Skip to main content

PEEK versus titanium-coated PEEK cervical cages: fusion rate

Abstract

Background

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most commonly performed procedures for degenerative cervical disease. The evaluation of fusion status is still not fully standardized, and a variety of measurement methods are used. This study presents our own evaluation of fusion by comparing two types of implants.

Methods

A total of 170 disc spaces were operated on in 104 patients using PEEK (polyetheretherketone) cages and titanium-coated (TC) PEEK cages. Patients were assigned to a specific implant using a randomisation table. Fusion status was evaluated based on functional radiographs and CT scans obtained at 12 months post-surgery. Multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression models were performed to assess the association of type of implant with different fusion rates.

Results

At 12 months post-surgery, CT scans were performed in 86 patients (a total of 144 disc spaces) and conventional radiographs were obtained in 102 (a total of 166 disc spaces). Complete fusion was demonstrated in 101 cases (71.1%), partial fusion in 43 cases (29.9%). There were no cases of absence of fusion. A total of 85 PEEK cages (59%) and 59 TC-PEEK cages (41%) were implanted. For PEEK cages, complete fusion was seen in 75 (88.2%) disc spaces, compared to 26 (44.1%) achieved with TC-PEEK cages. A significantly higher proportion of complete fusions (B = 15.58; P < 0.0001) after 12 months was observed with PEEK implants compared to TC-PEEK implants.

Conclusion

Complete fusion was noted at 12 months post-surgery significantly more frequently with PEEK implants compared to TC-PEEK implants.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK, Schwabb FJ, Le Huec JC, Massicotte EM, Patel AA, Traynelis VC, Kim HJ, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, Lafage V (2013) Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine 38:S149–S160. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Arts MP, Wolfs JF, Corbin TP (2017) Porous silicon nitride spacers versus PEEK cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical and radiological results of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Eur Spine J 26:2372–2379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5079-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Arunkumar MJ, Rajshekhar V (1998) Artificats in magnetic resonance images following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: report of two cases. Br J Neurosurg 12:553–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688699844411

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buchowski JM, Liu G, Bunmapresert T, Rose PS, Riew KD (2008) Anterior cervical fusion assessment: surgical exploration versus radiographic evaluation. Spine 33:1185–1191. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e318171927c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brenke C, Dostal M, Scharf J, Weiß C, Schmieder K, Barth M (2015) Influence of cervical bone mineral density on cage subsidence in patients following stand-alone anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur Spine J 24:2832–2840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3725-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Epstein NE, Silvergleide RS, Black K (2018) Computed tomography validating bony ingrowth into fibula strut allograft: a criterion for fusion. Spine J 2:129–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1529-9430(01)00154-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Feng SW, Chang MC, Chou PH, Lin HH, Wang ST, Liu CL (2018) Implantation of an empty polyetheretherketone cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective randomized controlled study with 2 years follow-up. Eur Spine J 27:1358–1364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-017-5450-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, Marchesi D (2003) Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J 12:513–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-003-0539-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Godlewski B, Dominiak M (2020) Advantages and disadvantages of the use of various types of interbody implants in cervical spine surgery. Critical review of the literature. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 22:213–220. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0014.3457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hickey DJ, Lorman B, Fedder IL (2019) Improved response of osteoprogenitor cells to titanium plasma-sprayed PEEK surfaces. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 175:509–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2018.12.037

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jang HJ, Chin DK, Kim KH, Park JY (2020) Does graft position affect subsidence after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion? Global Spine Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/2192568220963061

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kaiser MG, Mummaneni PV, Matz PG, Anderson PA, Groff MW, Heary RF, Holly LT, Ryken TC, Choudhri TF, Vresilovic EJ, Resnick DK (2009) Radiographic assessment of cervical subaxial fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 11:221–227. https://doi.org/10.3171/2009.3.SPINE08719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kersten RF, van Gaalen SM, de Gast A, Oner FC (2015) Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in cervical applications: a systematic review. Spine J 15:1446–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Karikari IO, Jain D, Owens TR, Gottfried O, Hodges TR, Nimjee SM, Bagley CA (2014) Impact of subsidence on clinical outcomes and radiographic fusion rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. J Spinal Disord Tech 27:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31825bd26d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kotsias A, Mularski S, Kuhn B, Hanna M, Suess O (2017) Does partial coating with titanium improve the radiographic fusion rate of empty PEEK cages in cervical spine surgery? A comparative analysis of clinical data. Patient Saf Surg 28(11):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-017-0127-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kurtz SM, Devine JN (2007) PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 28:4845–4869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.013

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Obermueller T, Wagner A, Kogler L, Joerger AK, Lange N, Lehmberg J, Meyer B, Shiban E (2020) Radiographic measurements of cervical alignment, fusion and subsidence after ACDF surgery and their impact on clinical outcome. Acta Neurochir 162:89–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-019-04139-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Papavero L, Lepori P, Schmeiser G (2020) Revision surgery in cervical spine. Eur Spine J 29:47–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-019-06281-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Park JY, Choi KY, Moon BJ, Hur H, Jang JW, Lee JK (2016) Subsidence after single-level anterior cervical fusion with a stand-alone cage. J Clin Neurosci 33:83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2016.01.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pelletier MH, Cordaro N, Punjabi VM, Lau WM, A, Walsh WR, (2016) PEEK versus Ti interbody fusion devices: resultant fusion, bone appostion, initial and 26 biomechanics. Clin Spine Surg 29:E208–E214. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0b013e31826851a4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ploumis A, Mehbod A, Garvey T, Gilbert T, Transfeldt E, Wood K (2006) Prospective assessment of cervical fusion status: plain radiographs versus CT-scan. Acta Orthop Belg 72:342–346

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 4:447–453. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2006.4.6.447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sutter B, Friehs G, Pendl G, Tölly E (1995) Bovine dowels for anterior cervical fusion: experience in 66 patients with a note on postoperative CT and MRI appearance. Acta Neurochir 137:192–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02187193

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Tuli SK, Chen P, Eichler ME, Woodard EJ (2004) Reliability of radiologic assessment of fusion: cervical fibular allograft model. Spine 29:856–860. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200404150-00007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Walsh WR, Bertollo N, Christou C, Schaffner D, Mobbs RJ (2015) Plasma-sprayed titanium coating to polyetheretherketone improves the bone-implant interface. Spine J 15:1041–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2014.12.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang JC, Yu WD, Sandhu HS, Betts F, Bhuta S, Delamarter RB (1999) Metal debris from Titanium Spinal Implants. Spine 24:899–903. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-199905010-00011

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yamagata T, Takami T, Uda T, Ikeda H, Nagata T, Sakamoto S, Tsuyuguchi N, Ohata K (2012) Outcomes of contemporary use of rectangular titanium stand-alone cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: cage subsidence and cervical alignment. J Clin Neurosci 19:1673–1678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2011.11.043

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zajonz D, Franke AC, der Höh N, Von VA, Moche M, Gulow J, Heyde CE (2014) Is the radiographic subsidence of stand-alone cages associated with adverse clinical outcomes after cervical spine fusion? An observational cohort study with 2-year follow-up outcome scoring. Patient Saf Surg 8:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-014-0043-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bartosz Godlewski.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the relevant institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Godlewski, B., Bebenek, A., Dominiak, M. et al. PEEK versus titanium-coated PEEK cervical cages: fusion rate. Acta Neurochir 164, 1501–1507 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05217-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05217-7

Keywords

  • Cervical spine
  • Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)
  • Titanium-coated PEEK
  • Fusion
  • This article is part of the Topical Collection on Spine—Other