Published in:
Open Access 01-12-2022 | Research
The improved bioactive n-HA/PA66 cage versus the PEEK cage in anterior cervical fusion: results from a 6-year follow-up and a case-matched study
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2022
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
The nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 (n-HA/PA66) cage, a bioactive nonmetal cage, is fabricated in a hollow cylindrical shape and has been widely used for decades with good clinical outcomes for anterior cervical fusion. However, there remain some radiological complications, such as a slightly high subsidence rate. To improve the clinical outcomes, the improved n-HA/PA66 cage now has been developed into a trapezoidal and wedge shape, a better biomechanical shape matching the cervical spine that is similar to that of the PEEK cage. However, there have been no long-term comparisons of the improved n-HA/PA66 cage and PEEK cage in anterior cervical reconstruction.
Methods
Fifty-eight patients who underwent single-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with the improved n-HA/PA66 cage (n-HA/PA66 group) were matched with patients with the PEEK cage (PEEK group) by clinical presentation, segment, age and sex. All patients underwent a minimum of 6 years of follow-up. The radiographic parameters (cage subsidence, fusion status, cervical lordosis, and segmental sagittal alignment) and clinical parameters (10-point visual analogue scale, Neck Disability Index and Japanese Orthopedic Association scores) from patients were evaluated before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at the latest follow-up.
Results
The n-HA/PA66 and PEEK groups were well matched in terms of clinical presentation, segment, age, and sex at surgery. The n-HA/PA66 and PEEK cages had similar fusion rates at 6 months postoperatively (n-HA/PA66: 58.6% vs. PEEK: 51.7%, P = 0.455) and at the last follow-up (n-HA/PA66: 96.6% vs. PEEK: 93.1%, P = 0.402). The respective cage subsidence rates in the n-HA/PA66 and PEEK groups were 6.9 and 12.1% (P = 0.342). The correction of SA was similar between the groups at the final follow-up (n-HA/PA66: 4.29 ± 1.99 vs. PEEK: 3.99 ± 2.59 P = 0.464). There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean cervical lordosis, visual analogue scale scores of the neck and arm, NDI scores, JOA scores or patients’ overall satisfaction at the final follow-up.
Conclusion
After single-level ACDF, the improved n-HA/PA66 cage had similar excellent results in both radiological and clinical outcomes compared with the PEEK cage over 6 years of follow-up. According to these results, the improved n-HA/PA66 cage and the PEEK cage could be comparable for ACDF.