Review of anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) using different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages.
Anterior cervical diskectomy fusion (ACDF)
Cages
Complications
Fusion rates
Hydroxyapatite Coated (HA)
Outcomes
Polyetheretherketone (PEEK)
Screws
Stand-Alone (SA)
Subsidence
Titanium-Coated (T-C)
Zero Profile (ZP)
Journal
Surgical neurology international
ISSN: 2229-5097
Titre abrégé: Surg Neurol Int
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101535836
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
28
10
2022
accepted:
04
11
2022
entrez:
5
1
2023
pubmed:
6
1
2023
medline:
6
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Multiple anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) techniques now use a variety of Polyehteretherketone (PEEK) cages; stand-alone (SA) and zero-profile (ZP) with/without screws, cages filled with demineralized bone matrix/autograft, and cages coated with hydroxyapatite or titanium. We compared the safety/ efficacy between different PEEK ACDF cage constructs in 17 studies, and in some cases, additionally contrasted results with "routine" ACDF (i.e. series/historical data performed with combinations of iliac autograft/allograft and plates). We focused on the clinical outcomes, fusion rates, postoperative radiographic changes/lordosis/ subsidence, and/or reoperation rates for various PEEK ACDF constructs vs. "routine" ACDF. One to 3 and 4-level PEEK ACDF cages demonstrated high fusion rates, few cage failures, and low reoperation rates. Subsidence for PEEK ACDF cages did not reduce fusion rates or diminish the quality of postoperative outcomes. Further, titanium-coated (T-C) PEEK cages lowered fusion rates in one study (i.e. 44.1% fusions vs. 88.2% for routine PEEK ACDF) while ACDF PEEK cages coated with hydroxyapatite (HA) showed only a "trend" toward enhanced arthrodesis. One to 3-4 multilevel ACDF PEEK cage constructs demonstrated comparable safety/efficacy when compared with each other, or in select cases, with "routine" ACDF (i.e. using autograft/allograft and plates).
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Multiple anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) techniques now use a variety of Polyehteretherketone (PEEK) cages; stand-alone (SA) and zero-profile (ZP) with/without screws, cages filled with demineralized bone matrix/autograft, and cages coated with hydroxyapatite or titanium. We compared the safety/ efficacy between different PEEK ACDF cage constructs in 17 studies, and in some cases, additionally contrasted results with "routine" ACDF (i.e. series/historical data performed with combinations of iliac autograft/allograft and plates).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We focused on the clinical outcomes, fusion rates, postoperative radiographic changes/lordosis/ subsidence, and/or reoperation rates for various PEEK ACDF constructs vs. "routine" ACDF.
Results
UNASSIGNED
One to 3 and 4-level PEEK ACDF cages demonstrated high fusion rates, few cage failures, and low reoperation rates. Subsidence for PEEK ACDF cages did not reduce fusion rates or diminish the quality of postoperative outcomes. Further, titanium-coated (T-C) PEEK cages lowered fusion rates in one study (i.e. 44.1% fusions vs. 88.2% for routine PEEK ACDF) while ACDF PEEK cages coated with hydroxyapatite (HA) showed only a "trend" toward enhanced arthrodesis.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
One to 3-4 multilevel ACDF PEEK cage constructs demonstrated comparable safety/efficacy when compared with each other, or in select cases, with "routine" ACDF (i.e. using autograft/allograft and plates).
Identifiants
pubmed: 36600749
doi: 10.25259/SNI_992_2022
pii: 10.25259/SNI_992_2022
pmc: PMC9805606
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
556Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2022 Surgical Neurology International.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
J Craniovertebr Junction Spine. 2020 Apr-Jun;11(2):118-123
pubmed: 32904887
Neurosurgery. 2002 Dec;51(6):1343-49; discussion 1349-50
pubmed: 12445338
Eur Spine J. 2009 Feb;18(2):238-43
pubmed: 19130094
J Clin Neurosci. 2013 Sep;20(9):1250-5
pubmed: 23890411
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018 Apr;160(4):845-853
pubmed: 29479658
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022 Jun;164(6):1501-1507
pubmed: 35471708
J Clin Neurosci. 2020 Apr;74:47-54
pubmed: 31983642
Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2019;53(5):358-362
pubmed: 31538657
Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2016 Feb;158(2):349-55
pubmed: 26620448
J Clin Med Res. 2018 Mar;10(3):268-276
pubmed: 29416588
Asian Spine J. 2019 Apr;13(2):225-232
pubmed: 30472820
Cureus. 2016 Sep 10;8(9):e775
pubmed: 27738574
J Orthop Traumatol. 2011 Dec;12(4):201-5
pubmed: 22089645
Cureus. 2021 Aug 26;13(8):e17457
pubmed: 34603859
Br J Neurosurg. 2021 Dec 01;:1-7
pubmed: 34850648
J Neurosurg Spine. 2012 Mar;16(3):248-50
pubmed: 22195610
J Clin Neurosci. 2016 Nov;33:83-88
pubmed: 27450282