Reduced Subsidence With PEEK-Titanium Composite Versus 3D Titanium Cages in a Retrospective, Self-Controlled Study in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Global Spine Journal Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-23 DOI:10.1177/21925682241253168
Ali Chahlavi
{"title":"Reduced Subsidence With PEEK-Titanium Composite Versus 3D Titanium Cages in a Retrospective, Self-Controlled Study in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.","authors":"Ali Chahlavi","doi":"10.1177/21925682241253168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study DesignRetrospective Study.ObjectivesTo compare subsidence and radiographic fusion rates of titanium-surface polyetheretherketone (PEEK-Ti) and 3D-Titanium (3D-Ti) cages, implanted within the same patient concurrently, during multi-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF).MethodsForty-eight patients were treated with both PEEK-Ti and 3D-Ti cages during 2- or 3-level TLIF and instrumented posterolateral fusion (108 spinal levels in all). Equivalent bone graft material was implanted within each patient. Radiographic analysis of CT and/or X-ray imaging was performed retrospectively for each spinal level throughout 12-month follow-up period. Fusion was defined as bridging trabecular bone and subsidence was incursion into one/both vertebral bodies >20% cage height. Outcomes were analyzed with Fisher's exact test.ResultsAt 6-months post-operative follow-up, incidence of subsidence was significantly lower for PEEK-Ti cages, with 4.8% subsidence, compared to a 27.9% subsidence rate for 3D-Ti cages (<i>P = .007</i>). Fusion rates were comparable at 100% for PEEK-Ti and 95.5% for 3D-Ti. Results at 12-months showed similar but not statistically significant trends of less subsidence with PEEK-Ti than 3D-Ti cages (14.3% PEEK-Ti, 37.5% 3D-Ti), and similar fusion rates of 100% for PEEK-Ti and 91.7% for 3D-Ti. Thirty-nine out of 48 total patients were available for follow-up at 6 months and 20 patients at 12 months. CT availability at 6 and 12-months was 100% and 90%, respectively.ConclusionsA significantly lower subsidence rate was associated with a PEEK-Ti cage, compared to 3D-Ti, 6 months after TLIF. Results may not be generalized across technologies due to differences in cage designs; additional research studies are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1598-1607"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11571532/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241253168","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study DesignRetrospective Study.ObjectivesTo compare subsidence and radiographic fusion rates of titanium-surface polyetheretherketone (PEEK-Ti) and 3D-Titanium (3D-Ti) cages, implanted within the same patient concurrently, during multi-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF).MethodsForty-eight patients were treated with both PEEK-Ti and 3D-Ti cages during 2- or 3-level TLIF and instrumented posterolateral fusion (108 spinal levels in all). Equivalent bone graft material was implanted within each patient. Radiographic analysis of CT and/or X-ray imaging was performed retrospectively for each spinal level throughout 12-month follow-up period. Fusion was defined as bridging trabecular bone and subsidence was incursion into one/both vertebral bodies >20% cage height. Outcomes were analyzed with Fisher's exact test.ResultsAt 6-months post-operative follow-up, incidence of subsidence was significantly lower for PEEK-Ti cages, with 4.8% subsidence, compared to a 27.9% subsidence rate for 3D-Ti cages (P = .007). Fusion rates were comparable at 100% for PEEK-Ti and 95.5% for 3D-Ti. Results at 12-months showed similar but not statistically significant trends of less subsidence with PEEK-Ti than 3D-Ti cages (14.3% PEEK-Ti, 37.5% 3D-Ti), and similar fusion rates of 100% for PEEK-Ti and 91.7% for 3D-Ti. Thirty-nine out of 48 total patients were available for follow-up at 6 months and 20 patients at 12 months. CT availability at 6 and 12-months was 100% and 90%, respectively.ConclusionsA significantly lower subsidence rate was associated with a PEEK-Ti cage, compared to 3D-Ti, 6 months after TLIF. Results may not be generalized across technologies due to differences in cage designs; additional research studies are warranted.

在经椎间孔腰椎椎体融合术的回顾性自我控制研究中,PEEK-钛复合材料与三维钛椎体笼相比下沉更少。
研究设计回顾性研究:比较同一患者在多层次经椎间孔腰椎椎体间融合术(TLIF)中同时植入的钛-表面聚醚醚酮(PEEK-Ti)和三维钛(3D-Ti)保持架的沉降率和放射学融合率:方法:48 名患者在 2 级或 3 级 TLIF 和器械后外侧融合过程中同时接受了 PEEK-Ti 和 3D-Ti 椎间架的治疗(共 108 个脊柱水平)。每位患者体内都植入了等量的骨移植材料。在 12 个月的随访期间,对每个脊柱水平的 CT 和/或 X 光成像进行了回顾性放射学分析。融合定义为骨小梁桥接,下沉定义为侵入一个/两个椎体>20%的椎体笼高度。结果采用费雪精确检验进行分析:术后6个月随访时,PEEK-Ti椎体笼的下沉发生率明显较低,仅为4.8%,而3D-Ti椎体笼的下沉发生率为27.9%(P = .007)。PEEK-Ti和3D-Ti的融合率相当,PEEK-Ti为100%,3D-Ti为95.5%。12 个月后的结果显示,PEEK-Ti 下沉率低于 3D-Ti 骨架(PEEK-Ti 下沉率为 14.3%,3D-Ti 下沉率为 37.5%),PEEK-Ti 和 3D-Ti 的融合率相似,分别为 100% 和 91.7%,但无统计学意义。在总共 48 名患者中,有 39 名患者在 6 个月时接受了随访,20 名患者在 12 个月时接受了随访。6个月和12个月的CT可用率分别为100%和90%:结论:与 3D-Ti 相比,PEEK-Ti 支架在 TLIF 6 个月后的下沉率明显较低。由于保持架设计的不同,结果可能无法推广到各种技术中;需要进行更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Spine Journal
Global Spine Journal Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
278
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Spine Journal (GSJ) is the official scientific publication of AOSpine. A peer-reviewed, open access journal, devoted to the study and treatment of spinal disorders, including diagnosis, operative and non-operative treatment options, surgical techniques, and emerging research and clinical developments.GSJ is indexed in PubMedCentral, SCOPUS, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信