The Impact of Instrumentation and Implant Surface Technology on Cervical and Thoracolumbar Fusion.

Spinal fusion has undergone significant evolution and improvement over the past 50 yr. Historically, spine fusion was noninstrumented and arthrodesis was based entirely on autograft. Improved understanding of spinal anatomy and materials science ushered in a new era of spinal fusion equipped with screw-based technologies and various interbody devices. Osteobiologics is another important realm of spine fusion, and the evolution of various osteobiologics has perhaps undergone the most change within the past 20 yr. A new element to spinal instrumentation has recently gained traction-namely, surface technology. New data suggest that surface treatments play an increasingly well-recognized role in inducing osteogenesis and successful fusion. Until now, however, there has yet to be a unified resource summarizing the existing data and a lack of consensus exists on superior technology. Here, authors provide an in-depth review on surface technology and its impact on spinal arthrodesis.

[1]  A. Brush,et al.  Peek , 2020, Community eye health.

[2]  S. Virk,et al.  The Importance of Surface Technology in Spinal Fusion , 2020, HSS Journal ®.

[3]  Khoi D. Than,et al.  PEEK interbody devices for multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: association with more than 6-fold higher rates of pseudarthrosis compared to structural allograft. , 2020, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[4]  John H. Shin,et al.  Structural Allograft versus Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Implants in patients undergoing Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. , 2020, World neurosurgery.

[5]  Dong Nyoung Heo,et al.  Double layers of gold nanoparticles immobilized titanium implants improve the osseointegration in rabbit models. , 2019, Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine.

[6]  R. Mobbs,et al.  History of Integral Fixation for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF): The Hartshill Horseshoe. , 2019, World neurosurgery.

[7]  S. Fuchs,et al.  Evaluation of bone allograft processing methods: Impact on decellularization efficacy, biocompatibility and mesenchymal stem cell functionality , 2019, PloS one.

[8]  Michael J Lee,et al.  Cages in ACDF are Associated With a Higher Nonunion Rate Than Allograft: A Stratified Comparative Analysis of 6130 Patients , 2019, Spine.

[9]  M. Fernández-Fairen,et al.  Eleven-Year Follow-Up of Two Cohorts of Patients Comparing Stand-Alone Porous Tantalum Cage Versus Autologous Bone Graft and Plating in Anterior Cervical Fusions. , 2019, World neurosurgery.

[10]  W. Walsh,et al.  Integral Fixation Titanium/Polyetheretherketone Cages for Cervical Arthrodesis: Evolution of Cage Design and Early Radiological Outcomes and Fusion Rates , 2019, Orthopaedic surgery.

[11]  K. Than,et al.  Fivefold higher rate of pseudarthrosis with polyetheretherketone interbody device than with structural allograft used for 1-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. , 2019, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[12]  D. Cook,et al.  Porous titanium-coated polyetheretherketone implants exhibit an improved bone–implant interface: an in vitro and in vivo biochemical, biomechanical, and histological study , 2018, Medical devices.

[13]  K. Rijkers,et al.  Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Historical Overview and a Future Perspective , 2018, Spine.

[14]  S. Inami,et al.  Pedicle screws with a thin hydroxyapatite coating for improving fixation at the bone-implant interface in the osteoporotic spine: experimental study in a porcine model. , 2018, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[15]  L. Benneker,et al.  First Results of a New Vacuum Plasma Sprayed (VPS) Titanium-Coated Carbon/PEEK Composite Cage for Lumbar Interbody Fusion , 2018, Journal of functional biomaterials.

[16]  R. Lindtner,et al.  Pedicle screw anchorage of carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK screws under cyclic loading , 2018, European Spine Journal.

[17]  C. M. Portela,et al.  Additive manufacturing of 3D nano-architected metals , 2018, Nature Communications.

[18]  J. Yang,et al.  Metallosis: A Complication in the Guided Growing Rod System Used in Treatment of Scoliosis , 2017, Indian journal of orthopaedics.

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

[20]  S. Matsuda,et al.  In vivo experimental study of anterior cervical fusion using bioactive polyetheretherketone in a canine model , 2017, PloS one.

