Is PEEK cage better than titanium cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery? A meta-analysis

Zhi-Jun Li, Yao Wang, Gui-Jun Xu, Peng Tian, Zhi-Jun Li, Yao Wang, Gui-Jun Xu, Peng Tian

Abstract

Background: This meta-analysis was performed to identify the benefits and disadvantages of the PEEK cage and titanium cage.

Methods: We used "cervical or cervicle", "titanium", and "polyetheretherketone or PEEK" as keywords. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and other databases were searched to identify eligible studies that were published before October 2015. In addition, the Google search engine was used to manually search for relevant journals or conference proceedings. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials that compared the PEEK cage and titanium cage for anterior cervical surgery were included. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.1 software.

Results: Two randomized and two non-randomized clinical trials were retrieved with a total of 184 segments from 107 patients in the PEEK cage group and 211 segments from 128 patients in the titanium cage group. The quality assessment scores ranged from 16 to 18 with high heterogeneity. There were no differences in functional status according to the Odom criteria, fusion rate, final local segmental angle and loss of correction between the two groups. Although more subsidence occurred in the titanium cage group, the effects of loss of the local segmental angle or the whole cervical Cobb angle on cervical function in the long-term are still not clear.

Conclusion: The present meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in functional and radiographic performance between the PEEK and titanium cages, although more subsidence occurred in the titanium cage group. More high-quality studies are needed to confirm these results to offer more information for the choice in clinical practice.

Keywords: Cage; Cervical spine; Meta-analysis; Polyetheretherketone; Titanium.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart of studies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot showing clinical functional status by Odom criteria
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot showing fusion rate between two groups
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot showing subsidence between two groups
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plot showing the final segmental angle between two groups

References

    1. CLOWARD RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg. 1958;15(6):602–17. doi: 10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0602.
    1. Baba H, Furusawa N, Tanaka Y, Wada M, Imura S, Tomita K. Anterior decompression and fusion for cervical myeloradiculopathy secondary to ossification of the posterior ligament. Int Orthop. 1994;18(4):204–09. doi: 10.1007/BF00188323.
    1. Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18(15):2167–73. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199311000-00004.
    1. Younger EM, Chapman MW. Morbidity at bone graft donor sites. J Orthop Trauma. 1989;3(3):192–95. doi: 10.1097/00005131-198909000-00002.
    1. Bagby GW. Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics. 1988;11(6):931–34.
    1. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD. A carbon fiber implant to aid interbody lumbar fusion. Two-year clinical results in the first 26 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18(14):2106–07. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199310001-00030.
    1. Ray CD. Threaded titanium cages for lumbar interbody fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997;22(6):667–79. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199703150-00019.
    1. Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL. A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25(20):2646–54, 2655. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200010150-00017.
    1. Profeta G, de Falco R, Ianniciello G, Profeta L, Cigliano A, Raja AI. Preliminary experience with anterior cervical microdiscectomy and interbody titanium cage fusion (Novus CT-Ti) in patients with cervical disc disease. Surg Neurol. 2000;53(5):417–26. doi: 10.1016/S0090-3019(00)00207-X.
    1. Hwang SL, Lin CL, Lieu AS, Lee KS, Kuo TH, Hwang YF, et al. Three-level and four-level anterior cervical discectomies and titanium cage-augmented fusion with and without plate fixation. J Neurosurg Spine. 2004;1(2):160–67. doi: 10.3171/spi.2004.1.2.0160.
    1. Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, Marchesi D. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(5):513–16. doi: 10.1007/s00586-003-0539-6.
    1. Chou YC, Chen DC, Hsieh WA, Chen WF, Yen PS, Harnod T, et al. Efficacy of anterior cervical fusion: comparison of titanium cages, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and autogenous bone grafts. J Clin Neurosci. 2008;15(11):1240–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2007.05.016.
    1. Kersten RF, van Gaalen SM, de Gast A, Oner FC. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in cervical applications: a systematic review. Spine J. 2015;15(6):1446–60. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.030.
    1. Sukeik M, Alshryda S, Haddad FS, Mason JM. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of tranexamic acid in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2011;93(1):39–46. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B1.24984.
    1. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. Anz J Surg. 2003;73(9):712–16. doi: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
    1. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(9):820–26. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-127-9-199711010-00008.
    1. Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X, Yang L, Yang H, Yuan W, et al. 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. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(7):1539–46. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2772-y.
    1. Niu CC, Liao JC, Chen WJ, Chen LH. Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23(5):310–16. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181af3a84.
    1. Cabraja M, Oezdemir S, Koeppen D, Kroppenstedt S. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:172. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-172.
    1. Malloy KM, Hilibrand AS. Autograft versus allograft in degenerative cervical disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;394:27–38. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200201000-00004.
    1. Yang X, Chen Q, Liu L, Song Y, Kong Q, Zeng J, et al. Comparison of anterior cervical fusion by titanium mesh cage versus nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide cage following single-level corpectomy. Int Orthop. 2013;37(12):2421–27. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2101-4.
    1. Moreland DB, Asch HL, Clabeaux DE, Castiglia GJ, Czajka GA, Lewis PJ, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with implantable titanium cage: initial impressions, patient outcomes and comparison to fusion with allograft. Spine J. 2004;4(2):184–91. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2003.05.001.
    1. Schmieder K, Wolzik-Grossmann M, Pechlivanis I, Engelhardt M, Scholz M, Harders A. Subsidence of the wing titanium cage after anterior cervical interbody fusion: 2-year follow-up study. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4(6):447–53. doi: 10.3171/spi.2006.4.6.447.
    1. Toth JM, Wang M, Estes BT, Scifert JL, Seim HR, Turner AS. Polyetheretherketone as a biomaterial for spinal applications. Biomaterials. 2006;27(3):324–34. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.011.
    1. Katzer A, Marquardt H, Westendorf J, Wening JV, von Foerster G. Polyetheretherketone--cytotoxicity and mutagenicity in vitro. Biomaterials. 2002;23(8):1749–59. doi: 10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00300-3.
    1. Hwang SL, Hwang YF, Lieu AS, Lin CL, Kuo TH, Su YF, et al. Outcome analyses of interbody titanium cage fusion used in the anterior discectomy for cervical degenerative disc disease. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2005;18(4):326–31. doi: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000164198.30725.2d.
    1. Cho DY, Liau WR, Lee WY, Liu JT, Chiu CL, Sheu PC. Preliminary experience using a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in the treatment of cervical disc disease. Neurosurgery. 2002;51(6):1343–49.
    1. Barsa P, Suchomel P. Factors affecting sagittal malalignment due to cage subsidence in standalone cage assisted anterior cervical fusion. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(9):1395–400. doi: 10.1007/s00586-006-0284-8.
    1. Meier U, Kemmesies D. Experiences with six different intervertebral disc spacers for spondylodesis of the cervical spine. Orthopade. 2004;33(11):1290–99. doi: 10.1007/s00132-004-0707-3.
    1. Lemcke J, Al-Zain F, Meier U, Suess O. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Spacers for Anterior Cervical Fusion: A Retrospective Comparative Effectiveness Clinical Trial. Open Orthop J. 2011;5:348–53. doi: 10.2174/1874325001105010348.
    1. Pechlivanis I, Thuring T, Brenke C, Seiz M, Thome C, Barth M, et al. Non-fusion rates in anterior cervical discectomy and implantation of empty polyetheretherketone cages. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011;36(1):15–20. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181cbf870.
    1. Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Goetz C, Claes L. Subsidence resulting from simulated postoperative neck movements: an in vitro investigation with a new cervical fusion cage. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000;25(21):2762–70. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200011010-00008.
    1. Francke EI, Demetropoulos CK, Agabegi SS, Truumees E, Herkowitz HN. Distractive force relative to initial graft compression in an in vivo anterior cervical discectomy and fusion model. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35(5):526–30. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bb0e6e.
    1. Yang JJ, Yu CH, Chang BS, Yeom JS, Lee JH, Lee CK. Subsidence and nonunion after anterior cervical interbody fusion using a stand-alone polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. Clin Orthop Surg. 2011;3(1):16–23. doi: 10.4055/cios.2011.3.1.16.
    1. Garber ST, Brockmeyer DL. Management of subaxial cervical instability in very young or small-for-age children using a static single-screw anterior cervical plate: indications, results, and long-term follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2016;24(6):892–6. doi: 10.3171/2015.10.SPINE15537.
    1. Katsuura A, Hukuda S, Saruhashi Y, Mori K. Kyphotic malalignment after anterior cervical fusion is one of the factors promoting the degenerative process in adjacent intervertebral levels. Eur Spine J. 2001;10(4):320–24. doi: 10.1007/s005860000243.
    1. Takeshima T, Omokawa S, Takaoka T, Araki M, Ueda Y, Takakura Y. Sagittal alignment of cervical flexion and extension: lateral radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27(15):E348–55. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200208010-00014.
    1. Thome C, Krauss JK, Zevgaridis D. A prospective clinical comparison of rectangular titanium cages and iliac crest autografts in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Neurosurg Rev. 2004;27(1):34–41. doi: 10.1007/s10143-003-0297-2.
    1. Wu WJ, Jiang LS, Liang Y, Dai LY. 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. 2012;21(7):1374–82. doi: 10.1007/s00586-011-2131-9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren