A comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage material on fusion rates: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Issued Date
2024-07-01
Resource Type
eISSN
25901397
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85194356660
Journal Title
World Neurosurgery: X
Volume
23
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
World Neurosurgery: X Vol.23 (2024)
Suggested Citation
Pairojboriboon S., Niruthisard S., Chandhanayingyong C., Monsereenusorn C., Poopan S., Lo S.F.L. A comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage material on fusion rates: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. World Neurosurgery: X Vol.23 (2024). doi:10.1016/j.wnsx.2024.100392 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/98600
Title
A comparison of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) cage material on fusion rates: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: A wide variety of materials are used for lumbar interbody fusion, but there is no unified consensus on the superiority of one material over another. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare and rank the various TLIF interbody materials based on fusion rates. Methods: We queried PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus from inception until August 2023, in which 2135 studies were identified. Inclusion criteria were applied based on the PRISMA guidelines. The fusion assessment employed the Bridwell's criteria with a length of follow-up of at least 12 months. The NMA was conducted to compare multiple approaches from multiple studies using the frequentist framework with STATA16. Results: In total, 13 TLIF studies involving 1919 patients with 1981 lumbar interbody levels fulfilled our eligibility criteria. Seven different cage materials were utilized: polyetheretherketone (PEEK, as the reference), allograft, autograft, PEEK with titanium coating (TiPEEK), titanium, carbon/carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) and 3D-printed titanium. The average patient age was 60.9 (SD = 7.5) years old. When compared to PEEK, the other six materials did not have a significantly different rate of lumbar fusion. However, the SUCRA number of the 3D-printed titanium, TiPEEK, Ti, allograft, autograft, CFRP, and PEEK were 0.8, 0.6, 0.5, 0.5, 0.4, 0.4, and 0.3 consecutively. Conclusions: Based on a network meta-analysis within the confines of our clinical study, 3D-printed titanium interbody cage may promote the highest success rate of fusion while PEEK may be the material with the least success rate of fusion in TLIF.