Shang-Wen Feng1,2,3, Ming-Chau Chang1,2, Po-Hsin Chou1,2, Hsi-Hsien Lin4,5, Shih-Tien Wang1,2, Chien-Lin Liu1,2. 1. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Section 2, Shi-pai Road, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan, ROC. 2. School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. 3. Department of Orthopedics, National Yang-Ming University Hospital, Yilan, Taiwan, ROC. 4. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, No. 201, Section 2, Shi-pai Road, Taipei, 11217, Taiwan, ROC. hsihsienlin@gmail.com. 5. School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC. hsihsienlin@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes, radiographic results and fusion rate of ACDF between empty PEEK cages and PEEK cages packed with β-tricalcium phosphate. METHODS:Forty-five patients were prospectively enrolled with cervical degenerative disc disease who requiring ACDF with a PEEK cage. 23 patients were randomised to the study group (empty cages) and 22 patients were in the control group (cages filled with β-tricalcium phosphate). Both patient groups were fixed with a cervical locking plate. A CT scan was performed 12 months postoperatively and 24 months if not confirmed fused at 12 months to evaluate the status of fusion. Clinical status was evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: 46 levels (97.88%) in the study group and 44 levels (97.77%) in the control group were confirmed as fused at 24 months. There was no significant difference between the fusion rates observed in the study and control groups (p = 0.82). There was no significant difference in JOA, ODI, or VAS scores at 24 months follow-up. The results showed that the members of the non-fusion group tended to be older than the individuals in the fusion group at 12 months, but was not significant in statistics. CONCLUSIONS: Similar fusion rates and clinical outcomes were achieved when using ACDF with PEEK cages and instrumentation, regardless of whether the cage was filled with bone substitute at 24 months follow-up. Fusion rates improved over time and are comparable between both groups. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes, radiographic results and fusion rate of ACDF between empty PEEK cages and PEEK cages packed with β-tricalcium phosphate. METHODS: Forty-five patients were prospectively enrolled with cervical degenerative disc disease who requiring ACDF with a PEEK cage. 23 patients were randomised to the study group (empty cages) and 22 patients were in the control group (cages filled with β-tricalcium phosphate). Both patient groups were fixed with a cervical locking plate. A CT scan was performed 12 months postoperatively and 24 months if not confirmed fused at 12 months to evaluate the status of fusion. Clinical status was evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: 46 levels (97.88%) in the study group and 44 levels (97.77%) in the control group were confirmed as fused at 24 months. There was no significant difference between the fusion rates observed in the study and control groups (p = 0.82). There was no significant difference in JOA, ODI, or VAS scores at 24 months follow-up. The results showed that the members of the non-fusion group tended to be older than the individuals in the fusion group at 12 months, but was not significant in statistics. CONCLUSIONS: Similar fusion rates and clinical outcomes were achieved when using ACDF with PEEK cages and instrumentation, regardless of whether the cage was filled with bone substitute at 24 months follow-up. Fusion rates improved over time and are comparable between both groups. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material.
Authors: Jacob M Buchowski; Gabriel Liu; Torphong Bunmaprasert; Peter S Rose; K Daniel Riew Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Kirsten Schmieder; Markus Wolzik-Grossmann; Ioannis Pechlivanis; Martin Engelhardt; Martin Scholz; Albrecht Harders Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2006-06
Authors: Ioannis Pechlivanis; Theresa Thuring; Christopher Brenke; Marcel Seiz; Claudius Thome; Martin Barth; Albrecht Harders; Kirsten Schmieder Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-01-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Dino Samartzis; Francis H Shen; Craig Lyon; Mathew Phillips; Edward J Goldberg; Howard S An Journal: Spine J Date: 2004 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: Bartosz Godlewski; Adam Bebenek; Maciej Dominiak; Grzegorz Karpinski; Piotr Cieslik; Tomasz Pawelczyk Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 2.216
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
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
Authors: Jacob L Goldberg; Ross M Meaden; Ibrahim Hussain; Pravesh S Gadjradj; Danyal Quraishi; Fabian Sommer; Joseph A Carnevale; Branden Medary; Drew Wright; K Daniel Riew; Roger Hartl Journal: Brain Spine Date: 2022-08-22