The outcomes of stand alone polyetheretherketone cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

Effects of Structural Allograft versus Polyetheretherketone Cage in Patients Undergoing Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Inter body spacers have been widely used in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery; however, it is not clear whether one implant shows superior clinical outcomes compared with the other. This systematic review and meta-analysis comprehensively evaluated the radiologic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes of structural allograft versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery.

METHODS

Extensive literature searches were conducted on online databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Library, until January 2023. The present study adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool were used to assess the quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, encompassing 8020 patients, met the eligibility criteria. The results indicate that structural allografts show a higher fusion rate compared with PEEK implants (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-3.37; P ＝0.03; I2 = 71%). In addition, the structural allograft group also had a lower pseudarthrosis rate (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.80; P = 0.009; I2 = 75%) and reoperation rate (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.81; P = 0.007; I2 = 38%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review and meta-analysis show that structural allograft has a higher fusion rate compared with PEEK implants in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery. In addition, structural allograft has a lower pseudarthrosis rate and reoperation rate.

Speed and quality of interbody fusion in porous bioceramic Al2O3 and polyetheretherketone cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

The objective of this prospective randomized monocentric study is to compare the speed and quality of interbody fusion of implanted porous Al₂O₃ (aluminium oxide) cages with PEEK (polyetheretherketone) cages in ACDF (anterior cervical discectomy and fusion).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 111 patients were enrolled in the study, which was carried out between 2015 and 2021. The 18-month follow-up (FU) was completed in 68 patients with an Al₂O₃ cage and 35 patients with a PEEK cage in one-level ACDF. Initially, the first evidence (initialization) of fusion was evaluated on computed tomography. Subsequently, interbody fusion was evaluated according to the fusion quality scale, fusion rate and incidence of subsidence.

RESULTS

Signs of incipient fusion at 3 months were detected in 22% of cases with the Al₂O₃ cage and 37.1% with the PEEK cage. At 12-month FU, the fusion rate was 88.2% for Al₂O₃ and 97.1% for PEEK cages, and at the final FU at 18 months, 92.6% and 100%, respectively. The incidence of subsidence was observed to be 11.8% and 22.9% of cases with Al₂O₃ and PEEK cages, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Porous Al₂O₃ cages demonstrated a lower speed and quality of fusion in comparison with PEEK cages. However, the fusion rate of Al₂O₃ cages was within the range of published results for various cages. The incidence of subsidence of Al₂O₃ cages was lower compared to published results. We consider the porous Al₂O₃ cage as safe for a stand-alone disc replacement in ACDF.

An update of interbody cages for spine fusion surgeries: from shape design to materials

INTRODUCTION

Discectomy and interbody fusion are widely used in the treatment of intervertebral disc-related diseases. Among them, the interbody cage plays a significant role. However, the complications related to the interbody cage, such as nonunion or pseudoarthrosis, subsidence, loosening, and prolapse of the cage, cannot be ignored. By changing the design and material of the interbody fusion cage, a better fusion effect can be obtained, the incidence of appeal complications can be reduced, and the quality of life of patients after interbody fusion can be improved.

AREAS COVERED

This study reviewed the research progress of cage design and material and discussed the methods of cage design and material to promote intervertebral fusion.

EXPERT OPINION

Current treatment of cervical and lumbar degenerative disease requires interbody fusion to maintain decompression and to promote fusion and reduce the incidence of fusion failure through improvements in implant material, design, internal structure, and function. However, interbody fusion is not an optimal solution for treating vertebral instability.Abbreviations: ACDF, Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; ALIF, anterior lumbar interbody fusion; Axi-aLIF, axial lumbar interbody fusion; BAK fusion cage, Bagby and Kuslich fusion cage; CADR, cervical artificial disc replacement; DBM, decalcified bone matrix; HA, hydroxyapatite; LLIF/XLIF, lateral or extreme lateral interbody fusion; MIS-TLIF, minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; OLIF/ATP, oblique lumbar interbody fusion/anterior to psoas; PEEK, Poly-ether-ether-ketone; PLIF, posterior lumbar interbody fusion; ROI-C, Zero-profile Anchored Spacer; ROM, range of motion; SLM, selective melting forming; TLIF, transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion or.

Evaluation of interbody fusion efficacy and biocompatibility of a polyetheretherketone/calcium silicate/porous tantalum cage in a goat model

Objective

To evaluate the interbody fusion efficacy and biocompatibility of a graft-free cage made of polyetheretherketone/calcium silicate composite/porous tantalum (PEEK/CS/pTa cage) compared with a PEEK/CS cage with an autogenous bone graft in a goat model.

Methods

PEEK/CS/pTa and PEEK/CS cages were prepared through an injection-moulding method. The PEEK/CS composites and porous tantalum were characterized by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) mapping. Then, adult goats were chosen for C2/C3 and C3/C4 discectomy via the anterior cervical approach and randomly implanted with PEEK/CS/pTa and PEEK/CS/cages with autogenous bone grafts. The fusion performance and osseointegration of the cages were evaluated by X-ray imaging, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning, and bone histomorphometry analysis. Moreover, the concentrations of Ca and Si in urine, serum, tissue around the fusion segments and major organs of the goats were determined by inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectrometry (ICP–OES). Histological observation of major organs of the goats was used to evaluate the biosafety of PEEK/CS/pTa and PEEK/CS cages.

