PURPOSE: Pre-curved peek rods to support posterior lumbar fusion have been available in the market since 4 years. Potential advantages using this new technology are increased load sharing on the anterior column promoting interbody fusion, reduced stress on bone-screw interface decreasing the rate of screw mobilization and, in the long term, reduced incidence of adjacent level disc degeneration. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed 30 cases in which posterior fusion was supported by peek rods, analyzing early complications, rate of fusion and clinical outcome. RESULTS: At an average follow-up of 18 months, both clinical and radiographic results were satisfactory with only one case requiring surgical revision for a mechanical complication. CONCLUSIONS: The semi-rigid systems can now be considered a viable option in the lumbar degenerative disease, although clinical evaluations are necessary in the longer term.
PURPOSE: Pre-curved peek rods to support posterior lumbar fusion have been available in the market since 4 years. Potential advantages using this new technology are increased load sharing on the anterior column promoting interbody fusion, reduced stress on bone-screw interface decreasing the rate of screw mobilization and, in the long term, reduced incidence of adjacent level disc degeneration. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed 30 cases in which posterior fusion was supported by peek rods, analyzing early complications, rate of fusion and clinical outcome. RESULTS: At an average follow-up of 18 months, both clinical and radiographic results were satisfactory with only one case requiring surgical revision for a mechanical complication. CONCLUSIONS: The semi-rigid systems can now be considered a viable option in the lumbar degenerative disease, although clinical evaluations are necessary in the longer term.
Authors: Jeffrey M Toth; Mei Wang; Bradley T Estes; Jeffrey L Scifert; Howard B Seim; A Simon Turner Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2005-08-22 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Michelle Wedemeyer; Stefan Parent; Andrew Mahar; Tim Odell; Troy Swimmer; Peter Newton Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: K Thomsen; F B Christensen; S P Eiskjaer; E S Hansen; S Fruensgaard; C E Bünger Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 1997-12-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Ravi K Ponnappan; Hassan Serhan; Brett Zarda; Ravi Patel; Todd Albert; Alexander R Vaccaro Journal: Spine J Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Angela D Melnyk; Jason D Chak; Vaneet Singh; Adrienne Kelly; Peter A Cripton; Charles G Fisher; Marcel F Dvorak; Thomas R Oxland Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Steven M Kurtz; Todd H Lanman; Genymphas Higgs; Daniel W Macdonald; Sigurd H Berven; Jorge E Isaza; Eual Phillips; Marla J Steinbeck Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2013-07-26 Impact factor: 3.134