Objective To analyze the difference between 3D printed porous titanium alloy interbody fusion Cage (3D Cage) and polyether ether ketone interbody fusion cage (PEEK Cage) in posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods A total of 76 patients who planned to undergo PLIF in Henan Luoyang Orthopedic Hospital from February 2021 to February 2022 were selected as the study objects. According to different treatment plans, they were divided into an observation group (38 cases) and a control group (38 cases). In the observation group, there were 20 males and 18 females, aged 27-76 (45.67±9.69) years. In the control group, there were 19 males and 19 females, aged 26-74 (45.48±10.13) years. The observation group was implanted with 3D Cage under PLIF, and the control group was implanted with PEEK Cage under PLIF. The two groups were followed up for 1 year after surgery to compare the surgical indicators and complications. The height of intervertebral space and the degree of intervertebral fusion were compared between the two groups 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were compared between the two groups 12 h and 48 h after surgery. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores were compared between the two groups 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery. Independent sample t test, χ2 test, and rank sum test were used. Results The operation time, hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative drainage volume in the observation group were (123.26±23.62) min, (13.78±1.42) d, (316.64±26.79) ml, and (342.21±33.72) ml, respectively, those in the control group were (124.18±23.43) min, (14.16±1.37) d, (321.36±27.63) ml, and (346.38±34.17) ml, respectively, without statistically significant differences between the two groups (t=0.171, 1.187, 0.756, and 0.536; all P>0.05). The intervertebral space heights of the observation group 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery were (13.36±0.93) mm, (12.98±0.87) mm, and (12.21±0.62) mm, respectively, which were better than those of the control group [(12.78±1.21) mm, (12.33±0.94) mm, and (11.74±0.77) mm] (t=2.343, 3.128, and 2.931; all P<0.05). The intervertebral fusion degree of the observation group was better than that of the control group 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery (Z=2.734, 2.331, and 2.267; all P<0.05). The VAS scores in the observation group 12 h and 48 h after surgery were (5.18±1.24) and (4.23±1.12) points, respectively, which were lower than those in the control group [(5.87±1.36) and (5.06±1.21) points] (t=2.311 and 3.013, both P<0.05). The ODI scores of the observation group 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery were (24.62±6.34), (16.33±4.28), and (13.69±3.27) points, respectively, which were better than those of the control group [(28.86±7.21), (19.66±5.87), and (15.82±3.66) points] (t=2.722, 2.826, and 2.675; all P<0.05). Conclusion There is no significant difference between the two kinds of Cage in the surgical indicators and postoperative complications of PLIF, but the 3D Cage can reduce the postoperative pain, better restore the height of the intervertebral space, and accelerate the intervertebral fusion, with good recovery of dysfunction.