Advertisement

European Spine Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 593–605 | Cite as

Radiological and clinical outcomes of novel Ti/PEEK combined spinal fusion cages: a systematic review and preclinical evaluation

  • Yusuf Assem
  • Ralph J. Mobbs
  • Matthew H. Pelletier
  • Kevin Phan
  • William R. Walsh
Review Article

Abstract

Purpose

The primary objective of this paper was to provide a systematic review of the available clinical studies of Ti/PEEK combined cages in spinal interbody fusion surgeries, focusing on their radiological and clinical outcomes. A secondary aim was to provide a review and evaluation of the in vitro and preclinical studies reported on Ti/PEEK-coated implants.

Methods

A systematic search of the literature was performed in March 2015 via three databases: Medline, Embase and Cochrane library. The following key search terms were combined with synonyms to identify relevant articles: “spinal fusion,” “PEEK,” “titanium” and “cage.”

Results

The novelty of this intervention translates into a paucity of clinical trials, albeit the results of the seven clinical studies that met the criteria for inclusion are promising. All studies reported rate of fusion as a primary outcome. Two studies reported slightly improved fusion in the experimental Ti/PEEK combination cohort, one study identical fusion (91.7 %) and three studies excellent fusion (96, 100 and 94 %) in the Ti/PEEK cohort, although no differences reached statistical significance.

Conclusions

Clinical studies at this early stage demonstrate that Ti/PEEK implants are safe and efficacious, exhibiting similar fusion rates and clinical outcomes compared to the current standard PEEK. There is clinical evidence substantiating the improved radiographic fusion of Ti/PEEK, albeit the differences were not significant. This field is promising, gaining substantial popularity, and further clinical trials are needed in the future to establish Ti/PEEK cages as a mainstay of clinical practice.

Keywords

Spinal fusion Cage Titanium PEEK Ti/PEEK 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

