Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsProspective StudyPubMed

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.

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

Open my reading list
Level C· Early human research exploring benefitsEvidence level of this study

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Prospective Study
Journal
Orthop Rev (Pavia) (2026)
Country
United States
Reported sample size
50
Source database
PubMed
PMID
41938028
PMCID
PMC13048841
DOI
10.52965/001c.159611

Abstract (original English)

Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Early human evidence such as case series or small samples is exploring possible benefits.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research