Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

PEEK versus metal cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiological comparative study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Low back pain and sciatica represent a common disabling condition with a significant impact on the social, working and economic lives of patients. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) is a surgical procedure used in degenerative spine conditions. Several types of cages were used in the TLIF procedure.

Purpose

To determine whether there is a difference in terms of symptomatology improvement, return to daily activities and fusion rate between metal cages and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages.

Methods

We have retrospectively reviewed 40 patients who have undergone TLIF from October 2015 to May 2016. All patients were clinically evaluated with questionnaires and were assessed with CT scan and standing X-ray films of the full-length spine.

Results

We found no significant functional differences in the two groups. At 1-year follow-up, osteolysis was present in 50% of cases of the PEEK cages and in 10% cases of the metal cages. The degree of fusion at 1  year was evaluated as complete in 40% cases of the metal cages and 15% cases of the PEEK cages.

Conclusions

We have found a better fusion rate and prevalence of fusion in the group treated with metal cages, reflecting the well-known osteoinductive properties of titanium and tantalum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buchbinder R, Underwood M (2012) Prognosis in people with back pain. Can Med Assoc J 184(11):1229–1230. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.120627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wigfield CC, Nelson RJ (2001) Nonautologous interbody fusion materials in cervical spine surgery: how strong is the evidence to justify their use? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(6):687–694

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. McKenna PJ, Freeman BJC, Mulholland RC, Grevitt MP, Webb JK, Mehdian SH (2005) A prospective, randomised controlled trial of femoral ring allograft versus a titanium cage in circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with minimum 2-year clinical results. Eur Spine J 14(8):727–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-005-1034-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Brantigan JW, Steffee AD, Lewis ML, Quinn LM, Persenaire JM (2000) Lumbar interbody fusion using the Brantigan I/F cage for posterior lumbar interbody fusion and the variable pedicle screw placement system: two-year results from a Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 25(11):1437–1446

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cutler AR, Siddiqui S, Mohan AL, Hillard VH, Cerabona F, Das K (2006) Comparison of polyetheretherketone cages with femoral cortical bone allograft as a single-piece interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 5(6):534–539. https://doi.org/10.3171/spi.2006.5.6.534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cabraja M, Oezdemir S, Koeppen D, Kroppenstedt S (2012) Anterior cervical discectomy, and fusion: comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 13(1):172. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-13-172

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chou Y-C, Chen D-C, Hsieh WA et al (2008) Efficacy of anterior cervical fusion: comparison of titanium cages, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages, and autogenous bone grafts. J Clin Neurosci 15(11):1240–1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2007.05.016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nemoto O, Asazuma T, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Yasuoka H, Fujikawa A (2014) Comparison of fusion rates following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone cages or titanium cages with transpedicular instrumentation. Eur Spine J 23(10):2150–2155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3466-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Christensen FB, Laursen M, Gelineck J, Eiskjaer SP, Thomsen K, Bünger CE (2001) Interobserver and intraobserver agreement of radiograph interpretation with and without pedicle screw implants: the need for a detailed classification system in posterolateral spinal fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 26(5):538–543

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Knox CJB, Dai CJM, Orchowski LJ (2011) Osteolysis in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with bone morphogenetic protein-2. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 36(8):672–676. https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0b013e3181e030e0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Medici A, Meccariello L, Falzarano G (2014) Non-operative vs. percutaneous stabilization in Magerl’s A1 or A2 thoracolumbar spine fracture in adults: is it really advantageous for a good alignment of the spine? Preliminary data from a prospective study. Eur Spine J 23(Suppl 6):677–683. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3557-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Meccariello L, Muzii VF, Falzarano G, Medici A, Carta S, Fortina M, Ferrata P (2017) Dynamic corset versus three-point brace in the treatment of osteoporotic compression fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine: a prospective, comparative study. Aging Clin Exp Res 29(3):443–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0602-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vadapalli S, Sairyo K, Goel VK et al (2006) Biomechanical rationale for using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for lumbar interbody fusion-A finite element study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 31(26):E992–E998. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000250177.84168.ba

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wu S-H, Li Y, Zhang Y-Q et al (2013) Porous titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium cage has better osseointegration and less micromotion than a poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in sheep vertebral fusion. Artif Organs 37(12):E191–E201. https://doi.org/10.1111/aor.12153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schimmel JJP, Poeschmann MS, Horsting PP, Schönfeld DHW, van Limbeek J, Pavlov PW (2016) PEEK cages in lumbar fusion: mid-term clinical outcome and radiological fusion. J Spinal Disord Technol. https://doi.org/10.1097/bsd.0b013e31826eaf74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Olivares-Navarrete R, Gittens RA, Schneider JM et al (2012) Osteoblasts exhibited a more differentiated phenotype and increased bone morphogenetic protein production on titanium alloy substrates than on poly-ether-ether-ketone. Spine J 12(3):265–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2012.02.002

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Cortesi PA, Assietti R, Cuzzocrea F et al (2017) Epidemiologic and economic burden attributable to first spinal fusion surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/brs.0000000000002118

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. S.C. Ortopedia e Traumatologia, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Università degli Studi di Pavia, Viale Camillo Golgi 19, 27100, Pavia, PV, Italy

    F. Cuzzocrea, A. Ivone, E. Jannelli, A. Fioruzzi, E. Ferranti, R. Vanelli & F. Benazzo

Authors
  1. F. Cuzzocrea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Ivone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Jannelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Fioruzzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. E. Ferranti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Vanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. F. Benazzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Ivone.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cuzzocrea, F., Ivone, A., Jannelli, E. et al. PEEK versus metal cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion: a clinical and radiological comparative study. Musculoskelet Surg 103, 237–241 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-018-0580-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-018-0580-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation