Promotion of higher rates of early fusion using activated titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages in adults undergoing 1-and 2-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion procedures: a randomized controlled trial

被引:2
作者
Toop, Nathaniel [1 ]
Dhaliwal, Joravar [1 ]
Gifford, Connor S. [1 ]
Gibbs, David [1 ]
Keister, Alex [1 ]
Miracle, Shelby [1 ]
Forghani, Reza [2 ]
Grossbach, Andrew J. [1 ]
Farhadi, H. Francis [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Ohio State Univ, Wexner Med Ctr, Dept Neurol Surg, Columbus, OH USA
[2] Univ Florida, Norman Fixel Inst Neurol Dis, Dept Radiol, Radi & Augmented Intelligence Lab,Coll Med, Gainesville, FL USA
[3] Univ Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506 USA
关键词
transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion; surface topography; activated titanium; polyetheretherketone; Brantigan-Steffee-Fraser scale; dual-energy CT; SPINAL-FUSION; PEEK; IMPLANT; POROSITY; ALLOY;
D O I
10.3171/2023.6.SPINE23382
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
OBJECTIVE There is ongoing debate on the relative benefits and drawbacks of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) versus titanium (Ti) in generating a bone-to-implant surface microenvironment conducive to osseointegration. Micro- and nanoscale internal and topographic cage modifications have recently been posited to facilitate osseointegration and fusion, but human in vivo confirmation remains lacking. The authors of this study sought to directly compare early radiological outcomes in adults undergoing 1- and 2-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedures using either PEEK or nano-etched Ti interbody cages with an incorporated microlattice structure.METHODS Patients were enrolled in a single academic center using a single-blind randomized controlled superiority design. Screening was undertaken from a pool of consecutive patients eligible for TLIF to undergo placement in a 1:1 ratio of either lordotic PEEK or activated Ti cages at each level of 1- or 2-level procedures. An a priori power analysis was performed and a preplanned interim analysis was undertaken once 50 of 70 patients were enrolled. Patient study data were collected perioperatively and uploaded to a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) registry. Interbody fusion was assessed based on 6-month postoperative lumbar dual-energy CT (DECT) studies using the method of Brantigan and Steffee, as modified to describe the Fraser definition of locked pseudarthrosis (Brantigan-Steffee-Fraser [BSF] scale).RESULTS In the final cohort of 50 patients, 40 interbody levels implanted with PEEK cages were compared with 34 interbody levels with activated Ti cages. The trial was stopped early given the results of an interim analysis with respect to the primary outcome. Surgical parameters including number of levels treated, average cage height, and position were not different between groups. For the PEEK and activated Ti groups, 20.6% versus 84.0% demonstrated BSF grade 3 fusion on 6-month postoperative DECT imaging (p < 0.001). Subsidence at 6 months on DECT was identified in 12 (41.4%) of PEEK levels versus 5 (20.8%) of activated Ti levels (p < 0.001). BSF-3 grading was predictive of segmental stability and numeric rating scale (NRS) leg pain improvement at 1 year postoperatively. Oswestry Disability Index and NRS back and leg pain scores all improved similarly in both cohorts at 1 year postoperatively.CONCLUSIONS Activated Ti interbody cages mediate early fusion at significantly higher rates with lower rates of subsidence as compared with PEEK cages. These findings support the idea that interbody cage microscale properties, including surface topography, may play a primary role in facilitating osseointegration and fusion.
引用
收藏
页码:709 / 718
页数:10
相关论文
共 44 条
  • [1] Adl Amini Dominik, 2022, J Spine Surg, V8, P323, DOI 10.21037/jss-22-17
  • [2] Measuring clinically relevant improvement after lumbar spine surgery: is it time for something new?
    Asher, Anthony M.
    Oleisky, Emily R.
    Pennings, Jacquelyn S.
    Khan, Inamullah
    Sivaganesan, Ahilan
    Devin, Cinton J.
    Bydon, Mohamad
    Asher, Anthony L.
    Archer, Kristin R.
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2020, 20 (06) : 847 - 856
  • [3] Berman D, 2017, INT J SPINE SURG, V11, DOI 10.14444/4029
  • [4] STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
    BLAND, JM
    ALTMAN, DG
    [J]. LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) : 307 - 310
  • [5] PEEK versus titanium cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a comparative analysis of subsidence
    Campbell, Peter G.
    Cavanaugh, David A.
    Nunley, Pierce
    Utter, Philip A.
    Kerr, Eubulus
    Wadhwa, Rishi
    Stone, Marcus
    [J]. NEUROSURGICAL FOCUS, 2020, 49 (03) : 1 - 9
  • [6] PEEK Versus Titanium Static Interbody Cages A Comparison of 1-Year Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes for 1-Level TLIFs
    Canseco, Jose A.
    Karamian, Brian A.
    Patel, Parthik D.
    Divi, Srikanth N.
    Timmons, Tyler
    Hallman, Haydn
    Nachwalter, Ryan
    Lee, Joseph K.
    Kurd, Mark F.
    Anderson, D. Greg
    Rihn, Jeffrey A.
    Hilibrand, Alan S.
    Kepler, Christopher K.
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Schroeder, Gregory D.
    [J]. CLINICAL SPINE SURGERY, 2021, 34 (08): : E483 - E493
  • [7] Porous titanium-coated polyetheretherketone implants exhibit an improved bone-implant interface: an in vitro and in vivo biochemical, biomechanical, and histological study
    Cheng, Boyle C.
    Koduri, Sravanthi
    Wing, Charles A.
    Woolery, Natalie
    Cook, Daniel J.
    Spiro, Robert C.
    [J]. MEDICAL DEVICES-EVIDENCE AND RESEARCH, 2018, 11 : 391 - 402
  • [8] Christensen FB, 2004, ACTA ORTHOP SCAND, V75, P6
  • [9] de Borja Maria-Theresa, 2004, Support Cancer Ther, V2, P59, DOI 10.3816/SCT.2004.n.024
  • [10] Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    de Kunder, Suzanne L.
    van Kuijk, Sander M. J.
    Rijkers, Kim
    Caelers, Inge J. M. H.
    van Hemert, Wouter L. W.
    de Bie, Rob A.
    van Santbrink, Henk
    [J]. SPINE JOURNAL, 2017, 17 (11) : 1712 - 1721