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
  • [11] 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
    Jun-Hao Tan
    Chin Kai Cheong
    Hwee Weng Dennis Hey
    European Spine Journal, 2021, 30 : 1285 - 1295
  • [12] Titanium-coated PEEK Versus Uncoated PEEK Cages in Lumbar Interbody Fusion A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial
    Lv, Zheng-tao
    Xu, Yong
    Cao, Bin
    Dai, Jun
    Zhang, Si-yuan
    Huang, Jun-ming
    Liang, Shuang
    Jiang, Feng-xian
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2023, 36 (05): : 198 - 209
  • [13] Subsidence of Polyetheretherketone Intervertebral Cages in Minimally Invasive Lateral Retroperitoneal Transpsoas Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Le, Tien V.
    Baaj, Ali A.
    Dakwar, Elias
    Burkett, Clinton J.
    Murray, Gisela
    Smith, Donald A.
    Uribe, Juan S.
    SPINE, 2012, 37 (14) : 1268 - 1273
  • [14] Subsidence of Center or Off-Center Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages
    Kim, Seong-Won
    Jeong, Hyun-Yong
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING, 2024, 25 (11) : 2387 - 2396
  • [15] Comparative analysis of the efficacy of oblique lateral interbody fusion versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation
    Chen, Daodong
    Liu, Tao
    Du, Kunyang
    Zhu, Zhenjun
    SCIENTIFIC REPORTS, 2024, 14 (01):
  • [16] Predictors of subsidence after lateral lumbar interbody fusion
    Ohiorhenuan, Ifije E.
    Walker, Corey T.
    Zhou, James J.
    Godzik, Jakub
    Sagar, Soumya
    Farber, S. Harrison
    Uribe, Juan S.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2022, 37 (02) : 183 - 187
  • [17] Subsidence Rates Associated With Porous 3D-Printed Versus Solid Titanium Cages in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Toop, Nathaniel
    Dhaliwal, Joravar
    Grossbach, Andrew
    Gibbs, David
    Reddy, Nihaal
    Keister, Alexander
    Mallory, Noah
    Xu, David
    Viljoen, Stephanus
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2024, 14 (07) : 1889 - 1898
  • [18] Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature
    Massaad, Elie
    Fatima, Nida
    Kiapour, Ali
    Hadzipasic, Muhamed
    Shankar, Ganesh M.
    Shin, John H.
    NEUROSPINE, 2020, 17 (01) : 125 - +
  • [19] Comparative Study of Cage Subsidence in Single-Level Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Hiyama, Akihiko
    Sakai, Daisuke
    Katoh, Hiroyuki
    Nomura, Satoshi
    Sato, Masato
    Watanabe, Masahiko
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2022, 11 (05)
  • [20] Outcomes of Interbody Fusion Cages Used in 1 and 2-levels Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Titanium Cages Versus Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cages
    Niu, Chi-Chien
    Liao, Jen-Chung
    Chen, Wen-Jer
    Chen, Lih-Huei
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS & TECHNIQUES, 2010, 23 (05): : 310 - 316