Complications and Revision Patterns After 3D-Printed Vertebral Body Replacement for Spinal Tumors: A Systematic...

Background: Three-dimensional (3D)-printed vertebral body replacement (VBR) and artificial vertebral body (AVB) implants are increasingly used for anterior column reconstruction after spinal tumor resection. However, the available evidence on complications remains limited, heterogeneous, and methodologically inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to synthesize reported complications, revision patterns, and mechanical outcomes of 3D-printed VBR/AVB implants in spinal oncology and to critically appraise the quality of the available clinical literature. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1 January 1980 to 26 February 2026. Eligible studies included clinical series and cohort studies reporting extractable complication and/or revision data in patients who underwent spinal tumor resection followed by reconstruction with a 3D-printed VBR/AVB implant. Methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series. Due to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity, a structured narrative synthesis was performed. Results: Eleven studies comprising 217 analyzable 3D-printed reconstructions were included. Most were retrospective single-center series and showed marked heterogeneity in tumor histology, spinal level, implant strategy, follow-up duration, and complication definitions. Because adverse-event reporting was inconsistent across studies, no pooled overall complication rate was calculated. Reported perioperative non-mechanical complications included neurological deterioration, cerebrospinal fluid- or dural-related events, wound infection, pleural effusion, pneumonia, and vascular injury. Mechanical implant failure appeared relatively uncommon, although radiographic subsidence was variably defined and inconsistently reported. Implant mismatch and hardware-related problems were infrequent but clinically relevant, particularly with prefabricated or off-the-shelf devices. Revision procedures were most commonly associated with wound complications, clinically significant subsidence, hardware failure, or tumor recurrence. Overall study quality was limited by retrospective designs, small sample sizes, and non-standardized outcome reporting. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests that 3D-printed VBR/AVB implants are a feasible option with encouraging mechanical performance for spinal reconstruction after tumor resection. Most reported adverse events appear to reflect the complexity of oncologic spine surgery rather than device-specific failure alone. However, the available evidence remains low level and heterogeneous. Larger multicenter comparative studies with standardized outcome definitions and longer follow-up are needed to better define the clinical value and durability of 3D-printed vertebral reconstruction in spinal oncology.