Spinal Implant Osseointegration and the Role of 3D Printing: An Analysis and Review of the Literature

The use of interbody implants for spinal fusion has been steadily increasing to avoid the risks of complications and donor site morbidity when using autologous bone. Understanding the pros and cons of various implant designs can assist the surgeon in choosing the ideal interbody for each individual patient. The goal of these interbody cages is to promote a surface area for bony ingrowth while having the biomechanical properties to support the axial skeleton. Currently, the majority of interbody implants consists of metal or polyether ether ketone (PEEK) cages with bone graft incorporated inside. Titanium alloy implants have been commonly used, however, the large difference in modulus of elasticity from bone has inherent issues. PEEK implants have a desirable surface area with the benefit of a modulus of elasticity closer to that of bone. Unfortunately, clinically, these devices have had increased risk of subsidence. More recently, 3D printed implants have come into the market, providing mechanical stability with increased surface design for bony ingrowth. While clinical outcomes studies are limited, early results have demonstrated more reliable and quicker fusion rates using 3D custom interbody devices. In this review, we discuss the biology of osseointegration, the use of surface coated implants, as well as the potential benefits of using 3D printed interbodies.

Automated summary

The use of interbody implants for spinal fusion has been increasing to avoid complications and donor site morbidity. Metal and PEEK implants are commonly used, but there are issues with the modulus of elasticity of titanium alloy implants and increased subsidence risk with PEEK implants. 3D printed implants have shown more reliable and quicker fusion rates.