[21]  B. Meyer,et al.  Radiolucent Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Pedicle Screws for Treatment of Spinal Tumors: Advantages for Radiation Planning and Follow-Up Imaging. , 2017, World neurosurgery.

[22]  G. Blunn,et al.  Fretting corrosion behavior of nitinol spinal rods in conjunction with titanium pedicle screws. , 2017, Materials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications.

[23]  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.

[24]  R. Raiszadeh,et al.  Arthrodesis Rate and Patient Reported Outcomes After Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Utilizing a Plasma-Sprayed Titanium Coated PEEK Interbody Implant: A Retrospective, Observational Analysis , 2017, International Journal of Spine Surgery.

[25]  M. Meglio,et al.  Anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion with porous tantalum implant. Results in a series with long-term follow-up , 2016, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[26]  B. Hazer,et al.  Antimicrobial Effect of Polymer-Based Silver Nanoparticle Coated Pedicle Screws: Experimental Research on Biofilm Inhibition in Rabbits , 2016, Spine.

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

[28]  Joseph S. Cheng,et al.  Cost Per Quality-adjusted Life Year Gained of Revision Fusion for Lumbar Pseudoarthrosis: Defining the Value of Surgery , 2015, Journal of spinal disorders & techniques.

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

[30]  Huiliang Cao,et al.  In vitro and in vivo anti-biofilm effects of silver nanoparticles immobilized on titanium. , 2014, Biomaterials.

[31]  Yan Hu,et al.  Surface modification of titanium substrates with silver nanoparticles embedded sulfhydrylated chitosan/gelatin polyelectrolyte multilayer films for antibacterial application , 2014, Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine.

[32]  T. Cundy,et al.  Serum titanium, niobium and aluminium levels two years following instrumented spinal fusion in children: does implant surface area predict serum metal ion levels? , 2014, European Spine Journal.

[33]  W. Yuan,et al.  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 , 2013, European Spine Journal.

[34]  C. Hasler A brief overview of 100 years of history of surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis , 2013, Journal of children's orthopaedics.

[35]  M. Čabraja,et al.  Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages , 2012, BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders.

[36]  Yang Zhang,et al.  A comparative study on screw loosening in osteoporotic lumbar spine fusion between expandable and conventional pedicle screws , 2012, Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery.

[37]  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.

[38]  Jeffrey C. Wang,et al.  Challenges to bone formation in spinal fusion. , 2011, Journal of biomechanics.

[39]  Ming Xu,et al.  Mechanical and biological characteristics of diamond-like carbon coated poly aryl-ether-ether-ketone. , 2010, Biomaterials.

[40]  Thomas J Webster,et al.  The relationship between the nanostructure of titanium surfaces and bacterial attachment. , 2010, Biomaterials.

[41]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[42]  J. Schwartz,et al.  A nanoscale adhesion layer to promote cell attachment on PEEK. , 2009, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[43]  P. Newton,et al.  Pedicle Screw Surface Coatings Improve Fixation in Nonfusion Spinal Constructs , 2009, Spine.

[44]  S. Ferguson,et al.  Potential of chemically modified hydrophilic surface characteristics to support tissue integration of titanium dental implants. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[45]  B. Boyan,et al.  Effect of micrometer-scale roughness of the surface of Ti6Al4V pedicle screws in vitro and in vivo. , 2008, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[46]  G. Gronowicz,et al.  The in vitro response of human osteoblasts to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) substrates compared to commercially pure titanium. , 2008, Biomaterials.

[47]  S. Kurtz,et al.  PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants. , 2007, Biomaterials.

[48]  F. H. Albee THE CLASSIC: Transplantation of a Portion of the Tibia Into the Spine for Pott's Disease: A Preliminary Report , 2007 .

[49]  K. Das,et al.  Comparison of polyetheretherketone cages with femoral cortical bone allograft as a single-piece interbody spacer in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. , 2006, Journal of neurosurgery. Spine.

