European Spine Journal

, Volume 22, Issue 7, pp 1539–1546 | Cite as

Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up

  • Yu Chen
  • Xinwei Wang
  • Xuhua Lu
  • Lili Yang
  • Haisong Yang
  • Wen Yuan
  • Deyu ChenEmail author
Original Article



Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) with titanium- or polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-cage reconstruction is widely used in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). This study was to compare outcomes of titanium and PEEK cages in the treatment of multilevel CSM.


Between November 2002 and December 2004, a total of 80 patients with 3-level CSM were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to titanium group and PEEK group. The overall follow-up period of the patients ranged from 86 to 116 months (average 99.7 months). Clinical and radiological results were compared between titanium group and PEEK group.


At the final follow-up, the clinical outcomes including JOA score, NDI score, and the excellent and good rates of clinical outcomes in the PEEK group were better than those in the titanium group. More loss of the Cobb angles and the intervertebral height was observed in the titanium group, resulting in the radiological parameters in the titanium group becoming inferior to the PEEK group at the final follow-up. Cage subsidence rates were 34.5 and 5.4 % in the titanium and PEEK groups, respectively. Fusion was observed in all patients of two groups at the final follow-up. Two patients presented with cage dislocation without clinical symptoms in the titanium group.


In surgical treatment of multilevel CSM, PEEK cage is superior to titanium cage in maintenance of intervertebral height and cervical lordosis, resulting in better clinical outcomes in the long-term follow-up.


Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion Titanium PEEK Cervical spondylotic myelopathy 


