Bao Tu Thai Nguyen,Duy Nguyen Anh Tran,Dat Huu Nguyen,Duy Khai Lam,Tan Thanh Nguyen,Yi-Jie Kuo,Yu-Pin Chen
{"title":"Structural allograft versus Polyetheretherketone cage in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Meta-analysis.","authors":"Bao Tu Thai Nguyen,Duy Nguyen Anh Tran,Dat Huu Nguyen,Duy Khai Lam,Tan Thanh Nguyen,Yi-Jie Kuo,Yu-Pin Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.wneu.2024.09.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nPolyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and structural allografts (SAs) are commonly used in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF), yet their postoperative results remain uncertain. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether there were any differences in outcomes between patients who received these two grafts in ACDF.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nWe comprehensively searched electronic databases up to August 2023. Observational studies or randomized controlled trials reported postoperative outcomes, including fusion, subsidence, reoperation rates, and patient-reported outcomes through the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain, and the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA)/modified JOA score following primary ACDF using SA or PEEK cage. The results are presented in odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nEleven studies were included, with 1213 patients (788 receiving SAs and 425 receiving PEEK cages). Patients having SA had significantly higher fusion (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.27-2.67, p = 0.001) and lower subsidence (OR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.30-0.86, p = 0.01) rates when compared with the PEEK cage. There was no difference in revision rate between SA or PEEK cage (p = 0.88). Two grafts demonstrated similar clinical improvements in NDI (p = 0.31), VAS for the neck (p = 0.77) and arm pain (p = 0.22), and JOA/mJOA score (p = 0.99).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nSA demonstrates better fusion and lower subsidence rates than the PEEK cage in ACDF. Nevertheless, these two cages resulted in equally successful postoperative clinical performances.","PeriodicalId":23906,"journal":{"name":"World neurosurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2024.09.036","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and structural allografts (SAs) are commonly used in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF), yet their postoperative results remain uncertain. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine whether there were any differences in outcomes between patients who received these two grafts in ACDF.
METHODS
We comprehensively searched electronic databases up to August 2023. Observational studies or randomized controlled trials reported postoperative outcomes, including fusion, subsidence, reoperation rates, and patient-reported outcomes through the Neck Disability Index (NDI), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for neck and arm pain, and the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA)/modified JOA score following primary ACDF using SA or PEEK cage. The results are presented in odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
Eleven studies were included, with 1213 patients (788 receiving SAs and 425 receiving PEEK cages). Patients having SA had significantly higher fusion (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 1.27-2.67, p = 0.001) and lower subsidence (OR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.30-0.86, p = 0.01) rates when compared with the PEEK cage. There was no difference in revision rate between SA or PEEK cage (p = 0.88). Two grafts demonstrated similar clinical improvements in NDI (p = 0.31), VAS for the neck (p = 0.77) and arm pain (p = 0.22), and JOA/mJOA score (p = 0.99).
CONCLUSION
SA demonstrates better fusion and lower subsidence rates than the PEEK cage in ACDF. Nevertheless, these two cages resulted in equally successful postoperative clinical performances.
期刊介绍:
World Neurosurgery has an open access mirror journal World Neurosurgery: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review.
The journal''s mission is to:
-To provide a first-class international forum and a 2-way conduit for dialogue that is relevant to neurosurgeons and providers who care for neurosurgery patients. The categories of the exchanged information include clinical and basic science, as well as global information that provide social, political, educational, economic, cultural or societal insights and knowledge that are of significance and relevance to worldwide neurosurgery patient care.
-To act as a primary intellectual catalyst for the stimulation of creativity, the creation of new knowledge, and the enhancement of quality neurosurgical care worldwide.
-To provide a forum for communication that enriches the lives of all neurosurgeons and their colleagues; and, in so doing, enriches the lives of their patients.
Topics to be addressed in World Neurosurgery include: EDUCATION, ECONOMICS, RESEARCH, POLITICS, HISTORY, CULTURE, CLINICAL SCIENCE, LABORATORY SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, OPERATIVE TECHNIQUES, CLINICAL IMAGES, VIDEOS