This 60 – 70% porous osteoconductive structure facilitates rapid osseointegration throughout the material. Set apart from the competition due to its combination of unique properties, Phusion Metal holds promise to accelerate fusion, improve recovery, and provide superior long-term outcomes compared to alternative materials on the market.
Elastic modulus of 0.7 – 1.3 GPa lies within the range of cancellous bone [1]
Low elastic modulus may minimize stress shielding at the implant-to-bone interface, preserve bone stock, and encourage ingrowth [2-4]
Can reduce implant subsidence [5-7]
Phusion Metal has an open-celled, fully interconnected and irregular structure consisting of macro, micro, and nano sized pores. The unique pore structures and roughened nano-textured surface topography, which cannot be replicated via 3D printing, may help facilitate short-term osseointegration and substantial bone growth throughout the material.*
*Preclinical studies using ovine models, not proven in human clinical settings.
Ability to wick blood and other fluids
Can be used as a carrier for biologics, drugs, and other therapeutic agents
Retention and release is adjustable
*Saline solution
Avoids material flaking, particle debris, and fracturing
High compressive strength can withstand physiological loads without implant failure
Helps normalize load transmission and minimize cage subsidence [8]
Smooth porous radius can facilitate insertion while protecting vital structures
Requires less bone graft, biologics, and bone enhancement substitutes
Helps ensure primary stability and resistance to implant migration [9-10]
Compatible with PEEK, UHWMPE, and polymers as a hybrid construction
Ability for articulating surfaces with porous regions allowing tissue or bone growth
Radiolucency allows radiographic visualization
REFERENCES
1. Data on file at PorOsteon.
2. Bryan JM, Sumner DR, Hurwitz DE, Tompkins GS, Andriacchi TP, et al. (1996 Sep). Altered load history affects periprosthetic bone loss following cementless total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res, 14(5), 762 – 768.
3. Meneghini RM, Ford KS, McCollough CH, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. (2010 Aug). Bone remodeling around porous metal cementless acetabular components. J Arthroplasty, 25(5), 741 – 7.
4. Bobyn JD, Mortimer ES, Glassman AH, Engh CA, Miller JE, et al. (1992 Jan). Producing and avoiding stress shielding Laboratory and clinical observations of noncemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, (274), 79 – 96.
5. Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X, Yang L, Yang H, et al. (2013 Jul). Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J., 22(7), 1539 – 1546.
6. Niu CC, Liao JC, Chen WJ, Chen LH. (2010 Jul). Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech, 23(5), 310 – 6.
7. Zhu Y., Yang R. et al. (2009 May). Effect of Elastic Modulus on Biomechanical Properties of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cage, J Master Sci Technol, 25:3, 325 – 328.
8. Kumar N, Judith MR, Kumar A, Mishra V, Robert MC. (2005 Aug) Analysis of stress distribution in lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 1;30(15), 1731 – 1735.
9. Shirazi-Adl A, Dammak M, Paiement G. (1993 Feb). Experimental determination of friction characteristics at the trabecular bone/porous-coated metal interface in cementless implants. J Biomed Mater Res, 27(2), 167 – 175.
10. Rao PJ, Pelletier MH, Walsh WR, Mobbs RJ. (2014 May). Spine interbody implants: material selection and modification, functionalization and bioactivation of surfaces to improve osseointegration. Orthop Surg, 6(2), 81 – 89.