PEEK versus titanium cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis of subsidence

被引:56
|
作者
Campbell, Peter G. [1 ]
Cavanaugh, David A. [1 ]
Nunley, Pierce [1 ]
Utter, Philip A. [1 ]
Kerr, Eubulus [1 ]
Wadhwa, Rishi [1 ]
Stone, Marcus [1 ]
机构
[1] Spine Inst Louisiana, Shreveport, LA 71101 USA
关键词
XLIF; LLIF; DLIF; direct; extreme; lateral lumbar interbody fusion; subsidence; PEEK; titanium; polyetheretherketone; comparative effectiveness; ANTERIOR CERVICAL DISKECTOMY; POLYETHERETHERKETONE; TI;
D O I
10.3171/2020.6.FOCUS20367
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVE The authors have provided a review of radiographic subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) as a comparative analysis between titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. Many authors describe a reluctance to use titanium cages in spinal fusion secondary to subsidence concerns due to the increased modulus of elasticity of metal cages. The authors intend for this report to provide observational data regarding the juxtaposition of these two materials in the LLIF domain. METHODS A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified 113 consecutive patients undergoing lateral fusion for degenerative indications from January to December 2017. The surgeons performing the cage implantations were two orthopedic spine surgeons and two neurosurgeons. Plain standing radiographs were obtained at 1-2 weeks, 8-12 weeks, and 12 months postoperatively. Using a validated grading system, interbody subsidence into the endplates was graded at these time points on a scale of 0 to III. The primary outcome measure was subsidence between the two groups. Secondary outcomes were analyzed as well. RESULTS Of the 113 patients in the sample, groups receiving PEEK and titanium implants were closely matched at 57 and 56 patients, respectively. Cumulatively, 156 cages were inserted and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) was used in 38.1%. The average patient age was 60.4 years and average follow- up was 75.1 weeks. Subsidence in the titanium group in this study was less common than in the PEEK cage group. At early follow-up, groups had similar subsidence outcomes. Statistical significance was reached at the 8- to 12-week and 52-week follow-ups, demonstrating more subsidence in the PEEK cage group than the titanium cage group. rhBMP-2 usage was also highly correlated with higher subsidence rates at all 3 follow-up time points. Age was correlated with higher subsidence rates in univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS Titanium cages were associated with lower subsidence rates than PEEK cages in this investigation. Usage of rhBMP-2 was also robustly associated with higher endplate subsidence. Each additional year of age correlated with an increased subsidence risk. Subsidence in LLIF is likely a response to a myriad of factors that include but are certainly not limited to cage material. Hence, the avoidance of titanium interbody implants secondary solely to concerns over a modulus of elasticity likely overlooks other variables of equal or greater importance.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 9
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Novel Titanium Cages for Minimally Invasive Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: First Assessment of Subsidence
    Krafft, Paul R.
    Osburn, Brooks
    Vivas, Andrew C.
    Rao, Gautam
    Alikhani, Puya
    SPINE SURGERY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2020, 4 (02): : 171 - 177
  • [2] Retroperitoneal lateral lumbar interbody fusion with titanium threaded fusion cages
    Wolfla, CE
    Maiman, DJ
    Coufal, FJ
    Wallace, JR
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY, 2002, 96 (01) : 50 - 55
  • [3] PEEK versus metal cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiological comparative study
    Cuzzocrea F.
    Ivone A.
    Jannelli E.
    Fioruzzi A.
    Ferranti E.
    Vanelli R.
    Benazzo F.
    MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY, 2019, 103 (3) : 237 - 241
  • [4] Comparison of Disc Height Restoration and Subsidence Rates Between Static Versus Expandable Titanium Cages for Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Ashayeri, Kimberly
    Neifert, Sean N.
    Frempong-Boadu, Anthony
    Protopsaltis, Themistocles
    Lau, Darryl
    NEUROSURGERY, 2023, 69 : 131 - 131
  • [5] Outcome of Ti/PEEK Versus PEEK Cages in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Yao, Yu-Cheng
    Chou, Po-Hsin
    Lin, Hsi-Hsien
    Wang, Shih-Tien
    Chang, Ming-Chau
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2023, 13 (02) : 472 - 478
  • [6] 3D-printed porous titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of subsidence
    Liu, Shu-Xin
    Zeng, Teng-Hui
    Chen, Chien-Min
    He, Li-Ru
    Feng, An-Ping
    Jhang, Shang-Wun
    Lin, Guang-Xun
    FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE, 2024, 11
  • [7] Reduced Subsidence With PEEK-Titanium Composite Versus 3D Titanium Cages in a Retrospective, Self-Controlled Study in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Chahlavi, Ali
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2024,
  • [8] Evaluation of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: novel 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage
    Dominik Adl Amini
    Ichiro Okano
    Lisa Oezel
    Jiaqi Zhu
    Erika Chiapparelli
    Jennifer Shue
    Andrew A. Sama
    Frank P. Cammisa
    Federico P. Girardi
    Alexander P. Hughes
    European Spine Journal, 2021, 30 : 2377 - 2384
  • [9] Evaluation of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: novel 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage
    Adl Amini, Dominik
    Okano, Ichiro
    Oezel, Lisa
    Zhu, Jiaqi
    Chiapparelli, Erika
    Shue, Jennifer
    Sama, Andrew A.
    Cammisa, Frank P.
    Girardi, Federico P.
    Hughes, Alexander P.
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2021, 30 (08) : 2377 - 2384
  • [10] Titanium (Ti) cages may be superior to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes of spinal interbody fusions using Ti versus PEEK cages
    Tan, Jun-Hao
    Cheong, Chin Kai
    Hey, Hwee Weng Dennis
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2021, 30 (05) : 1285 - 1295