Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Orthop. Sep 18, 2025; 16(9): 108931
Published online Sep 18, 2025. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v16.i9.108931
Published online Sep 18, 2025. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v16.i9.108931
Table 1 Comparison of common interbody cage options for spinal fusion
Cage type | Material | Osseointegration | Elasticity | Radiolucency | Subsidence risk (theoretical) |
Standard PEEK cage | PEEK | Inert | Bone-like | Excellent | Low |
Porous titanium/three-dimensional-printed titanium cage | Titanium alloy | Excellent | Higher | Fair/poor | Moderate |
PEEK-titanium composite cage | PEEK, titanium | Moderate/good | Variable | Good | Low/moderate |
Expandable cage | Titanium, PEEK, or both | Variable | Variable | Variable | Variable |
Double-cage construct | PEEK, PEEK-titanium composite | Moderate/good | Variable | Good | Potentially low |
- Citation: Fu S, Hou LC, Huang XL, Zhao W, Wang FM, Wang YN. Unilateral biportal endoscopy for minimally invasive spinal fusion: Advancements in biomaterials and clinical outcome optimization. World J Orthop 2025; 16(9): 108931
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v16/i9/108931.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v16.i9.108931