Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone Cages Vs Full Titanium Cages for Stand-Alone 1- or 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Study.

IF 1.7 Q2 SURGERY
Franziska C S Altorfer, Christoph J Laux, Dimitri Graf, Tobias Götschi, Frederik Abel, Mazda Farshad, José M Spirig
{"title":"Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone Cages Vs Full Titanium Cages for Stand-Alone 1- or 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Study.","authors":"Franziska C S Altorfer, Christoph J Laux, Dimitri Graf, Tobias Götschi, Frederik Abel, Mazda Farshad, José M Spirig","doi":"10.14444/8610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the surgical treatment of cervical degenerative disease often includes an intervertebral cage, which restores disc height and lordosis while promoting fusion . Cage materials include titanium (TTN) or polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Controversy in material selection stems from higher fusion rates with TNN, despite a higher subsidence rate, while PEEK cages demonstrate superior preservation of interspace height. Combining the advantages of both materials, TTN-coated PEEK (TCPEEK) cages were developed, featuring a PEEK core with similar stiffness to the bone, enveloped with a TTN coat, improving osteointegration. However, the potential superiority of TCPEEK over TTN cages has not been investigated. This study aimed to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes following single- or double-level ACDF using either TTN or TCPEEK cages.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective single-center study included patients undergoing single- or double-level ACDF between 2017 and 2019. Clinical outcomes included the Neck Disability Index and revision surgery incidence. Radiographic parameters included cervical and segmental lordosis, C2 to C7 sagittal vertical axis, fusion, subsidence, and adjacent segment degeneration at a minimum 12-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 45 patients (16 TTN; 29 TCPEEK) and 58 cervical levels (21 TTN; 37 TCPEEK) were included. Both cages significantly improved Neck Disability Index scores (TTN -10.0; TCPEEK -14.1) without significant differences. Two single-level TCPEEK patients required revision surgery due to non-union. In the radiological assessments, no significant difference was found for subsidence rates (TTN 52.4%; TCPEEK 56.8%), adjacent segment degeneration, cervical and segmental lordosis, and changes in C2 to C7 sagittal vertical axis. Though not statistically significant, fusion rates trended slightly higher with TTN (90.5%) vs TCPEEK cages (86.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TTN and TCPEEK cages achieve satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in single- or double-level ACDF. This finding suggests that the choice between them can be based on other factors, such as surgeon preference or availability, rather than specific material properties.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>This study found that the selection of ACDF cage material did not affect clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: 3: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":38486,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"287-294"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11535774/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Spine Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14444/8610","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the surgical treatment of cervical degenerative disease often includes an intervertebral cage, which restores disc height and lordosis while promoting fusion . Cage materials include titanium (TTN) or polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Controversy in material selection stems from higher fusion rates with TNN, despite a higher subsidence rate, while PEEK cages demonstrate superior preservation of interspace height. Combining the advantages of both materials, TTN-coated PEEK (TCPEEK) cages were developed, featuring a PEEK core with similar stiffness to the bone, enveloped with a TTN coat, improving osteointegration. However, the potential superiority of TCPEEK over TTN cages has not been investigated. This study aimed to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes following single- or double-level ACDF using either TTN or TCPEEK cages.

Methods: This retrospective single-center study included patients undergoing single- or double-level ACDF between 2017 and 2019. Clinical outcomes included the Neck Disability Index and revision surgery incidence. Radiographic parameters included cervical and segmental lordosis, C2 to C7 sagittal vertical axis, fusion, subsidence, and adjacent segment degeneration at a minimum 12-month follow-up.

Results: A total of 45 patients (16 TTN; 29 TCPEEK) and 58 cervical levels (21 TTN; 37 TCPEEK) were included. Both cages significantly improved Neck Disability Index scores (TTN -10.0; TCPEEK -14.1) without significant differences. Two single-level TCPEEK patients required revision surgery due to non-union. In the radiological assessments, no significant difference was found for subsidence rates (TTN 52.4%; TCPEEK 56.8%), adjacent segment degeneration, cervical and segmental lordosis, and changes in C2 to C7 sagittal vertical axis. Though not statistically significant, fusion rates trended slightly higher with TTN (90.5%) vs TCPEEK cages (86.5%).

Conclusion: TTN and TCPEEK cages achieve satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in single- or double-level ACDF. This finding suggests that the choice between them can be based on other factors, such as surgeon preference or availability, rather than specific material properties.

Clinical relevance: This study found that the selection of ACDF cage material did not affect clinical outcomes.

Level of evidence: 3:

钛涂层聚醚醚酮保持架与全钛保持架用于独立的单层或双层颈椎前路椎间盘切除和融合术:比较研究。
背景:用于手术治疗颈椎退行性疾病的前路颈椎椎间盘切除和融合术(ACDF)通常包括椎间孔镜,在促进融合的同时恢复椎间盘的高度和前凸。椎间笼材料包括钛(TTN)或聚醚醚酮(PEEK)。在材料选择上存在争议的原因是,尽管钛椎间盘笼的下沉率较高,但其融合率却更高,而聚醚醚酮椎间盘笼则能更好地保持椎间隙高度。结合两种材料的优点,TTN 涂层 PEEK(TCPEEK)保持架应运而生,其特点是 PEEK 核心具有与骨相似的硬度,外层包裹着 TTN,从而提高了骨整合性。然而,TCPEEK 与 TTN 骨架相比的潜在优越性尚未得到研究。本研究旨在比较使用 TTN 或 TCPEEK 骨架的单层或双层 ACDF 的临床和影像学结果:这项回顾性单中心研究纳入了2017年至2019年期间接受单层或双层ACDF的患者。临床结果包括颈部残疾指数和翻修手术发生率。影像学参数包括颈椎和节段前凸、C2至C7矢状纵轴、融合、下沉以及至少12个月随访时的邻近节段退变:共纳入 45 名患者(16 名 TTN;29 名 TCPEEK)和 58 个颈椎水平(21 名 TTN;37 名 TCPEEK)。两种颈椎固定架都能明显改善颈部残疾指数评分(TTN -10.0;TCPEEK -14.1),但无明显差异。两名单层 TCPEEK 患者因未愈合而需要进行翻修手术。在放射学评估中,在下沉率(TTN 52.4%;TCPEEK 56.8%)、邻近节段退变、颈椎和节段前凸、C2 至 C7 矢状垂直轴的变化方面没有发现明显差异。尽管没有统计学意义,但TTN(90.5%)与TCPEEK保持架(86.5%)的融合率略有上升趋势:结论:在单层或双层 ACDF 中,TTN 和 TCPEEK 保持架都能达到令人满意的临床和放射学效果。结论:TTN 和 TCPEEK 骨架在单层或双层 ACDF 中均可获得令人满意的临床和放射效果,这一结果表明,在这两种骨架之间做出选择时,可以考虑其他因素,如外科医生的偏好或可用性,而不是特定的材料特性:临床相关性:本研究发现,ACDF笼材料的选择并不影响临床结果:3:
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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
162
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Spine Surgery is the official scientific journal of ISASS, the International Intradiscal Therapy Society, the Pittsburgh Spine Summit, and the Büttner-Janz Spinefoundation, and is an official partner of the Southern Neurosurgical Society. The goal of the International Journal of Spine Surgery is to promote and disseminate online the most up-to-date scientific and clinical research into innovations in motion preservation and new spinal surgery technology, including basic science, biologics, and tissue engineering. The Journal is dedicated to educating spine surgeons worldwide by reporting on the scientific basis, indications, surgical techniques, complications, outcomes, and follow-up data for promising spinal procedures.
×
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