Find this article originally published in Becker's Spine Review. In this time of different coatings, materials and manufacturing processes, what are the factors important to surgeons when choosing an interbody fusion device? MedTech Strategies conducted a brief online survey with 24 US-based orthopedic surgeons to collect input on this question. Surgeons were asked to rank the importance of several factors and key aspects of visualization that may be considered when choosing

In the last few years, companies have been launching new and improved interbody fusion devices produced with advanced manufacturing technologies, including 3D printing. Commercially available devices are marketed “to actively participate in the fusion process”, to “create a favorable environment for cell attachment and proliferation,” and be an “active participant in the fusion process.” These devices frequently use titanium or titanium alloys to provide cell-friendly envir

The battle for a leadership position in 3D printed spine products goes on. Manufacturers must offer products that meet the surgeons’ needs with improved scaffolds and surface area for bony growth, ideal pore characteristics and appropriate mechanical properties, but what about visualization? Advanced manufacturing methodologies are less relevant if intraoperative visualization and post-operative evaluation for fusion are more challenging than ever. To determine the top rank

Spine surgeons are presented with a wide variety of interbody fusion device options today. Manufacturers are offering every size, shape, angle and material you can imagine as well as providing that same variety produced through new production methodologies. 3D printing, for example, has successfully found its way to the interbody space and currently there are several options on the market. MedTech Strategies conducted a short online survey with 24 US-based orthopedic surgeo