Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Patient Safety in Surgery
Published in: Patient Safety in Surgery 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

Does partial coating with titanium improve the radiographic fusion rate of empty PEEK cages in cervical spine surgery? A comparative analysis of clinical data

Authors: Andreas Kotsias, Sven Mularski, Björn Kühn, Michael Hanna, Olaf Suess

Published in: Patient Safety in Surgery | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a well-established surgical treatment. Several types of intervertebral spacers can be used, but there is increasing evidence that PEEK cages yield insufficient fusion and thus less clinical improvement. The study aim was to assess the outcomes of single-level ACDF with an empty PEEK cage partially coated with titanium.

Methods

This prospective multicenter single-arm clinical study collected follow-up data at 6, 12, and 18 months. A post hoc comparison was made to closely matched patients from another similar trial treated with identically designed, empty, uncoated PEEK cages.

Results

There were 49 of 50 patients (98%) who met the MCID of 3+ points of improvement on VAS pain or had an 18-month VAS ≤ 1. Yet even by 18 months post-op, only 40 of 50 (80%) PEEK + Ti patients achieved complete bony fusion. The PEEK + Ti group (n = 49) seemed to have somewhat better fusion scores and significantly better pain relief at 6 M than the matched controls (n = 49), but these differences did not persist at 12 M or 18 M. Patients (with either implant) who achieved complete bony fusion had significantly better improvement of pain at 6 M and disability at 6 M and 12 M than patients that remained unfused.

Conclusions

ACDF is effective treatment for cervical myelopathy and radiculopathy. Although this and other studies show that titanium fuses better, partial coating of a PEEK cage does not improve the fusion rate sufficiently or confer other lasting clinical benefit. PEEK cages fully coated with titanium should be tested in prospective randomized comparative trials.

Trial registration

Prospective, multicenter, single-arm clinical observational study without an individual Trial registration number. Study design and post hoc data analysis according to the “PIERCE-PEEK study”, ISRCTN42774128, retrospectively registered 14 April 2009.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Fehlings MG, Arvin B. Surgical management of cervical degenerative disease: the evidence related to indications, impact, and outcome. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:97–100.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Matz PG, Holly LT, Groff MW, Vresilovic EJ, Anderson PA, Heary RF, et al. Indications for anterior cervical decompression for treatment of cervical degenerative radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:174–82.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Matz PG, Ryken TC, Groff MW, Vresilovic EJ, Anderson PA, Heary RF, et al. Techniques for anterior cervical decompression for radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:183–97.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Matz PG, Holly LT, Mummaneni PV, Anderson PA, Groff MW, Heary RF, et al. Anterior cervical surgery for the treatment of cervical degenerative myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:170–3.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Mummaneni PV, Kaiser MG, Matz PG, Anderson PA, Groff MW, Heary RF, et al. Cervical surgical techniques for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2009;11:130–41.CrossRefPubMed
6.
McAfee PC, Reah C, Gilder K, Eisermann L, Cunningham B. A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Outcomes Following Cervical Arthroplasty or Anterior Cervical Fusion: Results From 4 Prospective Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trials and Up to 1226 Patients. Spine. 2012;37:943–52.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kurz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. Biomaterials. 2007;28:4845–69.CrossRef
8.
Hee HT, Kundnani V. Rationale for use of polyetheretherketone polymer interbody cage device in cervical spine surgery. Spine J. 2010;10:66–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kulkarni AG, Hee HT, Wong HK. Solis cage (PEEK) for anterior cervical fusion: preliminiary radiological results with emphasis on fusion and subsidence. Spine J. 2007;7:205–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Chou Y-C, Chen D-C, Hseih WA, Chen W-F, Yen P-S, Harnod T, et al. Efficacy of anterior cervical fusion: Comparison of titanium cages, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and autogenous bone grafts. J Clin Neurosci. 2008;15:1240–5.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Liao J-C, Niu C-C, Chen W-J, Chen L-H. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage filled with cancellous allograft in anterio cervical discectomy and fusion. Int Orthop. 2008;32:643–8.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Matgé G. Cervical Cage Fusion with 5 Different Implants: 250 Cases. Acta Neurochir. 2002;144:539–50.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Mastronardi L, Ducati A, Ferrante L. Anterior cervical fusion with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the treatment of degenerative disc disease: Preliminary observations in 26 consecutive cases with a minimum 12-month follow-up. Acta Neurochir. 2006;148:307–12.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Cabraja M, Oezdemir S, Koeppen D, Kroppenstedt S. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:172.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Chen Y, Wang X, Lu X, Yang L, Yang H, Yuan W, Chen D. Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1539–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Niu CC, Liao JC, Chen WJ, Chen LH. Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23:310–6.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Kast E, Derakhshani S, Bothmann M, Oberle J. Subsidence after anterior cervical inter-body fusion. A randomized prospective clinical trial. Neurosurg Rev. 2009;32:207–14.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Pechlivanis I, Thuring T, Brenke C, Seiz M, Thome C, Barth M, Harders A, Schmieder K. Non-fusion rates in anterior cervical discectomy and implantation of empty polyetheretherketone cages. Spine. 2011;36:15–20.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Klingler J-H, Krüger MT, Sircar R, Kogias E, Scholz C, Volz F, Scheiwe C, Hubbe U. PEEK Cages versus PMMA Spacers in Anterior Cervical Discectomy: Comparison of Fusion, Subsidence, Sagittal Alignment, and Clinical Outcome with a Minimum 1-Year Follow-Up. Scientific World Journal. 2014;2014:398396.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Shiban E, Gapon K, Wostrack M, Meyer B, Lehmberg J. Clinical and radiological outcome after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with stand-alone empty polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. Acta Neurochir. 2016;158:349–55.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Sinclair SK, Konz GJ, Dawson JM, Epperson RT, Bloebaum RD. Host bone response to polyetheretherketone versus porous tantalum implants for cervical spinal fusion in a Goat model. Spine. 2012;37:E571–80.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Phan K, Hogan JA, Assem Y, Mobbs RJ. PEEK-Halo effect in interbody fusion. J Clin Neurosci. 2016;24:138–40.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Suess O, Schomaker M, Cabraja M, Danne M, Kombos T, Hanna M. Empty Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cages in Anterior Cervical Diskectomy and Fusion (ACDF) Show Slow Radiographic Fusion that Reduces Clinical Improvement: Results from the Prospective Multicenter “PIERCE-PEEK” Study. Patient Saf Surg. doi:10.​1186/​s13037-017-0128-y. [under review].
24.
Nemoto O, Asazuma T, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Yasuoka H, Fujikawa A. Comparison of fusion rates following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone cages or titanium cages with transpedicular instrumentation. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:2150–5.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kotsias A, Mularski S, Cabraja M, Kombos T, Süss O. Fusion characteristics in ACDF with partially titanium-coated PEEK cages. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:2586.
26.
Hanna M, Kotsias A, Suess O. Empty PEEK Cages in ACDF: Does Partial Titanium Coating Improve the Radiographic Fusion? Spine J. 2016;16:S115.CrossRef
27.
Kotsias A. Klinische Untersuchung zum Einsatz von titanbeschichteten Polyetheretherketone-Implantaten bei der cervikalen interkorporalen Fusion. Berlin: Charité University Hospital [doctoral dissertation]; 2014.
28.
Lemcke J, Al-Zain F, Meier U, Suess O. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Spacer for Anterior Cervical Fusion: A Retrospective Comparative Effectiveness Clinical Trial. Open Orthop J. 2011;5:348–53.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
30.
Burkus JK, Foley K, Haid R, LeHuec J-C. on behalf of the Surgical Interbody Research Group. Radiographic assessment of interbody fusion devices: fusion criteria for anterior lumbar interbody surgery. Neurosurg Focus. 2001;10(4), E11.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Park Y, Ha JW, Lee YT, Sung NY. The effect of radiographic solid fusion on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2011;11:205–12.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Odom GL, Finney W, Woodhall B. Cervical Disk Lesions. JAMA. 1958;166:23–8.CrossRef
33.
Fagerland MW, Lydersen S, Laake P. The McNemar test for binary matched-pairs data: mid-p and asymptotic are better than exact conditional. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:91.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Fagerland MW, Lydersen S, Laake P. Recommended tests and confidence intervals for paired binomial proportions. Stat Med. 2014;33:2850–75.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Does partial coating with titanium improve the radiographic fusion rate of empty PEEK cages in cervical spine surgery? A comparative analysis of clinical data
Authors
Andreas Kotsias
Sven Mularski
Björn Kühn
Michael Hanna
Olaf Suess
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Patient Safety in Surgery / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1754-9493
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-017-0127-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Patient Safety in Surgery 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Predisposing factors for recurrence of chronic posttraumatic osteomyelitis: a retrospective observational cohort study from a tertiary referral center in Brazil

Research

Surgical site infection and its associated factors following cesarean section: a cross sectional study from a public hospital in Ethiopia

Hypothesis

Introducing the “Bone-Screw-Fastener” for improved screw fixation in orthopedic surgery: a revolutionary paradigm shift?

Research

Evaluation of a multimodal pain therapy concept for chronic pain after total knee arthroplasty: a pilot study in 21 patients

Case report

The role of pre-reduction MRI in the management of complex cervical spine fracture-dislocations: an ongoing controversy?

Commentary

Surgeons, sign your site!