European Spine Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 874–881 | Cite as

Carbon-fiber-reinforced PEEK fixation system in the treatment of spine tumors: a preliminary report

  • Stefano Boriani
  • Giuseppe Tedesco
  • Lu Ming
  • Riccardo Ghermandi
  • Maurizio Amichetti
  • Piero Fossati
  • Marco Krengli
  • Loredana Mavilla
  • Alessandro Gasbarrini
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Protocols including combination of surgery and radiotherapy are more and more frequent in the treatment of bone tumors of the spine. In metastatic disease, combination of surgery and radiotherapy is since long time accepted, as based on clinical evidence. In primary tumors, combination of surgery and radiotherapy can be considered in all the cases in which a satisfactory oncological margin cannot be achieved: high-grade malignancies, recurrent tumors, huge tumors expanding in an extracompartimental area, and when tumor-free margin requires unacceptable functional sacrifices. However, metal implants are an obstacle in the collaboration between surgeons and radiation oncologists. Carbon-fiber-reinforced polyethil–ether–ether–ketone (CFR-PEEK) composite implants could make easier and more effective the treatment as radiolucent and not interfering with ionizing radiation and accelerated particles. The purpose of this article is to report the preliminary results from a cohort of patients treated with CFR-PEEK and to evaluate the safety and the non-inferiority of the device respect the commonly used titanium implants.

Materials and methods

This study concerns an ambispective cohort series of 34 tumor patients (14 metastases and 20 primaries, most of them recurrent) submitted to thoracic and lumbar spine fixation with a CFR-PEEK composite implants. Oncologic surgery was palliative decompression and fixation in 9 cases, tumor excision in 21, and enbloc resection in 4. Data collected for this preliminary report were all intraoperative remarks, incidence of complications, changes in neurological status, local control, and survival. All the cases were followed 6–36 months (mean 13 months).

Results

Only one intraoperative screw breakage occurred out of 232 implanted screws. Pain control and neurological improvement were the early clinical results. Two sacral screws loosening were found at 9 and 12 months in multilevel constructs performed on multirecurrent tumors. Six local recurrences were early found thanks to the implant radiolucency. Radiation oncologists’ opinion was favourable as concerning better treatment planning on CT and lacking of scattering effect during the treatment.

Conclusions

No artifacts on imaging studies mean early local recurrence detection. For radiation oncologists, no artifacts on imaging studies mean easier planning and no scattering effect means more effective and safe radiotherapy, particularly when particles are used. Moreover, it seems that the clinical use of CFR-PEEK composite implants may be safe and at least comparable with the commonly used titanium implants in terms of intraoperative complications, stability at weight bearing and at functional recovery. Larger patient series and longer follow-up are required to confirm these data.

