ClinicalTrials.gg
Enrolling by invitationNCT05691062TLIFUpdated Jun 24, 2025

Titanium vs. PEEK Fusion Devices in 1 Level TLIF

A Phase 4 interventional study of Titanium Fusion Device and PEEK Fusion Device in Spine Fusion, Lumbar Spondylolisthesis and Lumbar Stenosis, sponsored by Twin Cities Spine Center. Enrolling by invitation at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 70 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-06-24.

Sponsored by Twin Cities Spine Center · Phase 4, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
80
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 70 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

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.

Read the detailed description

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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Spine Fusion
  • Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
  • Lumbar Stenosis
03

In context

Spondylolisthesis

227 studies on the registry are indexed under Spondylolisthesis; 43 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 80 is above the median of 60 across 143 interventional studies indexed under Spondylolisthesis.

Browse Spondylolisthesis studies →

Lead sponsor

Twin Cities Spine Center is the lead sponsor of 3 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 70 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

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

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.
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
80 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    PEEK

    Medtronic Capstone

    Device: PEEK Fusion Device

  • Experimental
    Titanium

    Medtronic Adaptix

    Device: Titanium Fusion Device

Interventions

  • DeviceTitanium Fusion Device

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

  • DevicePEEK Fusion Device

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

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Fusion Status of 1 level Lumbar TLIF

    Assess fusion status of 1 level Lumbar TLIF by reviewing patient CT Scan completed for study purposes.

    Time frame: 12 months Post-Op

  2. Revision Surgeries

    Monitor and Record Complications and Revision Surgeries

    Time frame: Up to 24 months Post-op

Secondary outcomes

  1. Patient Reported Outcome Measures

    Data collected from patient self reported outcome tools

    Time frame: Preoperative time frame up to 24 months Post-op

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Twin Cities Spine Center
    Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404, United States
08

References and documents

Publications

  • 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. PubMed 28963159 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 32675599 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 34116214 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 28736113 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 30536223 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 25015180 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 24, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05691062
Lead sponsor
Twin Cities Spine Center
Responsible party
Bayard Carlson (Staff Surgeon, Twin Cities Spine Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jan 19, 2023
Start date
Sep 1, 2024
Primary completion
Jan 11, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Jan 11, 2028 (estimated)
Last update
Jun 24, 2025

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion