Reduced Subsidence With PEEK-Titanium Composite Versus 3D Titanium Cages in a Retrospective, Self-Controlled Study in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion

Ali Chahlavi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21925682241253168
2024-05-24
Global Spine Journal
Abstract:Global Spine Journal, Ahead of Print. Study DesignRetrospective Study.ObjectivesTo compare subsidence and radiographic fusion rates of titanium-surface polyetheretherketone (PEEK-Ti) and 3D-Titanium (3D-Ti) cages, implanted within the same patient concurrently, during multi-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIF).MethodsForty-eight patients were treated with both PEEK-Ti and 3D-Ti cages during 2- or 3-level TLIF and instrumented posterolateral fusion (108 spinal levels in all). Equivalent bone graft material was implanted within each patient. Radiographic analysis of CT and/or X-ray imaging was performed retrospectively for each spinal level throughout 12-month follow-up period. Fusion was defined as bridging trabecular bone and subsidence was incursion into one/both vertebral bodies >20% cage height. Outcomes were analyzed with Fisher's exact test.ResultsAt 6-months post-operative follow-up, incidence of subsidence was significantly lower for PEEK-Ti cages, with 4.8% subsidence, compared to a 27.9% subsidence rate for 3D-Ti cages (P = .007). Fusion rates were comparable at 100% for PEEK-Ti and 95.5% for 3D-Ti. Results at 12-months showed similar but not statistically significant trends of less subsidence with PEEK-Ti than 3D-Ti cages (14.3% PEEK-Ti, 37.5% 3D-Ti), and similar fusion rates of 100% for PEEK-Ti and 91.7% for 3D-Ti. Thirty-nine out of 48 total patients were available for follow-up at 6 months and 20 patients at 12 months. CT availability at 6 and 12-months was 100% and 90%, respectively.ConclusionsA significantly lower subsidence rate was associated with a PEEK-Ti cage, compared to 3D-Ti, 6 months after TLIF. Results may not be generalized across technologies due to differences in cage designs; additional research studies are warranted.
clinical neurology,orthopedics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?