Titanium vs. PEEK Fusion Devices in 1 Level TLIF

NCT ID: NCT05691062

Last Updated: 2025-06-24

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION

Clinical Phase

PHASE4

Total Enrollment

80 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2024-09-01

Study Completion Date

2028-01-11

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The objective of this study is to evaluate and follow the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients undergoing 1 level TLIF randomized to either a titanium or a PEEK spacer to 24 months after surgery.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains a common surgical technique for the management of lumbar spondylosis requiring decompression and fusion. The choice of interbody spacer remains dependent on surgeon preference with a variety of options available for use. Two of the most commonly used interbody spacers are made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium.1 While both spacers have produced reliable rates of fusion with good clinical outcomes, debate remains as to which interbody spacer is superior. Proponents of PEEK argue that it is radiolucent and has an elastic modulus similar to bone thus decreasing rates of subsidence. However, PEEK is a hydrophobic material that does not integrate with bone. Titanium on the other hand demonstrates osseointegration and may lead to increased rates of fusion.While there are retrospective studies available comparing the two materials, the studies are small and there is a paucity of prospective data comparing the radiographic and clinical outcomes of these spacers. Given the frequency with which these spacers are used, it is important to determine which spacer produces better clinical and radiographic outcomes for patients.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Spine Fusion Lumbar Spondylolisthesis Lumbar Stenosis

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Prospective randomized clinical trial with two cohorts.
Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Participants
Subjects will be blinded to fusion device.

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

PEEK

Medtronic Capstone

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

PEEK Fusion Device

Intervention Type DEVICE

PEEK fusion device will be utilized for one-level lumbar fusion.

Titanium

Medtronic Adaptix

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Titanium Fusion Device

Intervention Type DEVICE

Titanium fusion device will be utilized for one-level lumbar fusion.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Titanium Fusion Device

Titanium fusion device will be utilized for one-level lumbar fusion.

Intervention Type DEVICE

PEEK Fusion Device

PEEK fusion device will be utilized for one-level lumbar fusion.

Intervention Type DEVICE

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

1. Patients undergoing 1 level TLIF for the treatment of lumbar stenosis and spondylolisthesis who have failed at least 6 weeks of non-operative treatment.
2. Patients between 18-70 years of age at the time of surgery.

Exclusion Criteria

1. Patients under 18 or over 70 years of age at the time of surgery.
2. Patients undergoing more than 1 level of surgery.
3. Patients who have had prior lumbar fusion.
4. Patients requiring surgery for the management of infection, tumor, or trauma.
5. Patients who are pregnant.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

70 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Twin Cities Spine Center

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Bayard Carlson

Staff Surgeon

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Twin Cities Spine Center

Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Rickert M, Fleege C, Tarhan T, Schreiner S, Makowski MR, Rauschmann M, Arabmotlagh M. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone oblique cages with and without a titanium coating: a randomised clinical pilot study. Bone Joint J. 2017 Oct;99-B(10):1366-1372. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B10.BJJ-2016-1292.R2.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28963159 (View on PubMed)

Hasegawa T, Ushirozako H, Shigeto E, Ohba T, Oba H, Mukaiyama K, Shimizu S, Yamato Y, Ide K, Shibata Y, Ojima T, Takahashi J, Haro H, Matsuyama Y. The Titanium-coated PEEK Cage Maintains Better Bone Fusion With the Endplate Than the PEEK Cage 6 Months After PLIF Surgery: A Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Aug 1;45(15):E892-E902. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003464.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 32675599 (View on PubMed)

Villavicencio AT, Nelson EL, Rajpal S, Beasley K, Burneikiene S. Prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial comparing PEEK and allograft spacers in patients undergoing transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion surgeries. Spine J. 2022 Jan;22(1):84-94. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2021.06.005. Epub 2021 Jun 8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 34116214 (View on PubMed)

Seaman S, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M, Torner JC, Hitchon PW. Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: Meta-analysis and review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci. 2017 Oct;44:23-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.06.062. Epub 2017 Jul 21.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28736113 (View on PubMed)

Cuzzocrea F, Ivone A, Jannelli E, Fioruzzi A, Ferranti E, Vanelli R, Benazzo F. PEEK versus metal cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiological comparative study. Musculoskelet Surg. 2019 Dec;103(3):237-241. doi: 10.1007/s12306-018-0580-6. Epub 2018 Dec 10.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 30536223 (View on PubMed)

Nemoto O, Asazuma T, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Yasuoka H, Fujikawa A. Comparison of fusion rates following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone cages or titanium cages with transpedicular instrumentation. Eur Spine J. 2014 Oct;23(10):2150-5. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3466-9. Epub 2014 Jul 12.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25015180 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

1944564

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Adaptix RCT Evaluating Adaptix™ Versus PEEK Cages
NCT05182489 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING NA
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF)
NCT04073563 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING NA