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
  • [21] Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Which One in Which Patient?
    Dada, Abraham
    Liles, Campbell
    Kanter, Adam S.
    Alan, Nima
    NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2025, 36 (01) : 1 - 10
  • [22] A Comparative Study of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
    Pawar, Abhijit Y.
    Hughes, Alexander P.
    Sama, Andrew A.
    Girardi, Federico P.
    Lebl, Darren R.
    Cammisa, Frank P.
    ASIAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2015, 9 (05) : 668 - 674
  • [23] Comparative Biomechanical Analysis of Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion and Bilateral Expandable Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages: A Finite Element Analysis Study
    Bakhaidar, Mohamad
    Harinathan, Balaji
    Devaraj, Karthik Banurekha
    DeGroot, Andrew
    Yoganandan, Narayan
    Shabani, Saman
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2024, 18 (04):
  • [24] Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (Direct Lateral Interbody Fusion/Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion) versus Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery in Spinal Degenerative Disease: A Systematic Review
    Bamps, Sven
    Raymaekers, Vincent
    Roosen, Gert
    Put, Eric
    Vanvolsem, Steven
    Achahbar, Salah-Eddine
    Meeuws, Sacha
    Wissels, Maarten
    Plazier, Mark
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2023, 171 : 10 - 18
  • [25] PEEK versus titanium-coated PEEK cervical cages: fusion rate
    Bartosz Godlewski
    Adam Bebenek
    Maciej Dominiak
    Grzegorz Karpinski
    Piotr Cieslik
    Tomasz Pawelczyk
    Acta Neurochirurgica, 2022, 164 : 1501 - 1507
  • [26] PEEK versus titanium-coated PEEK cervical cages: fusion rate
    Godlewski, Bartosz
    Bebenek, Adam
    Dominiak, Maciej
    Karpinski, Grzegorz
    Cieslik, Piotr
    Pawelczyk, Tomasz
    ACTA NEUROCHIRURGICA, 2022, 164 (06) : 1501 - 1507
  • [27] Comparison in the same intervertebral space between titanium-coated and uncoated PEEK cages in lumbar interbody fusion surgery
    Kashii, Masafumi
    Kitaguchi, Kazuma
    Makino, Takahiro
    Kaito, Takashi
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC SCIENCE, 2020, 25 (04) : 565 - 570
  • [28] Do Lordotic Cages Provide Better Segmental Lordosis Versus Nonlordotic Cages in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion (LLIF)?
    Sembrano, Jonathan N.
    Horazdovsky, Ryan D.
    Sharma, Amit K.
    Yson, Sharon C.
    Santos, Edward R. G.
    Polly, David W., Jr.
    CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2017, 30 (04): : E338 - E343
  • [29] Utilization of Dual Expandable Cages in Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery
    Omosor, Emmanuel
    Edelbach, Brandon M.
    Amer, Hammad
    Hussain, Namath S.
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (07)
  • [30] Biomechanical analysis of cages for posterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Fantigrossi, Alfonso
    Galbusera, Fabio
    Raimondi, Manuela Teresa
    Sassi, Marco
    Fornari, Maurizio
    MEDICAL ENGINEERING & PHYSICS, 2007, 29 (01) : 101 - 109