[50]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Optimum surface properties of oxidized implants for reinforcement of osseointegration: surface chemistry, oxide thickness, porosity, roughness, and crystal structure. , 2005, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[51]  Harshpal Singh,et al.  History of posterior thoracic instrumentation. , 2004, Neurosurgical focus.

[52]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Clinical and histologic aspects of dental implants removed due to mobility. , 2003, Journal of periodontology.

[53]  Julie Gold,et al.  An in vivo study of bone response to implants topographically modified by laser micromachining. , 2003, Biomaterials.

[54]  W. Davros,et al.  Spine Fusion Using Cell Matrix Composites Enriched in Bone Marrow-Derived Cells , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[55]  T. Albert,et al.  Donor Site Morbidity After Anterior Iliac Crest Bone Harvest for Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion , 2003, Spine.

[56]  Kelly M Malloy,et al.  Autograft versus Allograft in Degenerative Cervical Disease , 2002, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[57]  B. Sandén,et al.  Hydroxyapatite coating enhances fixation of loaded pedicle screws: a mechanical in vivo study in sheep , 2001, European Spine Journal.

[58]  D. Ohnmeiss,et al.  A meta-analysis of autograft versus allograft in anterior cervical fusion , 2000, European Spine Journal.

[59]  V A Marker,et al.  Implant materials, designs, and surface topographies: their effect on osseointegration. A literature review. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[60]  J. Schramm,et al.  Corrosion on an internal spinal fixator system. , 1999, Spine.

[61]  B. Guyuron,et al.  The fate of preserved autogenous bone graft. , 1997, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[62]  Banwart Jc,et al.  Iliac crest bone graft harvest donor site morbidity. A statistical evaluation. , 1995 .

[63]  Marc A. Asher,et al.  Iliac Crest Bone Graft Harvest Donor Site Morbidity: A Statistical Evaluation , 1995, Spine.

[64]  H. An,et al.  Prospective comparison of autograft vs. allograft for adult posterolateral lumbar spine fusion: differences among freeze-dried, frozen, and mixed grafts. , 1995, Journal of spinal disorders.

[65]  R. Pilliar,et al.  Threaded versus porous-surfaced designs for implant stabilization in bone-endodontic implant model. , 1986, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[66]  K. Heiple,et al.  The long-term fate of fresh and frozen orthotopic bone allografts in genetically defined rats. , 1985, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[67]  J. Mulliken,et al.  Donor-site morbidity after harvesting rib and iliac bone. , 1984, Plastic and reconstructive surgery.

[68]  S. Nade,et al.  Osteogenesis after bone and bone marrow transplantation. The ability of ceramic materials to sustain osteogenesis from transplanted bone marrow cells: preliminary studies. , 1983, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[69]  S. Nade,et al.  Osteogenesis after bone and bone marrow transplantation. Studies of cellular behaviour using combined myelo-osseous grafts in the subscorbutic guinea pig. , 1983, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[70]  C. R. Howlett,et al.  Formation of bone and cartilage by marrow stromal cells in diffusion chambers in vivo. , 1980, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[71]  S. Nade,et al.  Osteogenesis after bone and bone-marrow transplantation. I. Studies with combined myelo-osseous grafts in the guinea pig. , 1977, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[72]  E. Benzel,et al.  Quality of Life and Cost Implications of Pseudarthrosis after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion and its Subsequent Revision Surgery. , 2019, World neurosurgery.

[73]  Xi-lei Li,et al.  Comparison of stand-alone polyetheretherketone cages and iliac crest autografts for the treatment of cervical degenerative disc diseases , 2010, Acta Neurochirurgica.

[74]  R. Murali,et al.  History of instrumentation for stabilization of the subaxial cervical spine. , 2004, Neurosurgical focus.

[75]  N. Athanasou,et al.  Resorption of bone by inflammatory cells derived from the joint capsule of hip arthroplasties. , 1992, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[76]  S. Nade Osteogenesis after bone and bone marrow transplantation. II. The initial cellular events following transplantation of decalcified allografts of cancellous bone. , 1977, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.