Literature DB >> 28153602

Comparison of allograft and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage subsidence rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Sharon C Yson1, Jonathan N Sembrano2, Edward Rainier G Santos2.   

Abstract

Structural allografts and PEEK cages are commonly used interbody fusion devices in ACDF. The subsidence rates of these two spacers have not yet been directly compared. The primary aim of this study was to compare the subsidence rate of allograft and PEEK cage in ACDF. The secondary aim was to determine if the presence of subsidence affects the clinical outcome. We reviewed 67 cases (117 levels) of ACDF with either structural allograft or PEEK cages. There were 85 levels (48 cases) with PEEK and 32 levels (19 cases) with allograft spacers. Anterior and posterior disc heights at each operative level were measured at immediate and 6months post-op. Subsidence was defined as a decrease in anterior or posterior disc heights >2mm. NDI of the subsidence (SG) and non-subsidence group (NSG) were recorded. Chi-square test was used to analyze subsidence rates. T-test was used to analyze clinical outcomes (α=0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between subsidence rates of the PEEK (29%; 25/85) and allograft group (28%; 9/32) (p=0.69). Overall mean subsidence was 2.3±1.7mm anteriorly and 2.6±1.2mm posteriorly. Mean NDI improvement was 11.7 (from 47.1 to 35.4; average follow-up: 12mos) for the SG and 14.0 (from 45.8 to 31.8; average follow-up: 13mos) for the NSG (p=0.74). Subsidence rate does not seem to be affected by the use of either PEEK or allograft as spacers in ACDF. Furthermore, subsidence alone does not seem to be predictive of clinical outcomes of ACDF.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACDF; Allograft; PEEK; Polyetheretherketone; Subsidence

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28153602     DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2016.12.037

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Neurosci        ISSN: 0967-5868            Impact factor:   1.961


  10 in total

1.  Clinical outcomes of treatment with cage-shaped demineralized bone plus local bone grafts vs. autogenous iliac crest bone grafts in instrumented single-level lumbar fusion: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Chen-Guang Zhao; Jie Qin; Xin Wang; Gang Xu; Yong Jia; Yu-Cheng Guan; Xiang Mou; Hua Yuan
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 2.447

2.  Structural Allograft Versus PEEK Implants in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Amit Jain; Majd Marrache; Andrew Harris; Varun Puvanesarajah; Brian J Neuman; Zorica Buser; Jeffrey C Wang; S Tim Yoon; Hans Jörg Meisel
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2019-10-25

3.  A single center retrospective clinical evaluation of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion comparing allograft spacers to silicon nitride cages.

Authors:  Micah W Smith; Daniel R Romano; Bryan J McEntire; B Sonny Bal
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2018-06

4.  Symptomatic pseudarthrosis requiring revision surgery after 1- or 2-level ACDF with plating: peek versus allograft.

Authors:  Abdul Fettah Buyuk; Ikemefuna Onyekwelu; Christian J Gaffney; Amir A Mehbod; John M Dawson; Timothy A Garvey; Benjamin Mueller; James D Schwender
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2020-12

5.  Biomechanical Comparison of a New Memory Compression Alloy Plate versus Traditional Titanium Plate for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Jiantao Liu; Runqing Wang; Hongbo Wang; Yanbiao Wang; Dongbo Lv; Pan Diao; Shihan Feng; Yanzheng Gao
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Clinical and radiological results comparison of allograft and polyetheretherketone cage for one to two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A CONSORT-compliant article.

Authors:  Sen Yang; Yang Yu; Xun Liu; Zehua Zhang; TianYong Hou; Jianzhong Xu; Wenjie Wu; Fei Luo
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.817

7.  Does zero-profile anchored cage accompanied by a higher postoperative subsidence compared with cage-plate construct? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yingjie Lu; Yuepeng Fang; Xu Shen; Dongdong Lu; Liyu Zhou; Minfeng Gan; Xuesong Zhu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-05-24       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  A lattice topology optimization of cervical interbody fusion cage and finite element comparison with ZK60 and Ti-6Al-4V cages.

Authors:  Jun Sun; Qiuan Wang; Dazhao Cai; Wenxiang Gu; Yiming Ma; Yang Sun; Yangyang Wei; Feng Yuan
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  A comparison of contiguous two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using a structural allograft versus a Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage: the results of a three-year follow-up.

Authors:  Ing How Moo; Carmen Jia Wen Kam; Maksim Wen Sheng Lai; William Yeo; Reuben Chee Cheong Soh
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-05-28       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Clinical impact and imaging results after a modified procedure of ACDF: a prospective case-controlled study based on ninety cases with two-year follow-up.

Authors:  Shunmin Wang; Jian Zhu; Kaiqiang Sun; Rongzi Chen; Aigang Liu; Jie Cao; Ruijin You; Feng Zhao; Jiangang Shi
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 2.362

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.