Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2023 Feb;111(2):478-489.
doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.35161. Epub 2022 Sep 8.

Impact of surface roughness and bulk porosity on spinal interbody implants

Affiliations
Review

Impact of surface roughness and bulk porosity on spinal interbody implants

Hannah A Levy et al. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2023 Feb.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. 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.
    1. Zdeblick TA, Phillips FM. Interbody cage devices. Spine. 2003;28:S2-S7.
    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Albrektsson T, Johansson C. Osteoinduction, osteoconduction and osseointegration. Eur Spine J. 2001;10:S96-S101.

LinkOut - more resources