Outcome of Ti/PEEK Versus PEEK Cages in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Study Design: Retrospective case-control study. Objectives: This study aims to present the clinical and radiographical outcomes of the titanium-polyetheretherketone (Ti/PEEK) composite cage compared to those of the standard PEEK cage in patients receiving minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF). Methods: Patients receiving 1 level MI-TLIF between October 2015 and October 2017 were included with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. The patients were segregated into 2 groups; Ti/PEEK group and PEEK group. Each patient was propensity-matched using preoperative age, sex, and body mass index. Early fusion rate was evaluated by computed tomography at postoperative 6 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores. Results: After matching, there were 27 patients included in each group. The demographics, diagnosis, and surgical details were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The 6-month rate was 88.9% in Ti/PEEK group. The fusion rate and cage subsidence rate had no difference between the 2 groups. The complication rate in the Ti/PEEK group was comparable to that in the PEEK group. There was no difference in VAS and ODI scores during a 2-year follow-up period. Conclusions: The use of Ti/PEEK composite cage was as safe and effective as the use of PEEK cage in MI-TLIF. The 6-month fusion rate was 88.9%. Our finding revealed comparable clinical results for surgeons using Ti/PEEK composite cages in MI-TLIF compared to those using the PEEK cage.

[1]  John H. Shin,et al.  Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature , 2020, Neurospine.

[2]  Zeyan Liang,et al.  Comparative Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Bone Morphogenetic Protein Versus Autologous Iliac Crest Bone Graft in Lumbar Fusion , 2020, Spine.

[3]  L. Felli,et al.  Fusion rate and influence of surgery-related factors in lumbar interbody arthrodesis for degenerative spine diseases: a meta-analysis and systematic review , 2020, MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY.

[4]  Samuel K. Cho,et al.  Biomaterials in Spinal Implants: A Review , 2019, Neurospine.

[5]  Nader S. Dahdaleh,et al.  A Systematic Review of Complications Following Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Including Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2019, Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.

[6]  Ming-Chau Chang,et al.  Differences in the interbody bone graft area and fusion rate between minimally invasive and traditional open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a retrospective short-term image analysis , 2019, European Spine Journal.

[7]  Kern Singh,et al.  Interbody options in lumbar fusion. , 2019, Journal of spine surgery.

[8]  P. Passias,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Two Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Techniques: Open TLIF Versus Wiltse MIS TLIF , 2019, Spine.

[9]  A. Schoenfeld,et al.  Critical analysis of trends in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders revisited: influence of technique on fusion rate and clinical outcomes , 2018, European Spine Journal.

[10]  J. P. Price,et al.  Clinical and Radiologic Comparison of Minimally Invasive Surgery With Traditional Open Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Review of 452 Patients From a Single Center , 2018, Clinical spine surgery.

[11]  Michael J Lee,et al.  Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Traditional Open Versus Minimally Invasive Techniques. , 2018, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[12]  Nianli Zhang,et al.  Evaluation of a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) titanium composite interbody spacer in an ovine lumbar interbody fusion model: biomechanical, microcomputed tomographic, and histologic analyses. , 2017, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[13]  Rodrigo Navarro-Ramirez,et al.  Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-analysis of the Fusion Rates. What is the Optimal Graft Material? , 2017, Neurosurgery.

[14]  J. Torner,et al.  Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: Meta-analysis and review of the literature , 2017, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[15]  P. Robertson,et al.  Do position and size matter? An analysis of cage and placement variables for optimum lordosis in PLIF reconstruction , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[16]  W. Walsh,et al.  Combination Ti/PEEK ALIF cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: Early clinical and radiological results , 2016, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[17]  F. Cammisa,et al.  Optimizing surface characteristics for cell adhesion and proliferation on titanium plasma spray coatings on polyetheretherketone. , 2016, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[18]  Alan H. Daniels,et al.  Advances in Spinal Interbody Cages , 2016, Orthopaedic surgery.

[19]  R. Mobbs,et al.  Evolution of Design of Interbody Cages for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2016, Orthopaedic surgery.

[20]  W. Walsh,et al.  Titanium/Polyetheretherketone Cages for Cervical Arthrodesis with Degenerative and Traumatic Pathologies: Early Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Rates , 2016, Orthopaedic surgery.

[21]  W. Walsh,et al.  Radiological and clinical outcomes of novel Ti/PEEK combined spinal fusion cages: a systematic review and preclinical evaluation , 2017, European Spine Journal.

[22]  W. Walsh,et al.  The design evolution of interbody cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review , 2015, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[23]  B. Boyan,et al.  Implant Materials Generate Different Peri-implant Inflammatory Factors , 2015, Spine.

[24]  B. Boyan,et al.  Implant osseointegration and the role of microroughness and nanostructures: lessons for spine implants. , 2014, Acta biomaterialia.

[25]  K. Satake,et al.  Volumetric change in interbody bone graft after posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF): a prospective study , 2014, European Spine Journal.

[26]  W. Walsh,et al.  Spine Interbody Implants: Material Selection and Modification, Functionalization and Bioactivation of Surfaces to Improve Osseointegration , 2014, Orthopaedic surgery.

[27]  Moon-Chan Kim,et al.  Subsidence of Polyetheretherketone Cage After Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2013, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

[28]  P. Ullrich,et al.  Osteoblasts exhibit a more differentiated phenotype and increased bone morphogenetic protein production on titanium alloy substrates than on poly-ether-ether-ketone. , 2012, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[29]  Hye Soo Lee,et al.  Fusion rates of a morselized local bone graft in polyetheretherketone cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion by quantitative analysis using consecutive three-dimensional computed tomography scans. , 2011, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[30]  J. Ha,et al.  The effect of a radiographic solid fusion on clinical outcomes after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. , 2011, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[31]  A. Neidre,et al.  Fusion assessment of posterior lumbar interbody fusion using radiolucent cages: X-ray films and helical computed tomography scans compared with surgical exploration of fusion. , 2008, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[32]  Viola Bullmann,et al.  Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a safe technique with satisfactory three to five year results , 2005, European Spine Journal.

[33]  E PIDEMIOLOGY Implant Materials Generate Different Peri-implant In fl ammatory Factors Poly-ether-ether-ketone Promotes Fibrosis and Microtextured Titanium Promotes Osteogenic Factors , 2022 .