 +/− + + No Three-dimensional-printed Ti 0.9–2.5 + + + Yes Characteristics of each implant are designated by −, +/−, or +. Minimal to no effect of a characteristic is designated by “−”, while “+/−” indicates the characteristic varies dependent on the construct, and “+” designates those implants that possess the characteristic.
PEEK, polyetheretherketone; Ti, titanium.
In this issue
