Daniel Hirt1, Heather A Prentice2, Jessica E Harris2, Elizabeth W Paxton2, Jessa Alexander3, Daniel T Nagasawa4, Deven Khosla4, Steven M Kurtz5. 1. Department of Neurosurgery, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Los Angeles, California. 2. Surgical Outcomes and Analysis, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, California. 3. Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, California. 4. Achieve Brain and Spine Surgery, Santa Monica, California. 5. Exponent, Inc, and Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods were clinically introduced in the mid-2000s as an alternative to titanium (Ti) rods for posterior instrumented lumbar spine fusion, theorized to reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD). However, few studies have follow-up beyond 2 years. Consequently, we conducted a matched cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente's spine registry to compare the 2 rod systems and risk for outcomes. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 undergoing first posterior lumbar fusion for a degenerative diagnosis from 2009 to 2018 using either a PEEK or a Ti rod were identified. Fusions using Ti rods were 2:1 propensity score matched to PEEK rods on the following factors: patient age, body mass index, smoking, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, diagnosis, interbody use, bone morphogenic protein use, number of levels fused, fusion levels, and operative year. The matched sample included 154 PEEK and 308 Ti fusions. We used Cox regression to evaluate ASD and nonunion, and logistic regression to evaluate 90-day emergency department (ED) visit, readmission, and complication. RESULTS: We did not observe a difference in risk for ASD (hazard ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66-1.59) or ED visit (odds ratio [OR] = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.48-1.59). A lower likelihood of readmission (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.13-0.94) was observed following PEEK fusion compared with Ti. No nonunions or 90-day complications were observed for the PEEK group; 5 (2-year cumulative incidence = 0.7%) nonunions and 4 (1.3%) complications were observed for the Ti group. CONCLUSIONS: Our multicenter study did not support the hypothesis that PEEK rods are associated with a lower ASD risk. Reasons for readmission need to be identified to better understand the differences observed here. Further study of patients with TLIF using Ti and PEEK rods and posterolateral fusion with Ti and PEEK rods is needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present study adds to the literature supporting their midterm effectiveness of PEEK rods compared with Ti rods for both their safety and their effectiveness at the 5-7-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.
BACKGROUND:Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods were clinically introduced in the mid-2000s as an alternative to titanium (Ti) rods for posterior instrumented lumbar spine fusion, theorized to reduce the risk of adjacent segment disease (ASD). However, few studies have follow-up beyond 2 years. Consequently, we conducted a matched cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente's spine registry to compare the 2 rod systems and risk for outcomes. METHODS:Patients aged ≥18 undergoing first posterior lumbar fusion for a degenerative diagnosis from 2009 to 2018 using either a PEEK or a Ti rod were identified. Fusions using Ti rods were 2:1 propensity score matched to PEEK rods on the following factors: patient age, body mass index, smoking, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, diagnosis, interbody use, bone morphogenic protein use, number of levels fused, fusion levels, and operative year. The matched sample included 154 PEEK and 308 Ti fusions. We used Cox regression to evaluate ASD and nonunion, and logistic regression to evaluate 90-day emergency department (ED) visit, readmission, and complication. RESULTS: We did not observe a difference in risk for ASD (hazard ratio = 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66-1.59) or ED visit (odds ratio [OR] = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.48-1.59). A lower likelihood of readmission (OR = 0.34, 95% CI = 0.13-0.94) was observed following PEEK fusion compared with Ti. No nonunions or 90-day complications were observed for the PEEK group; 5 (2-year cumulative incidence = 0.7%) nonunions and 4 (1.3%) complications were observed for the Ti group. CONCLUSIONS: Our multicenter study did not support the hypothesis that PEEK rods are associated with a lower ASD risk. Reasons for readmission need to be identified to better understand the differences observed here. Further study of patients with TLIF using Ti and PEEK rods and posterolateral fusion with Ti and PEEK rods is needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present study adds to the literature supporting their midterm effectiveness of PEEK rods compared with Ti rods for both their safety and their effectiveness at the 5-7-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. This manuscript is generously published free of charge by ISASS, the International Society for the Advancement of Spine Surgery.