Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone Cages Versus Uncoated Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Gonzalo Mariscal, Praveer S Vyas, Boyle C Cheng, Jacobus J Arts, Thomay-Claire A Hoelen, Chen Xu, Christopher D Chaput
{"title":"Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone Cages Versus Uncoated Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Spinal Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Gonzalo Mariscal, Praveer S Vyas, Boyle C Cheng, Jacobus J Arts, Thomay-Claire A Hoelen, Chen Xu, Christopher D Chaput","doi":"10.1177/21925682251336716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Study DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectiveA systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies was performed to compare the fusion rates, functional outcomes, and complications between Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone (TiPEEK) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages.MethodsFour databases were systematically searched according to PRISMA. Adult patients who underwent one- or two-level lumbar fusion with TiPEEK or PEEK cages were included in the study. Studies that reported radiographic fusion and functional or complication outcomes were also included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and MINORS criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using I<sup>2</sup>, and random effects were used to analyze the heterogeneity.Results8 studies (n = 670) were analyzed. TiPEEK showed a significantly higher overall fusion rate (OR 1.83, 95% CI: 1.18-2.83). TiPEEK cages presented significantly higher fusion rates at 6 months (OR 2.52, 95% CI: 1.11 to 5.72), but there were no significant differences at 12 months (OR 1.33, 95% CI: 0.65 to 2.73). No differences were observed in the global ODI (SMD -0.04, 95% CI: -0.15-0.06). There were no significant differences regarding overall subsidence (OR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.07), screw complications (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 0.30-5.27) or reoperations (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.11-3.37).ConclusionsThe results from this study suggest that TiPEEK cages may demonstrate earlier fusion as compared to PEEK cages, particularly at 6 months. However, the functional outcomes and safety profiles were comparable.</p>","PeriodicalId":12680,"journal":{"name":"Global Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"21925682251336716"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12133797/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682251336716","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.ObjectiveA systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies was performed to compare the fusion rates, functional outcomes, and complications between Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone (TiPEEK) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages.MethodsFour databases were systematically searched according to PRISMA. Adult patients who underwent one- or two-level lumbar fusion with TiPEEK or PEEK cages were included in the study. Studies that reported radiographic fusion and functional or complication outcomes were also included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and MINORS criteria. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2, and random effects were used to analyze the heterogeneity.Results8 studies (n = 670) were analyzed. TiPEEK showed a significantly higher overall fusion rate (OR 1.83, 95% CI: 1.18-2.83). TiPEEK cages presented significantly higher fusion rates at 6 months (OR 2.52, 95% CI: 1.11 to 5.72), but there were no significant differences at 12 months (OR 1.33, 95% CI: 0.65 to 2.73). No differences were observed in the global ODI (SMD -0.04, 95% CI: -0.15-0.06). There were no significant differences regarding overall subsidence (OR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.07), screw complications (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 0.30-5.27) or reoperations (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.11-3.37).ConclusionsThe results from this study suggest that TiPEEK cages may demonstrate earlier fusion as compared to PEEK cages, particularly at 6 months. However, the functional outcomes and safety profiles were comparable.

钛包覆聚醚醚酮保持器与未包覆聚醚醚酮保持器用于腰椎融合术:系统综述和荟萃分析。
研究设计:系统回顾和荟萃分析。目的对比较研究进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较钛包覆聚醚醚酮(TiPEEK)和聚醚醚酮(PEEK)笼的融合率、功能结局和并发症。方法根据PRISMA系统检索4个数据库。采用TiPEEK或PEEK固定架进行一节段或两节段腰椎融合的成年患者被纳入研究。报道放射融合和功能或并发症结果的研究也包括在内。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具和未成年人标准评估研究质量。meta分析使用Review Manager 5.4进行。采用I2评估异质性,采用随机效应分析异质性。结果共纳入8项研究(n = 670)。TiPEEK显示了更高的整体融合率(OR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.18-2.83)。TiPEEK笼在6个月时的融合率明显更高(OR 2.52, 95% CI: 1.11至5.72),但在12个月时无显著差异(OR 1.33, 95% CI: 0.65至2.73)。总体ODI无差异(SMD为-0.04,95% CI为-0.15-0.06)。总体沉降(OR 0.72, 95% CI: 0.48 ~ 1.07)、螺钉并发症(OR 1.25, 95% CI: 0.30 ~ 5.27)或再手术(OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.11 ~ 3.37)方面无显著差异。结论:本研究结果表明,与PEEK笼相比,TiPEEK笼可能表现出更早的融合,特别是在6个月时。然而,功能结果和安全性概况具有可比性。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信