Supplementary material

586_2015_4353_MOESM1_ESM.docx (101 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 100 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Tsantrizos A, Andreou A, Aebi M, Steffen T (2000) Biomechanical stability of five stand-alone anterior lumbar interbody fusion constructs. Eur Spine J 9(1):14–22CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weiner BK, Fraser RD (1998) Spine update lumbar interbody cages. Spine 23(5):634–640CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mobbs RJ, Loganathan A, Yeung V, Rao PJ (2013) Indications for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Surg 5(3):153–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mobbs RJ, Chung M, Rao PJ (2013) Bone graft substitutes for anterior lumbar interbody fusion. Orthop Surg 5(2):77–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, Sung NY (2011) The effect of a radiographic solid fusion on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J 11(3):205–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin CR, Gruszczynski AT, Braunsfurth HA, Fallatah SM, O’Neil J, Wai EK (2007) The surgical management of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis: a systematic review. Spine 32(16):1791–1798CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rao PJ, Pelletier MH, Walsh WR, Mobbs RJ (2014) Spine interbody implants: material selection and modification, functionalization and bioactivation of surfaces to improve osseointegration. Orthop Surg 6(2):81–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lam FC, Alkalay R, Groff MW (2012) The effects of design and positioning of carbon fiber lumbar interbody cages and their subsidence in vertebral bodies. J Spinal Disord Tech 25(2):116–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Choi JY, Sung KH (2006) Subsidence after anterior lumbar interbody fusion using paired stand-alone rectangular cages. Eur Spine J 15(1):16–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mobbs RJ, Chong E, and Rao P (2014) Bioactive Ti/PEEK interbody cage for ACDF: early results. In: Neurosurgical Society of Australasia Annual Scientific Meeting 2014, Perth, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sagomonyants KB, Jarman-Smith ML, Devine JN, Aronow MS, Gronowicz GA (2008) The in vitro response of human osteoblasts to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) substrates compared to commercially pure titanium. Biomaterials 29(11):1563–1572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kurtz SM, Devine JN (2007) PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 28(32):4845–4869CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walsh WR, Bertollo N, Christou C, Schaffner D, Mobbs RJ (2015) Plasma-sprayed titanium coating to polyetheretherketone improves the bone-implant interface. Spine J 15(5):1041–1049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harris JD, Quatman CE, Manring MM, Siston RA, Flanigan DC (2014) How to write a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 42(11):2761–2768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kotsias A, Mularski S, Cabraja M, Kombos T, Süss O (2013) Fusion characteristics in ACDF with partially titanium coated PEEK cages. Eur Spine J 22(11):2582–2669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmitz A, Hoffmeister R, Reimann K, Ertel W (2011) First results of a cervical titanium-coated polyetheretherketone (PEEK)—disc prosthesis. Eur Spine J 20(11):1979–2066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rickert M, Schreiner S, Rauschmann M (2014) Randomized evaluation of bone ingrowth after intervertebral body fusion with a PEEK and a Titanium coated PEEK TLIF oblique cage. Radiological outcome after 12 months. Eur Spine J 23(11):2473–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Süss O, Kühn B, Mularski S (2014) Fusion characteristics in ACDF with titanium-coated carbon fiber enhanced polyetheretherketone cages (tcCF/PEEK). Eur Spine J 23(11):2473–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Külling F, Krebs J, Aebli N, Forster T (2013) Radiologic and clinical outcome of TLIF using CF/PEEK cages coated with titanium. Neuroradiology 55:779–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schnake K, Weil S, Langheinrich A, Hoffmann CH, Pingel A, Scholz M et al (2013) Randomised clinical and radiological trial comparing PEEK with titanium-coated PEEK-cages for PLIF surgery. Eur Spine J 22(11):2582–2669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Benneker LM, Aksekili M, Seidel U, Haefeli P, Keel M (2014) 2 years experiences with a new Titanium coated radiolucent TLIF cage. Eur Spine J 23(11):2473–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fujibayashi S, Takemoto M, Neo M, Matsushita T, Kokubo T, Doi K et al (2011) A novel synthetic material for spinal fusion: a prospective clinical trial of porous bioactive titanium metal for lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J 20(9):1486–1495CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ma R, Tang T (2014) Current strategies to improve the bioactivity of PEEK. Int J Mol Sci 15(4):5426–5445CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Diedrich O, Perlick L, Schmitt O, Kraft CN (2001) Radiographic characteristics on conventional radiographs after posterior lumbar interbody fusion: comparative study between radiotranslucent and radiopaque cages. J Spinal Disord 14(6):522–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Han CM, Lee EJ, Kim HE, Koh YH, Kim KN, Ha Y et al (2010) The electron beam deposition of titanium on polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and the resulting enhanced biological properties. Biomaterials 31(13):3465–3470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu X, Liu X, Wei J, Ma J, Deng F, Wei S (2012) Nano-TiO2/PEEK bioactive composite as a bone substitute material: in vitro and in vivo studies. Int J Nanomed 7:1215–1225Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schaffarczyk D, Lauweryns P, Willems K (2014) Functionalized PEEK surface for biomimetic spine-fusion-implants: comparison of BIC and BV/TV values of titanium coated and un-coated PEEK implants in an animal model. Eur Spine J 23(11):2473–2569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Portalupi S, von Elm E, Schmucker C, Lang B, Motschall E, Schwarzer G et al (2013) Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics. Syst Rev 2(2):2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sox H, McNeil B, Eden J, Wheatley B (2008) Knowing What works in health care: a roadmap for the nation. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Scherer RW, Huynh L, Ervin AM, Taylor J, Dickersin K (2013) ClinicalTrials.gov registration can supplement information in abstracts for systematic reviews: a comparison study. BMC Med Res Methodol 13:79CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tumialán LM, Pan J, Rodts GE Jr, Mummaneni PV (2008) The safety and efficacy of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with polyetheretherketone spacer and recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein–2: a review of 200 patients. J Neurosurg 8(6):529–535Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ni J, Zheng Y, Liu N, Wang X, Fang X, Phukan R et al (2015) Radiological evaluation of anterior lumbar fusion using PEEK cages with adjacent vertebral autograft in spinal deformity long fusion surgeries. Eur Spine J 24(4):791–799PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Young JM, Solomon MJ (2009) How to critically appraise an article. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 6(2):82–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Geneletti S, Richardson S, Best N (2009) Adjusting for selection bias in retrospective, case–control studies. Biostatistics 10(1):17–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kersten RFMR, van Gaalen SM, de Gast A, Öner FC (2013) Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in cervical applications: a systematic review. Spine J 15(6):1446–1460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Goldstein C, Petis S, Kowalczuk M, Drew B, Petrisor B, Bhandari M (2010) Radiologic assessment of lumbar spine fusion: is it confused? Spine J 10(9):S71CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yusuf Assem
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ralph J. Mobbs
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Matthew H. Pelletier
    • 2
  • Kevin Phan
    • 3
    • 4
  • William R. Walsh
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of New South WalesKensington, SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Surgical and Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Prince of Wales Clinical SchoolUNSWSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Neurospine ClinicPrince of Wales Private HospitalRandwickAustralia
  4. 4.NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group (NSURG)SydneyAustralia
  5. 5.Department of Spine SurgeryPrince of Wales Private HospitalSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations