Literature DB >> 17538351

Circumferential arthrodesis using PEEK cages at the lumbar spine.

Marc-Antoine Rousseau1, Jean-Yves Lazennec, Gérard Saillant.   

Abstract

Usual interbody cages at the lumbar spine are made of titanium or carbon fiber-polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Pure PEEK cages have more recently been proposed for its lower elasticity modulus. The goal of our study was to investigate a series of patients with circumferential fixation using anterior PEEK cages for degenerative lumbar spine disorders with a specific interest in the local lordosis. Fifty-seven consecutive patients aged 54.6 years (29 to 75) were reviewed. The level of arthrodesis varied from L2L3 to L5S1. The clinical status and the radiologic variations in local lordosis at the level of arthrodesis were measured. Decrease in lordosis at follow-up was tested in a multivariate analysis regarding age, obesity, spinal level, bone graft amount, type of posterior instrumentation, postoperative lordosis increase, and cage height. The average follow-up was 5.7 years (4 to 8). Clinical outcomes were excellent or good in 49 cases. Fusion was definite in 56 cases. Although 47 patients had no change in lordosis after surgery, 10 cases showed lordosis increase (8.2 degrees; 5 to 12). At follow-up, local lordosis decreased in 13 cases (5.6 degrees; 4 to 8). The linear model was significant (P<0.001; R=0.590) showing that loss in lordosis was related with postoperative lordosis increase (P=0.01), cage height (P<0.001), posterior instrumentation rigidity (P=0.026), age (P=0.047), and low level (P=0.013). Lumbar circumferential arthrodesis using PEEK cages provided good clinical results and fusion rate. However, lordosis correction was not maintained at follow-up, especially at lower levels, using high cages, in older patients, and when associated with a rigid primary posterior instrumentation. Regarding the last point, this is likely that the order of the instrumentation (posterior first, then anterior) played a role in the loss of lordosis in case of rigid posterior fixation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17538351     DOI: 10.1097/01.bsd.0000211284.14143.63

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Spinal Disord Tech        ISSN: 1536-0652


  19 in total

1.  Elastic modulus in the selection of interbody implants.

Authors:  Robert F Heary; Naresh Parvathreddy; Sujitha Sampath; Nitin Agarwal
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2017-06

2.  A Prospective, Randomized Study Evaluating Clinical and Radiographic Efficacy of Lumbar Interbody Fusion Performed Using a Truss Technology-Based Interbody Fusion Device With Homologous Bone or Bone Marrow Aspirate.

Authors:  Benjamin Chatterjee; Michael Rauschmann; Christoph Fleege; Mohammad Arabmotlagh; Sven Schmidt; Kimberly Martin; Marcus Rickert
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-12-29

Review 3.  Safe clinical use of carbon nanotubes as innovative biomaterials.

Authors:  Naoto Saito; Hisao Haniu; Yuki Usui; Kaoru Aoki; Kazuo Hara; Seiji Takanashi; Masayuki Shimizu; Nobuyo Narita; Masanori Okamoto; Shinsuke Kobayashi; Hiroki Nomura; Hiroyuki Kato; Naoyuki Nishimura; Seiichi Taruta; Morinobu Endo
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 60.622

4.  Radiological evaluation of anterior lumbar fusion using PEEK cages with adjacent vertebral autograft in spinal deformity long fusion surgeries.

Authors:  Jianqiang Ni; Yanping Zheng; Ning Liu; Xin Wang; Xiutong Fang; Rishabh Phukan; Kirkham B Wood
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-01-25       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Biomechanical evaluation of three surgical scenarios of posterior lumbar interbody fusion by finite element analysis.

Authors:  Zhitao Xiao; Liya Wang; He Gong; Dong Zhu
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2012-06-18       Impact factor: 2.819

6.  Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using non resorbable poly-ether-ether-ketone versus resorbable poly-L-lactide-co-D,L-lactide fusion devices. Clinical outcome at a minimum of 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  Timothy U Jiya; T Smit; B J van Royen; M Mullender
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  The SNAP trial: a double blind multi-center randomized controlled trial of a silicon nitride versus a PEEK cage in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disorders: study protocol.

Authors:  Roel F M R Kersten; Steven M van Gaalen; Mark P Arts; Kit C B Roes; Arthur de Gast; Terry P Corbin; F Cumhur Öner
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 8.  The Use of Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced (CFR) PEEK Material in Orthopedic Implants: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Chuan Silvia Li; Christopher Vannabouathong; Sheila Sprague; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-02-23

9.  Two-year results of a double-blind multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) versus silicon nitride spinal fusion cages in patients with symptomatic degenerative lumbar disc disorders.

Authors:  Bryan J McEntire; Greg Maslin; B Sonny Bal
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-09

10.  Pedicle-Screw-Based Dynamic Systems and Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: Biomechanical and Clinical Experiences of Dynamic Fusion with Isobar TTL.

Authors:  Cédric Barrey; Gilles Perrin; Sabina Champain
Journal:  ISRN Orthop       Date:  2013-01-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.