Keywords

Spine tumor Spinal metastasis Carbon-fiber-reinforced PEEK Radiotherapy Scattering effect 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The AA thanks Cristiana Griffoni for their incomparable work for data collection and editing and Carlo Piovani for his activity in imaging storage and elaboration.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Sharan AD, Szulc A, Krystal J, Yassari R, Laufer I, Bilsky MH (2014) The integration of radiosurgery for the treatment of patients with metastatic spine diseases. Am Acad Orthop Surg 22(7):447–454. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-22-07-447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campanacci M (1990) Bone and soft tissue tumors. Springer, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-29279-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Enneking WF, Spanier SS, Goodman MA (1980) A system for the surgical staging of musculoskeletal sarcoma. Clin Orthop Relat Res 153:106–120Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisher CG, Andersson GB, Weinstein JN (2009) Spine focus issue. Summary of management recommendations in spine oncology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(22 Suppl):S2–S6. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181baae29 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tomita K, Kawahara N, Baba H, Tsuchiya H, Nagata S, Toribatake Y (1994) Total en bloc spondylectomy for solitary spinal metastases. Int Orthop 18(5):291–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stener B (1989) Complete removal of vertebrae for extirpation of tumors. A 20-year experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res 245:72–82Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kato S, Murakami H, Demura S, Yoshioka K, Ota T, Shinmura K, Yokogawa N, Kawahara N, Tomita K, Tsuchiya H (2013) Patient and family satisfaction with en bloc total resection as a treatment for solitary spinal metastasis. Orthopedics 36(11):e1424–e1430. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20131021-27 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boriani S, Bandiera S, Donthineni R, Amendola L, Cappuccio M, De Iure F, Gasbarrini A (2010) Morbidity of en bloc resections in the spine. Eur Spine J 19(2):231–241. doi: 10.1007/s00586-009-1137-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boriani S, Weinstein JN, Biagini R (1997) Primary bone tumors of the spine. Terminology and surgical staging. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 22(9):1036–1044 (review) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boriani S, Gasbarrini A, Bandiera S, Ghermandi R, Lador R (2016) En bloc resections in the spine—the experience of 220 cases over 25 years. World Neurosurg. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.086 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Charest-Morin R, Dea N, Fisher CG (2016) Health-related quality of life after spine surgery for primary bone tumour. Curr Treat Options Oncol 17(2):9. doi: 10.1007/s11864-015-0383-z (review) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chang UK, Lee DH, Kim MS (2014) Stereotactic radiosurgery for primary malignant spinal tumors. Neurol Res 36(6):597–606. doi: 10.1179/1743132814Y.0000000381 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stacchiotti S, Sommer J, Chordoma Global Consensus Group (2015) Building a global consensus approach to chordoma: a position paper from the medical and patient community. Lancet Oncol 16(2):e71–e83. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71190-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Germscheid NM, Fisher CG (2016) Focus issue II in spine oncology: compendium of spine oncology recommendations. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(Suppl 20):S163–S170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patchell RA, Tibbs PA, Regine WF, Payne R, Saris S, Kryscio RJ, Mohiuddin M, Young B (2005) Direct decompressive surgical resection in the treatment of spinal cord compression caused by metastatic cancer: a randomised trial. Lancet 366(9486):643–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bilsky MH, Laufer I, Burch S (2009) Shifting paradigms in the treatment of metastatic spine disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 34(22 Suppl):S101–S107. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bac4b2 (review) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sahgal A, Bilsky M, Chang EL, Ma L, Yamada Y, Rhines LD, Létourneau D, Foote M, Yu E, Larson DA, Fehlings MG (2011) Stereotactic body radiotherapy for spinal metastases: current status, with a focus on its application in the postoperative patient. J Neurosurg Spine 14(2):151–166. doi: 10.3171/2010.9.SPINE091005 (review) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zuckerman SL, Laufer I, Sahgal A, Yamada YJ, Schmidt MH, Chou D, Shin JH, Kumar N, Sciubba DM (2016) When less is more: the indications for mis techniques and separation surgery in metastatic spine disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(Suppl 20):S246–S253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brantigan JW, McAfee PC, Cunningham BW, Wang H, Orbegoso CM (1994) Interbody lumbar fusion using a carbon fiber cage implant versus allograft bone. An investigational study in the Spanish goat. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 19(13):1436–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boriani S, Biagini R, Bandiera S, Gasbarrini A, De Iure F (2002) Reconstruction of the anterior column of the thoracic and lumbar spine with a carbon fiber stackable cage system. Orthopedics 25(1):37–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Morelli C, Barbanti-Brodano G, Ciannilli A, Campioni K, Tognon M (2007) Cell morphology, markers, spreading, and proliferation on orthopaedic biomaterials. An innovative cellular model for the “in vitro” study. J Biomed Mater Res A 83(1):178–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kersten RF, van Gaalen SM, de Gast A, Öner FC (2015) Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in cervical applications: a systematic review. Spine J 15(6):1446–1460. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.030 (review) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boriani S, Bandiera S, Biagini R (2006) Vertebral resection and reconstruction using the stackable cage system. In: Brantigan JW, Lauryssen C (eds) Intervertebral fusion using carbon fiber reinforced polymer implants. Quality Medical Publishing, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jackson JB 3rd, Crimaldi A, Peindl R, Norton HJ, Anderson WE, Patt JC (2016) The effect of polyether ether ketone on therapeutic radiation to the spine—a pilot study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 42(1):E1–E7. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001695 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zimel MN, Hwang S, Riedel ER, Healey JH (2015) Carbon fiber intramedullary nails reduce artifact in postoperative advanced imaging. Skelet Radiol 44(9):1317–1325. doi: 10.1007/s00256-015-2158-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zoccali C, Soriani A, Rossi B, Salducca N, Biagini R (2016) The Carbofix™ “piccolo proximal femur nail”: a new perspective for treating proximal femur lesion. A technique report. J Orthop 13(4):343–346. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2016.07.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rutz HP, Weber DC, Sugahara S, Timmermann B, Lomax AJ, Bolsi A, Pedroni E, Coray A, Jermann M, Goitein G (2007) Extracranial chordoma: outcome in patients treated with function-preserving surgery followed by spot-scanning proton beam irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 67(2):512–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xin-ye N, Xiao-bin T, Chang-ran G, Da C (2012) The prospect of carbon fiber implants in radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 13(4):3821. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v13i4.3821 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bar-Deroma R, Borzov E, Nevelsky A, Daniel S (2015) Perturbation effects of carbon fiber-PEEK screws on radiotherapy dose distribution. ESTRO Forum. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8140(15)40850-3 (PO-0858) Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nasser R, Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Harrop JS, Anderson DG, Vaccaro AR, Sharan AD, Ratliff JK (2010) Complications in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 13(2):144–157. doi: 10.3171/2010.3.SPINE09369 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefano Boriani
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Tedesco
    • 2
  • Lu Ming
    • 3
  • Riccardo Ghermandi
    • 2
  • Maurizio Amichetti
    • 4
  • Piero Fossati
    • 5
  • Marco Krengli
    • 6
  • Loredana Mavilla
    • 7
  • Alessandro Gasbarrini
    • 2
  1. 1.GSpine4 Spine Surgery UnitIRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic InstituteMilanoItaly
  2. 2.Unit of Oncologic and Degenerative Spine SurgeryRizzoli Inst.BolognaItaly
  3. 3.Department of OrthopedicThe Third Affiliated Hospital of Southern Medical UniversityGuangzhouChina
  4. 4.Center for Protontherapy, USL TrentoTrentoItaly
  5. 5.Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica (CNAO)PaviaItaly
  6. 6.University Department of RadiotherapyNovaraItaly
  7. 7.Unit of Health Management and Coding ControlRizzoli Inst.BolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations