MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.2147/mder.s493988

Медицинская библиотека · Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025

Evaluation of Healthcare Outcomes of Patients Treated with 3D-Printed-Titanium and PEEK Cages During Fusion Procedures in the Lumbar Spine.

Corso Katherine A, Teferra Andreas A, Michielli Annalisa, Corrado Kristin, Marcini Amy, Lotito Mark, Smith Caroline, Costa Michelle, Ruppenkamp Jill, Wallace Anna

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

PURPOSE: The objective of this observational, real-world study was to describe reoperation, revision, index healthcare utilization and hospital costs among patients treated with PEEK (polyetheretherketone) or 3D-printed-titanium cages during lumbar/lumbosacral posterior fusion procedures, either TLIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) or PLIF (posterior lumbar interbody fusion). Statistical comparisons were not conducted.

METHODS

This was a descriptive, retrospective, observational study. Patients with PEEK (OPAL™, DePuy Synthes, Raynham, MA) or 3D-printed-titanium (CONDUIT™ TLIF (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion)/PLIF (posterior lumbar interbody fusion) Cage/EIT™ Cellular Titanium TLIF/PLIF Cage (DePuy Synthes, Raynham, MA)) spinal cages were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database between 1/1/2007 and 9/30/2022. Patients were required to have posterior approaches of the lumbar/lumbosacral spine and DDD, stenosis, back pain, instability, spondylolisthesis, or pseudarthrosis/failed prior surgery. Patient and procedure, healthcare utilization and hospital cost data were collected at the index surgery, and patients were followed up to 3 months for reoperation and 12 months for revision. All data were summarized descriptively, and no statistical comparisons were made between cage groups.

RESULTS

A total of 5118 PEEK and 1189 3D-printed-titanium cage patients were included in this study. Among 3D-printed-titanium cages, 804 had PLIF and 345 had Curved TLIF cage types. Most PEEK cage patients were 18-64 years (61.9%), and 3D-printed-titanium was evenly distributed across age categories. The mean index hospital cost was ~$40,000, LOS was ~3 days, and discharge status to home/home health was ~85% for both; surgery time was 267 minutes for PEEK and 280 minutes for 3D-printed-titanium. The 0-3 month reoperation cumulative incidence was 1.0% for PEEK and 1.3% for 3D-printed-titanium. For revision, incidence within 0-3, 4-6, and 7-12 months was 1.2%, 0.6%, and 1.7% for PEEK and 1.6%, 0.5%, and 1.2% for 3D-printed-titanium. The mean costs per patient associated with reoperation and revision for the entire cohort were $220 and $1228 for PEEK and $290 and $1754 for 3D-printed-titanium.

CONCLUSION

This study provides real-world economic insights into an area where practice data are sparse, within hospital settings for PEEK and 3D-printed-titanium spinal cages. A key study limitation is the descriptive design in which potential confounding factors that may affect the outcome estimates are not addressed.

Для цитирования: Corso Katherine A, Teferra Andreas A, Michielli Annalisa, Corrado Kristin, Marcini Amy, Lotito Mark, Smith Caroline, Costa Michelle, Ruppenkamp Jill, Wallace Anna. Evaluation of Healthcare Outcomes of Patients Treated with 3D-Printed-Titanium and PEEK Cages During Fusion Procedures in the Lumbar Spine.. Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.). 2025. DOI: 10.2147/mder.s493988.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.