Results

X-ray and MRI imaging suggested that both PEEK/CS/pTa cages and PEEK/CS cages maintained similar average intervertebral space heights. The tissue volumes in the fusion area were comparable between the two groups of cages at 26 weeks after surgery. Histological morphometric data showed that PEEK/CS/pTa cages and PEEK/CS cages with autogenous bone grafts had similar bone contact and osseointegration at 12 and 26 weeks. Element determination of serum, urine, spinal cord, dura matter, bone and organs showed that the CS/PEEK cages did not cause abnormal systemic metabolism or accumulation of calcium and silicon in local tissues and major organs of goats after implantation. No obvious pathological changes were found in the heart, liver, spleen, liver or kidney tissues.

Conclusion

Overall, these results suggested that the graft-free PEEK/CS/pTa cage showed similar bony fusion performance to the PEEK/CS cages with autogenous bone grafts. The cages releasing calcium and silicon had good biological safety in vivo.

The translational potential of this article: This study provided a new graft-free interbody fusion solution to patients with degenerative disc diseases, which could avert potential donor-site complications. This study also provided a detailed assessment of element excretion and accumulation of Ca and Si in vivo, which validated the biosafety of this new type of bioactive interbody fusion cage.

Gluteal and Posterior Thigh Pain From a Suture Compared With an Anchor-Based Device in Patients Undergoing Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare postoperative gluteal and posterior thigh pain, device performance, and perioperative complications in women undergoing sacrospinous ligament fixation with an anchor-based compared with a suture-capturing device.

METHODS

This was a single-center, patient-blinded, parallel, superiority trial of patients undergoing native-tissue pelvic organ prolapse repair through sacrospinous ligament fixation with an anchor-based compared with suture-capturing device using randomized-block randomization. The primary outcome was the increase in gluteal and posterior thigh pain from baseline to 1-week postoperation using the numerical rating scale. Pain was also assessed at postoperative day 1, week 6, and a summarized assessment for the first postoperative week. Intraoperative device performance, home opioid pain medication use, and changes in prolapse symptom scores were also analyzed. To provide 80% power to detect a pain difference of 2.5 points between the groups with an SD of 2.8 and a 15% dropout estimate using a two-sided 5% significance level, 24 patients were required per group. Analysis with Student's t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Fisher exact tests were performed as well as an analysis of covariance for the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Between September 2018 and June 2020, 47 patients (24 anchor-based and 23 suture-capturing) were included in the study. There was no significant difference between the anchor-based and suture-capture groups in mean change in gluteal and posterior thigh pain from baseline to 1-week postoperation (-0.4, 95% CI -1.6 to 2.3). The highest pain increase from baseline during the first postoperative week was also similar between the two groups (up 4.00 and up 4.74, respectively) with no significant difference between the anchor-based and suture-capture groups (-0.7, 95% CI -1.4 to 2.8). There were no differences in changes in pain at any of the other timepoints, in opioid pain medication utilization, device performance, or in prolapse symptom scores.

CONCLUSION

An anchor-based device did not reduce postoperative gluteal and posterior thigh pain compared with a suture-based device after sacrospinous ligament fixation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03565640.

FUNDING SOURCE

Supported by Neomedic via Adler Instruments. Neomedic provided funding for this principal investigator-initiated study. Funding went to providing small value gift cards to patients for study completion, office supplies for the study, and funding the data analysis collaboration with the Wake Forest Baptist Health CTSI Biostatistics Department. Neomedic did not have any direct role in study design, patient recruitment, study execution, data analysis, or manuscript writing or editing.

Biomechanical Evaluation of a Novel S-Type, Dynamic Zero-Profile Cage Design for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Variations in Bone Graft Shape: A Finite Element Analysis

BACKGROUND

Variations in cage design, material, and graft shape can affect osteointegration and adjacent segment range of motion (ROM) and stress after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical properties of a novel dynamic cervical cage design in both titanium (Ti) and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) with variations in bone graft shape using a single level ACDF (FE) model.

METHODS

A 3-dimensional C3-C6 FE model was developed using computed tomography scan data from a healthy male subject. The novel S-shaped dynamic interbody fusion cage with a zero-profile fixation was inserted at the C4-C5 level with 4 different bone graft shapes (square, circular, rectangular, and elliptical). Changes in segmental ROM and maximum von Mises stresses at the fusion and adjacent segments were analyzed.

RESULTS

Both Ti and PEEK cages showed decreased ROM at the fusion and adjacent levels for all shapes of bone graft when compared with the intact spine model. The elliptical graft, for both Ti and PEEK cages, showed a lower percentage of reduction in segmental ROM at the fusion and adjacent levels (0%-5.6%) when compared with other graft shapes (0%-12%). Maximum stresses at the fusion level were lowest in Ti cage with elliptical graft (229.8-347.6 MPa) when compared with other shapes (241.2-476.2 MPa) in flexion, extension, and lateral bending. For the bone graft, maximum stresses were highest on the elliptical-shaped bone graft in flexion and extension in the Ti cage, and in flexion and lateral bending in the PEEK cage.

CONCLUSIONS

Both Ti and PEEK cages showed decreased ROM at the fusion and adjacent levels for all shapes of bone graft when compared with the intact spine model. In the Ti and PEEK dynamic cages, the elliptical shape bone graft showed decreased stress on the cage and increased stress on the bone graft. Further experimental and clinical studies are needed to confirm these encouraging biomechanical results of this novel dynamic, zero-profile fusion device with elliptical bone graft in ACDF surgery.