SVF
Level D· Preclinical EvidenceLaboratory Study

Osteointegration and Fusion After TLIF: Trabecular Titanium Cage with SVF-Hydrogel Compared with PEEK Cage.

Baidarbekov MU., Ipmagambetov ZN., DeLellis N., Bekarissov OS., Abdikalikov MS., Yestay DZ.

Laboratory Study with a reported sample of 50 on Back & Spine, published in Orthop Rev (Pavia) (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Laboratory Study
Journal
Orthop Rev (Pavia) (2026)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
50
PMID
41938028
DOI
10.52965/001c.159611

Abstract (original English)

Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis is a leading cause of disability, and lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is a common surgical option. However, pseudarthrosis and suboptimal fusion remain important limitations. Porous titanium cages with biologically active hydrogels may enhance osteointegration compared with PEEK implants. This single-centre prospective randomized trial included 50 patients with lumbar stenosis undergoing single-level TLIF. Patients were allocated 1:1 to Group I (trabecular Ti-6Al-4V cage with autologous bone and stromal-vascular fraction-based heparin-conjugated fibrin hydrogel) or Group II (PEEK cage with autologous bone only). Follow-up was 12 months. Primary endpoints were CT-based fusion at 12 months (Tan classification) and bone density within the cage region (Hounsfield units, HU). Secondary outcomes included pain (VAS), disability (ODI), implant subsidence/migration, operative parameters, and complications. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and intraoperative blood loss were comparable between groups. Mean HU values were significantly higher in Group I at 3-4, 6 and 12 months (428.0±68.6 vs 388.8±46.6, p=0.0228; 527.5±81.8 vs 466.4±52.7, p=0.0031; 594.8±78.7 vs 521.0±75.0, p=0.0014). Complete fusion (Tan grade 1) at 12 months was achieved in 68% of Group I versus 32% of Group II patients (p=0.0227). Group I also showed greater VAS and ODI

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence comes from animal or laboratory studies and has not been confirmed in humans.

How we grade evidence
Back & Spine
View on PubMedDOI

Related research