Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: Meta-analysis and review of the literature

Scott Seaman, Panagiotis Kerezoudis, Mohamad Bydon, James C. Torner, Patrick W. Hitchon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Spinal interbody fusion is a standard and accepted method for spinal fusion. Interbody fusion devices include titanium (Ti) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with distinct biomechanical properties. Titanium and PEEK cages have been evaluated in the cervical and lumbar spine, with conflicting results in bony fusion and subsidence. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we reviewed the available literature evaluating Ti and PEEK cages to assess subsidence and fusion rates. Six studies were included in the analysis, 3 of which were class IV evidence, 2 were class III, and 1 was class II. A total of 410 patients (Ti-228, PEEK-182) and 587 levels (Ti-327, PEEK-260) were studied. Pooled mean age was 50.8years in the Ti group, and 53.1years in the PEEK group. Anterior cervical discectomy was performed in 4 studies (395 levels) and transforaminal interbody fusion in 2 studies (192 levels). No statistically significant difference was found between groups with fusion (OR 1.16, 95% C.I 0.59-2.89, p=0.686, I2 =49.7%) but there was a statistically significant the rate of subsidence with titanium (OR 3.59, 95% C.I 1.28-10.07, p=0.015, I2 =56.9%) at last follow-up. Titanium and PEEK cages are associated with a similar rate of fusion, but there is an increased rate of subsidence with titanium cage. Future prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate these cages using surgical and patient-reported outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Clinical Neuroscience
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Titanium
Meta-Analysis
Spinal Fusion
polyetheretherketone
Diskectomy
Spine
Randomized Controlled Trials
Guidelines
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
  • PEEK cage
  • Polyetheretherketone cage
  • Spinal fusion
  • Titanium cage
  • Transforaminal interbody fusion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion : Meta-analysis and review of the literature. / Seaman, Scott; Kerezoudis, Panagiotis; Bydon, Mohamad; Torner, James C.; Hitchon, Patrick W.

In: Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Seaman, Scott ; Kerezoudis, Panagiotis ; Bydon, Mohamad ; Torner, James C. ; Hitchon, Patrick W. / Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion : Meta-analysis and review of the literature. In: Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 2017.
@article{92258e462c8449c3bb61a96a71cb04d5,
title = "Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: Meta-analysis and review of the literature",
abstract = "Spinal interbody fusion is a standard and accepted method for spinal fusion. Interbody fusion devices include titanium (Ti) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with distinct biomechanical properties. Titanium and PEEK cages have been evaluated in the cervical and lumbar spine, with conflicting results in bony fusion and subsidence. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we reviewed the available literature evaluating Ti and PEEK cages to assess subsidence and fusion rates. Six studies were included in the analysis, 3 of which were class IV evidence, 2 were class III, and 1 was class II. A total of 410 patients (Ti-228, PEEK-182) and 587 levels (Ti-327, PEEK-260) were studied. Pooled mean age was 50.8years in the Ti group, and 53.1years in the PEEK group. Anterior cervical discectomy was performed in 4 studies (395 levels) and transforaminal interbody fusion in 2 studies (192 levels). No statistically significant difference was found between groups with fusion (OR 1.16, 95{\%} C.I 0.59-2.89, p=0.686, I2 =49.7{\%}) but there was a statistically significant the rate of subsidence with titanium (OR 3.59, 95{\%} C.I 1.28-10.07, p=0.015, I2 =56.9{\%}) at last follow-up. Titanium and PEEK cages are associated with a similar rate of fusion, but there is an increased rate of subsidence with titanium cage. Future prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate these cages using surgical and patient-reported outcomes.",
keywords = "Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, PEEK cage, Polyetheretherketone cage, Spinal fusion, Titanium cage, Transforaminal interbody fusion",
author = "Scott Seaman and Panagiotis Kerezoudis and Mohamad Bydon and Torner, {James C.} and Hitchon, {Patrick W.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.jocn.2017.06.062",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Neuroscience",
issn = "0967-5868",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion

T2 - Meta-analysis and review of the literature

AU - Seaman, Scott

AU - Kerezoudis, Panagiotis

AU - Bydon, Mohamad

AU - Torner, James C.

AU - Hitchon, Patrick W.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Spinal interbody fusion is a standard and accepted method for spinal fusion. Interbody fusion devices include titanium (Ti) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with distinct biomechanical properties. Titanium and PEEK cages have been evaluated in the cervical and lumbar spine, with conflicting results in bony fusion and subsidence. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we reviewed the available literature evaluating Ti and PEEK cages to assess subsidence and fusion rates. Six studies were included in the analysis, 3 of which were class IV evidence, 2 were class III, and 1 was class II. A total of 410 patients (Ti-228, PEEK-182) and 587 levels (Ti-327, PEEK-260) were studied. Pooled mean age was 50.8years in the Ti group, and 53.1years in the PEEK group. Anterior cervical discectomy was performed in 4 studies (395 levels) and transforaminal interbody fusion in 2 studies (192 levels). No statistically significant difference was found between groups with fusion (OR 1.16, 95% C.I 0.59-2.89, p=0.686, I2 =49.7%) but there was a statistically significant the rate of subsidence with titanium (OR 3.59, 95% C.I 1.28-10.07, p=0.015, I2 =56.9%) at last follow-up. Titanium and PEEK cages are associated with a similar rate of fusion, but there is an increased rate of subsidence with titanium cage. Future prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate these cages using surgical and patient-reported outcomes.

AB - Spinal interbody fusion is a standard and accepted method for spinal fusion. Interbody fusion devices include titanium (Ti) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages with distinct biomechanical properties. Titanium and PEEK cages have been evaluated in the cervical and lumbar spine, with conflicting results in bony fusion and subsidence. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we reviewed the available literature evaluating Ti and PEEK cages to assess subsidence and fusion rates. Six studies were included in the analysis, 3 of which were class IV evidence, 2 were class III, and 1 was class II. A total of 410 patients (Ti-228, PEEK-182) and 587 levels (Ti-327, PEEK-260) were studied. Pooled mean age was 50.8years in the Ti group, and 53.1years in the PEEK group. Anterior cervical discectomy was performed in 4 studies (395 levels) and transforaminal interbody fusion in 2 studies (192 levels). No statistically significant difference was found between groups with fusion (OR 1.16, 95% C.I 0.59-2.89, p=0.686, I2 =49.7%) but there was a statistically significant the rate of subsidence with titanium (OR 3.59, 95% C.I 1.28-10.07, p=0.015, I2 =56.9%) at last follow-up. Titanium and PEEK cages are associated with a similar rate of fusion, but there is an increased rate of subsidence with titanium cage. Future prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate these cages using surgical and patient-reported outcomes.

KW - Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

KW - PEEK cage

KW - Polyetheretherketone cage

KW - Spinal fusion

KW - Titanium cage

KW - Transforaminal interbody fusion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85025149181&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85025149181&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.06.062

DO - 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.06.062

M3 - Article

C2 - 28736113

AN - SCOPUS:85025149181

JO - Journal of Clinical Neuroscience

JF - Journal of Clinical Neuroscience

SN - 0967-5868

ER -