Literature DB >> 29225416

Getting PEEK to Stick to Bone: The Development of Porous PEEK for Interbody Fusion Devices.

F Brennan Torstrick1, David L Safranski2, J Kenneth Burkus3, James L Chappuis4, Christopher S D Lee5, Robert E Guldberg1, Ken Gall6, Kathryn E Smith2.   

Abstract

Interbody fusion cages are routinely implanted during spinal fusion procedures to facilitate arthrodesis of a degenerated or unstable vertebral segment. Current cages are most commonly made from polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) due to its favorable mechanical properties and imaging characteristics. However, the smooth surface of current PEEK cages may limit implant osseointegration and may inhibit successful fusion. We present the development and clinical application of the first commercially available porous PEEK fusion cage (COHERE®, Vertera, Inc., Atlanta, GA) that aims to enhance PEEK osseointegration and spinal fusion outcomes. The porous PEEK structure is extruded directly from the underlying solid and mimics the structural and mechanical properties of trabecular bone to support bone ingrowth and implant fixation. Biomechanical testing of the COHERE® device has demonstrated greater expulsion resistance versus smooth PEEK cages with ridges and greater adhesion strength of porous PEEK versus plasma-sprayed titanium coated PEEK surfaces. In vitro experiments have shown favorable cell attachment to porous PEEK and greater proliferation and mineralization of cell cultures grown on porous PEEK versus smooth PEEK and smooth titanium surfaces, suggesting that the porous structure enhances bone formation at the cellular level. At the implant level, preclinical animal studies have found comparable bone ingrowth into porous PEEK as those previously reported for porous titanium, leading to twice the fixation strength of smooth PEEK implants. Finally, two clinical case studies are presented demonstrating the effectiveness of the COHERE® device in cervical spinal fusion.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PEEK; osseointegration; polyether-ether-ketone; porosity; spine fusion

Year:  2017        PMID: 29225416      PMCID: PMC5720158          DOI: 10.1097/BTO.0000000000000242

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tech Orthop


  49 in total

1.  Lumbar intradiscal pressure. Experimental studies on post-mortem material.

Authors:  A NACHEMSON
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand Suppl       Date:  1960

2.  Comparison of microcomputed tomographic and microradiographic measurements of cortical bone porosity.

Authors:  D M L Cooper; J R Matyas; M A Katzenberg; B Hallgrimsson
Journal:  Calcif Tissue Int       Date:  2004-02-17       Impact factor: 4.333

3.  Quantitative assessment of scaffold and growth factor-mediated repair of critically sized bone defects.

Authors:  Megan E Oest; Kenneth M Dupont; Hyun-Joon Kong; David J Mooney; Robert E Guldberg
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.494

4.  The impact of diamond nanocrystallinity on osteoblast functions.

Authors:  Lei Yang; Brian W Sheldon; Thomas J Webster
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2009-03-31       Impact factor: 12.479

5.  Local deformation behavior of surface porous polyether-ether-ketone.

Authors:  Nathan T Evans; F Brennan Torstrick; David L Safranski; Robert E Guldberg; Ken Gall
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2016-09-14

6.  Interface mechanics of porous titanium implants.

Authors:  A J Clemow; A M Weinstein; J J Klawitter; J Koeneman; J Anderson
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  1981-01

7.  Biological response to chopped-carbon-fiber-reinforced peek.

Authors:  K A Jockisch; S A Brown; T W Bauer; K Merritt
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res       Date:  1992-02

8.  Cytocompatibility, osseointegration, and bioactivity of three-dimensional porous and nanostructured network on polyetheretherketone.

Authors:  Ying Zhao; Hoi Man Wong; Wenhao Wang; Penghui Li; Zushun Xu; Eva Y W Chong; Chun Hoi Yan; Kelvin W K Yeung; Paul K Chu
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2013-09-14       Impact factor: 12.479

9.  Coating of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone implants with titanium to improve bone apposition.

Authors:  Declan M Devine; Joachim Hahn; R Geoffery Richards; Heiko Gruner; Ronald Wieling; Simon G Pearce
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 3.368

10.  Does impaction of titanium-coated interbody fusion cages into the disc space cause wear debris or delamination?

Authors:  Annette Kienle; Nicolas Graf; Hans-Joachim Wilke
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2015-09-25       Impact factor: 4.166

View more
  13 in total

1.  Thermal Localization Improves the Interlayer Adhesion and Structural Integrity of 3D printed PEEK Lumbar Spinal Cages.

Authors:  Cemile Basgul; Daniel W MacDonald; Ryan Siskey; Steven M Kurtz
Journal:  Materialia (Oxf)       Date:  2020-03-09

2.  Biological evaluation and finite-element modeling of porous poly(para-phenylene) for orthopaedic implants.

Authors:  Hyunhee Ahn; Ravi R Patel; Anthony J Hoyt; Angela S P Lin; F Brennan Torstrick; Robert E Guldberg; Carl P Frick; R Dana Carpenter; Christopher M Yakacki; Nick J Willett
Journal:  Acta Biomater       Date:  2018-03-18       Impact factor: 8.947

Review 3.  Modification of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) physical features to improve osteointegration.

Authors:  Dan Yu; Xiaoyue Lei; Huiyong Zhu
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 3.066

4.  A comparative study on silicon nitride, titanium and polyether ether ketone on mouse pre-osteoblast cells.

Authors:  Neelam Ahuja; Kamal R Awad; Marco Brotto; Pranesh B Aswath; Venu Varanasi
Journal:  Med Devices Sens       Date:  2020-10-22

5.  Grafting Polymer Brushes by ATRP from Functionalized Poly(ether ether ketone) Microparticles.

Authors:  Liye Fu; Hossein Jafari; Michael Gießl; Saigopalakrishna S Yerneni; Mingkang Sun; Zongyu Wang; Tong Liu; Kriti Kapil; Boyle C Cheng; Alexander Yu; Saadyah E Averick; Krzysztof Matyjaszewski
Journal:  Polym Adv Technol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 3.348

6.  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

7.  Effect of porous orthopaedic implant material and structure on load sharing with simulated bone ingrowth: A finite element analysis comparing titanium and PEEK.

Authors:  R Dana Carpenter; Brett S Klosterhoff; F Brennan Torstrick; Kevin T Foley; J Kenneth Burkus; Christopher S D Lee; Ken Gall; Robert E Guldberg; David L Safranski
Journal:  J Mech Behav Biomed Mater       Date:  2018-04

8.  Plasma ion implantation enabled bio-functionalization of PEEK improves osteoblastic activity.

Authors:  Edgar A Wakelin; Giselle C Yeo; David R McKenzie; Marcela M M Bilek; Anthony S Weiss
Journal:  APL Bioeng       Date:  2018-06-05

9.  Superior Osteo-Inductive and Osteo-Conductive Properties of Trabecular Titanium vs. PEEK Scaffolds on Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A Proof of Concept for the Use of Fusion Cages.

Authors:  Enrico Ragni; Carlotta Perucca Orfei; Alessandro Bidossi; Elena De Vecchi; Natale Francaviglia; Alberto Romano; Gianluca Maestretti; Fulvio Tartara; Laura de Girolamo
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-02-27       Impact factor: 5.923

10.  Enhancement of the bone-implant interface by applying a plasma-sprayed titanium coating on nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide66 implants in a rabbit model.

Authors:  Weiyang Zhong; Jianxiao Li; Chenbo Hu; Zhengxue Quan; Dianming Jiang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-10-07       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.