Conflict of interest

No funds were received in supported of this work. No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Bagby GW (1988) Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics 11(6):931–934PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bao Z, Zhao W, Wu D, Shen B, Yu B, Wang Z (2012) Box cages packed with local decompression bone were efficient in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(20):E1260–E1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barsa P, Suchomel P (2007) Factors affecting sagittal malalignment due to cage subsidence cage assisted anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J 16(9):1395–1400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooke NS, Roeke AW, King AT, Gullan RW (1997) Preliminary experience of carbon fiber cage prostheses for treatment of cervical spine disorders. Br J Neruosurg 11(3):221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bucciero A, Zorzi T, Piscopo GA (2008) Peek cage-assisted anterior cervical discectomy and fusion at four levels: clinical and radiographic results. J Neurosurg Sci 52(2):37–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cabraja M, Oezdemir S, Koeppen D, Kroppenstedt S (2012) Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13:172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cho DY, Liau WR, Lee WY, Liu JT, Chiu CL, Sheu PC (2002) Preliminary experience using a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in the treatment of cervical disc disease. Neurosurgery 51(6):1343–1349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cho DY, Lee WY, Sheu PC (2004) Treatment of multilevel cervical fusion with cages. Surg Neurol 62(5):378–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chou YC, Chen DC, Hsleh WA, Chen WF, Yen PS, Harnod T, Chlou TL, Chang YL, Su CF, Lin SZ, Chen SY (2008) Efficacy of anterior cervical fusion: comparison of titanium cages, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and autogenous bone graft. J Clin Neurosci 12(11):1240–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng L, Nie L, Zhang L, Hou Y (2009) Fusion versus Bryan cervical disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomized study. Int Orthop 33(5):1347–1351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cloward R (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical discs. J Neurosurg 15(6):602–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dufour T, Huppert J, Louis C, Beaurain J, Stecken J, Aubourg L, Vila T (2010) Radiological analysis of 37 segments in cervical implanted with a peek standalone device, with at least one year follow-up. Br J Neurosurg 24(6):633–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ha SK, Park JY, Kim SH, Lim DJ, Kim SD, Lee SK (2008) Radiologic assessment of subsidence in stand-alone cervical polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 44(6):370–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gillbert TJ, Griffth SL (2000) A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(20):2646–2654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hwang SL, Hwang YF, Lieu AS, Lin CL, Kuo TH, Su YF, Howng SL, Lee KS (2005) Outcome analysis of interbody titanium cage fusion used in the anterior discectomy for cervical degenerative disc disease. J Spinal Disord Tech 18(4):326–331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hwang SL, Lin CL, Lieu AS, Lee KS, Kuo TH, Hwang YF, Su YF, Howng SL (2004) Three-level and four-level anterior cervical discectomies and titanium cage augmented fusion with and without plate fixation. J Neurosurg Spine 1(2):160–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim SW, Limson MA, Kim SB, Arbatin JJ, Chang KY, Park MS, Shin JH, Ju YS (2009) Comparison of radiographic changes after ACDF versus Bryan disc arthroplasty in single and bi-level cases. Eur Spine J 18(2):218–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kolstad F, Nygaard QP, Andresen H, Leivseth G (2010) Anterior cervical arthrodesis using a “stand alone” cylindrical titanium cage: prospective analysis of radiographic parameters. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35(16):1545–1550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu Y, Hou Y, Yang L, Chen H, Wang X, Wu X, Gao R, Wang C, Yuan W (2012) Comparison of 3 reconstructive techniques in the surgical management of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(23):E1450–E1458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maid ME, Vadhva M, Holt RT (1999) Anterior cervical reconstruction using titanium cages with anterior plating. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 24(15):1604–1610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Matge G (2002) Cervical fusion with 5 different implants: 250 cases. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 144(6):539–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meier U, Kemmesies D (2004) Experience with six different intervertebral disc spacers for spondylodesis of the cervical spine. Orthopaed 33(11):1290–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B (2012) A meta-analysis of comparative outcomes following cervical arthroplasty or anterior cervical fusion: results from 4 prospective multicenter randomized clinical trials and up to 1226 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(11):943–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Niu CC, Liao JC, Chen WJ, Chen LH (2010) Outcomes of interbody fusion cases used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech 23(5):310–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmieder K, Wolzik-Grossmann M, Pechlivanis I, Engelhardt M, Scholz M, Harders A (2006) Subsidence of the wing titanium cage after anterior cervical interbody fusion: 2-year follow-up study. J Neurosurg Spine 4(6):447–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26..
    Shousha M, Ezzati A, Boehm H (2012) Four-level anterior cervical discectomies and cage-augmented fusion with and without fixation. Eur Spine J 21(12):2512–2519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 40A(3):607–624Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Song KJ, Lee KB, Song JH (2012) Efficacy of multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion versus corpectomy and fusion for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a minimum 5-year follow-up study. Eur Spine J 21(8):1551–1557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Song KJ, Yoon SJ, Lee KB (2012) Three- and four-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with a PEEK cage and plate construct. Eur Spine J 21(12):2492–2497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thome C, Krauss JK, Zevgaridls D (2004) A prospective clinical comparison of rectangular titanium cages and iliac crest autografts in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Neurosurg Rev 27(1):34–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang X, Chen Y, Chen D, Yaun W, Chen X, Zhou X, Xiao J, Ni B, Jia L (2009) Anterior decompression and interbody fusion with BAK/C for cervical disc degenerative disorders. J Spinal Disord Tech 22(4):240–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang JC, McDonough PW, Kanim LE, Endow KK, Delamarter RB (2001) Increased fusion rates with cervical plating for three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(6):643–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wu WJ, Jiang LS, Liang Y, Dai LY (2012) Cage subsidence does not, but cervical lordosis improvement does affect the long-term results of anterior cervical fusion with stand-alone cage for degenerative cervical disc disease: a retrospective study. Eur Spine J 21(7):1374–1382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xie N, Yuan W, Ye X, Ni B, Chen D, Xiao J, Jia L (2008) Anterior cervical locking plate-related complications; prevention and treatment recommendations. Int Orthop 32(5):649–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yang JJ, Yu CH, Chang BS, Yeom JS, Lee JH, Lee CK (2011) Subsidence and nonunion after anterior cervical interbody fusion using a stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. Clin Orthop Surg 3(1):16–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yang L, Gu Y, Liang L, Gao R, Shi S, Shi J, Yuan W (2012) Stand-alone anchored spacer versus anterior plate for multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Orthopedics 35(10):e1503–e1510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Young WF, Rosenwasser RH (1993) An early comparative analysis of the fibular allograft versus autologous iliac crest graft for interbody fusion after anterior cervical discectomy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 18(9):1123–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Younger EM, Chapman MW (1989) Morbidity at bone graft donor sites. J Orthop Trauma 3(3):192–195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang X, Zhang X, Chen C, Zhang Y, Wang Z, Wang B, Yan W, Li M, Yuan W, Wang Y (2012) Randomized, controlled, multicenter, clinical trial comparing BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion in China. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 37(6):433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu Chen
    • 1
  • Xinwei Wang
    • 1
  • Xuhua Lu
    • 1
  • Lili Yang
    • 1
  • Haisong Yang
    • 1
  • Wen Yuan
    • 1
  • Deyu Chen
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Spine SurgeryChangzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations