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
  • [31] Elimination of Subsidence with 26-mm-Wide Cages in Extreme Lateral Interbody Fusion
    Lang, Gernot
    Navarro-Ramirez, Rodrigo
    Gandevia, Lena
    Hussain, Ibrahim
    Nakhla, Jonathan
    Zubkov, Micaella
    Hartl, Roger
    WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 2017, 104 : 644 - 652
  • [32] Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Expandable vs Static Titanium Interbody Cages: A Prospective Cohort Study of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes
    Huo, Cecilia W.
    Malham, Gregory M.
    Biddau, Dean T.
    Chung, Timothy
    Wang, Yi Yuen
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPINE SURGERY, 2023, 17 (02) : 265 - 275
  • [33] Graft subsidence and reoperation after lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a propensity score-matched and cost analysis of polyetheretherketone versus 3D-printed porous titanium interbodies
    Alan, Nima
    Deng, Hansen
    Muthiah, Nallammai
    Vodovotz, Lena
    Dembinski, Robert
    Guha, Daipayan
    Agarwal, Nitin
    Ozpinar, Alp
    Hamilton, Kojo
    Kanter, Adam S.
    Okonkwo, David O.
    JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE, 2023, 39 (02) : 187 - 195
  • [34] Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis
    Li, Hui-Min
    Zhang, Ren-Jie
    Shen, Cai-Liang
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2019, 20 (01)
  • [35] Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion
    Taba, Houtan A.
    Williams, Seth K.
    NEUROSURGERY CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2020, 31 (01) : 33 - +
  • [36] Differences in radiographic and clinical outcomes of oblique lateral interbody fusion and lateral lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar disease: a meta-analysis
    Hui-Min Li
    Ren-Jie Zhang
    Cai-Liang Shen
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 20
  • [37] 3D printed titanium banana interbody cages versus titanium-coated PEEK bullet cages for TLIF
    Jacob, Connor C.
    Eaton, Ryan
    Ward, Jacob
    Sette, Katelyn
    Wilson, Seth
    Weber, Matthieu D.
    Duru, Olivia
    Keister, Alexander
    Harrigan, Markus E.
    Grossbach, Andrew J.
    Viljoen, Stephanus
    CLINICAL NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSURGERY, 2025, 249
  • [38] The in vitro stabilising effect of polyetheretherketone cages versus a titanium cage of similar design for anterior lumbar interbody fusion
    Spruit, M
    Falk, RG
    Beckmann, L
    Steffen, T
    Castelein, RM
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2005, 14 (08) : 752 - 758
  • [39] The in vitro stabilising effect of polyetheretherketone cages versus a titanium cage of similar design for anterior lumbar interbody fusion
    M. Spruit
    R. G. Falk
    L. Beckmann
    T. Steffen
    R. M. Castelein
    European Spine Journal, 2005, 14 : 752 - 758
  • [40] 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