Literature DB >> 30091515

Comparison of polyetheretherketone versus silicon nitride intervertebral spinal spacers in a caprine model.

Roel F M R Kersten1,2, Gang Wu3, Behdad Pouran2,4, Albert J van der Veen5, Harrie H Weinans2,4, Arthur de Gast1, F Cumhur Öner2, Steven M van Gaalen1.   

Abstract

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is commonly used as a spinal spacer for intervertebral fusion surgery. Unfortunately, PEEK is bioinert and does not effectively osseointegrate into living bone. In contrast, comparable spacers made of silicon nitride (Si3 N4 ) possess a surface nanostructure and chemistry that encourage appositional bone healing. This observational study was designed to compare the outcomes of these two biomaterials when implanted as spacers in an adult caprine model. Lumbar interbody fusion surgeries were performed at two adjacent levels in eight adult goats using implants of PEEK and Si3 N4 . At six-months after surgery, the operative and adjacent spinal segments were extracted and measured for bone fusion, bone volume, bone-implant contact (BIC) and soft-tissue implant contact (SIC) ratios, and biodynamic stability. The null hypothesis was that no differences in these parameters would be apparent between the two groups. Fusion was observed in seven of eight implants in each group with greater bone formation in the Si3 N4 group (52.6%) versus PEEK (27.9%; p = 0.2). There were no significant differences in BIC ratios between PEEK and Si3 N4 , and the biodynamic stability of the two groups was also comparable. The results suggest that Si3 N4 spacers are not inferior to PEEK and they may be more effective in promoting arthrodesis.
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 00B: 000-000, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater 107B: 688-699, 2019. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  caprine animal model; interbody cage; osseointegration; polyetheretherketone; silicon nitride

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30091515     DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.34162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater        ISSN: 1552-4973            Impact factor:   3.368


  5 in total

Review 1.  Silicon Nitride as a Biomedical Material: An Overview.

Authors:  Xiaoyu Du; Seunghun S Lee; Gurdial Blugan; Stephen J Ferguson
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-06-11       Impact factor: 6.208

2.  Biomaterials in Spinal Implants: A Review.

Authors:  Andrew Warburton; Steven J Girdler; Christopher M Mikhail; Amy Ahn; Samuel K Cho
Journal:  Neurospine       Date:  2019-11-04

3.  Silicon Nitride, a Bioceramic for Bone Tissue Engineering: A Reinforced Cryogel System With Antibiofilm and Osteogenic Effects.

Authors:  Seunghun S Lee; Leanid Laganenka; Xiaoyu Du; Wolf-Dietrich Hardt; Stephen J Ferguson
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2021-12-15

4.  Letter to the editor regarding "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:  Roel F M R Kersten; F Cumhur Öner; Mark P Arts; Marian Mitroiu; Kit C B Roes; Arthur de Gast; Steven M van Gaalen
Journal:  J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-06

5.  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
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.