Bartosz Godlewski1, Adam Bebenek2, Maciej Dominiak3, Grzegorz Karpinski3, Piotr Cieslik4, Tomasz Pawelczyk5. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, with Spinal Surgery Ward, Scanmed - St. Raphael Hospital in Cracow, ul. Adama Bochenka 12, 30-693, Cracow, Poland. bartoszgodlewski@wp.pl. 2. Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Cracow, Poland. 3. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, with Spinal Surgery Ward, Scanmed - St. Raphael Hospital in Cracow, ul. Adama Bochenka 12, 30-693, Cracow, Poland. 4. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Military Institute of Medicine, Warsaw, Poland. 5. Department of Affective and Psychotic Disorders, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most commonly performed procedures for degenerative cervical disease. The evaluation of fusion status is still not fully standardized, and a variety of measurement methods are used. This study presents our own evaluation of fusion by comparing two types of implants. METHODS: A total of 170 disc spaces were operated on in 104 patients using PEEK (polyetheretherketone) cages and titanium-coated (TC) PEEK cages. Patients were assigned to a specific implant using a randomisation table. Fusion status was evaluated based on functional radiographs and CT scans obtained at 12 months post-surgery. Multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression models were performed to assess the association of type of implant with different fusion rates. RESULTS: At 12 months post-surgery, CT scans were performed in 86 patients (a total of 144 disc spaces) and conventional radiographs were obtained in 102 (a total of 166 disc spaces). Complete fusion was demonstrated in 101 cases (71.1%), partial fusion in 43 cases (29.9%). There were no cases of absence of fusion. A total of 85 PEEK cages (59%) and 59 TC-PEEK cages (41%) were implanted. For PEEK cages, complete fusion was seen in 75 (88.2%) disc spaces, compared to 26 (44.1%) achieved with TC-PEEK cages. A significantly higher proportion of complete fusions (B = 15.58; P < 0.0001) after 12 months was observed with PEEK implants compared to TC-PEEK implants. CONCLUSION: Complete fusion was noted at 12 months post-surgery significantly more frequently with PEEK implants compared to TC-PEEK implants.
BACKGROUND: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is one of the most commonly performed procedures for degenerative cervical disease. The evaluation of fusion status is still not fully standardized, and a variety of measurement methods are used. This study presents our own evaluation of fusion by comparing two types of implants. METHODS: A total of 170 disc spaces were operated on in 104 patients using PEEK (polyetheretherketone) cages and titanium-coated (TC) PEEK cages. Patients were assigned to a specific implant using a randomisation table. Fusion status was evaluated based on functional radiographs and CT scans obtained at 12 months post-surgery. Multivariate mixed-effects logistic regression models were performed to assess the association of type of implant with different fusion rates. RESULTS: At 12 months post-surgery, CT scans were performed in 86 patients (a total of 144 disc spaces) and conventional radiographs were obtained in 102 (a total of 166 disc spaces). Complete fusion was demonstrated in 101 cases (71.1%), partial fusion in 43 cases (29.9%). There were no cases of absence of fusion. A total of 85 PEEK cages (59%) and 59 TC-PEEK cages (41%) were implanted. For PEEK cages, complete fusion was seen in 75 (88.2%) disc spaces, compared to 26 (44.1%) achieved with TC-PEEK cages. A significantly higher proportion of complete fusions (B = 15.58; P < 0.0001) after 12 months was observed with PEEK implants compared to TC-PEEK implants. CONCLUSION: Complete fusion was noted at 12 months post-surgery significantly more frequently with PEEK implants compared to TC-PEEK implants.
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: Christopher P Ames; Benjamin Blondel; Justin K Scheer; Frank J Schwab; Jean-Charles Le Huec; Eric M Massicotte; Alpesh A Patel; Vincent C Traynelis; Han Jo Kim; Christopher I Shaffrey; Justin S Smith; Virginie Lafage Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-10-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Bartosz Godlewski; Adam Bebenek; Maciej Dominiak; Grzegorz Karpinski; Piotr Cieslik; Tomasz Pawelczyk Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 2.562