Abstract
Purpose
Pre-curved peek rods to support posterior lumbar fusion have been available in the market since 4 years. Potential advantages using this new technology are increased load sharing on the anterior column promoting interbody fusion, reduced stress on bone–screw interface decreasing the rate of screw mobilization and, in the long term, reduced incidence of adjacent level disc degeneration.
Methods
The authors retrospectively reviewed 30 cases in which posterior fusion was supported by peek rods, analyzing early complications, rate of fusion and clinical outcome.
Results
At an average follow-up of 18 months, both clinical and radiographic results were satisfactory with only one case requiring surgical revision for a mechanical complication.
Conclusions
The semi-rigid systems can now be considered a viable option in the lumbar degenerative disease, although clinical evaluations are necessary in the longer term.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schwab FJ, Nazarian DG, Mahmud F et al (1995) Effects of spinal instrumentation on fusion of the lumbosacral spine. Spine 20:2023–2028
Narayan P, Haid RW, Subach BR et al (2002) Effect of spinal disease on successful arthrodesis in lumbar pedicle screw fixation. J Neurosurg 97(3 Suppl):277–280
Asher MA, Carson WL, Hardacker JW et al (2007) The effect of arthrodesis, implant stiffness, and time on the canine lumbar spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 20:549–559
Kowalski RJ, Ferrara LA, Benzel EC (2001) Biomechanics of bone fusion. Neurosurg Focus 10:E2
Thomsen K, Christensen FB, Eiskjaer SP et al (1997) 1997 Volvo Award winner in clinical studies. The effect of pedicle screw instrumentation on functional outcome and fusion rates in posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a prospective, randomized clinical study. Spine 22:2813–2822
Wedemeyer M, Parent S, Mahar A et al (2007) Titanium versus stainless steel for anterior spinal fusions: an analysis of rod stress as a predictor of rod breakage during physiologic loading in a bovine model. Spine 32:42–48
Toth JM, Wang M, Estes BT et al (2006) Polyetheretherketone as a biomaterial for spinal applications. Biomaterials 27:324–334
Kurtz SM, Devine JN (2007) PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials 28:4845–4869
Ponnappan RK, Serhan H, Zarda B, Patel R, Albert T, Vaccaro AR (2009) Biomechanical evaluation and comparison of polyetheretherketone rod system to traditional titanium rod fixation. Spine J 9(3):263–267
Galbusera F, Bellini CM, Anasetti F, Ciavarro C, Lovi A, Brayda-Bruno M (2011) Rigid and flexible spinal stabilization devices: a biomechanical comparison. Med Eng Phys 33(4):490–496
Wenz LM, Merritt K, Brown SA, Moet A, Steffee AD (1990) In vitro biocompatibility of polyetheretherketone and polysulfone composites. J Biomed Mater Res 24:207–215
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
De Iure, F., Bosco, G., Cappuccio, M. et al. Posterior lumbar fusion by peek rods in degenerative spine: preliminary report on 30 cases. Eur Spine J 21 (Suppl 1), 50–54 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2219-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2219-x