Dataset Information

Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common procedure to address cervical spine pathology. The most common grafts used are titanium, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), or structural allograft. Comparison of fusion rate is difficult due to non-standardized methods of assessment. We stratified studies by method of fusion assessment and performed a systematic review of fusion rates for titanium, PEEK, and allograft.

Research question

Which of the common implants used in ACDF has the highest reported rate of fusion?

Materials and methods

An experienced librarian performed a five-database systematic search for published articles between 01/01/1990 and 08/07/2021. Studies performed in adults with at least 1 year of radiographic follow up were included. The primary outcome was the rate of fusion. Fusion criteria were stratified into 6 classes based upon best practices.

Results

34 studies met inclusion criteria. 10 studies involving 924 patients with 1094 cervical levels, used tier 1 fusion criteria and 6 studies (309 patients and 367 levels) used tier 2 fusion criteria. Forty seven percent of the studies used class 3-6 fusion criteria and were not included in the analysis. Fusion rates did differ between titanium (avg. 87.3%, range 84%-100%), PEEK (avg. 92.8%, range 62%-100%), and structural allograft (avg. 94.67%, range 82%-100%).

Discussion and conclusion

After stratifying studies by fusion criteria, significant heterogeneity in study design and fusion assessment prohibited the performance of a meta-analysis. Fusion rate did not differ by graft type. Important surgical goals aside from fusion rate, such as degree of deformity correction, could not be assessed. Future studies with standardized high-quality methods of assessing fusion, are required.

SUBMITTER: Goldberg JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9560672 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review.

Goldberg Jacob L JL Meaden Ross M RM Hussain Ibrahim I Gadjradj Pravesh S PS Quraishi Danyal D Sommer Fabian F Carnevale Joseph A JA Medary Branden B Wright Drew D Riew K Daniel KD Hartl Roger R

Brain & spine 20220822

<h4>Introduction</h4>Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common procedure to address cervical spine pathology. The most common grafts used are titanium, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), or structural allograft. Comparison of fusion rate is difficult due to non-standardized methods of assessment. We stratified studies by method of fusion assessment and performed a systematic review of fusion rates for titanium, PEEK, and allograft.<h4>Research question</h4>Which of the common implants ...[more]

PMID: 36248133

Similar Datasets

Project description:Among interbody implants used during anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), structural allografts and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) are the most used spacers. Currently, no consensus has been established regarding the superiority of either implant, with US surgeons preferring structural allografts, whereas UK surgeons preferring PEEK. The purpose of this systematic review (level of evidence, 4) was to compare postoperative and patient-reported outcomes between the use of structural allografts PEEK interbody spacers during ACDF. Five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) were searched for articles comparing the usage of structural allograft and PEEK interbody spacers during ACDF procedures from inception to April 10, 2023. The searches were conducted using the keywords "Spine," "Allograft," and "PEEK" and were performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. Subsequent quality and sensitivity analyses were performed on the included studies. Nine studies involving 1,074 patients were included. Compared with the PEEK group, the structural allograft group had comparable rates of postoperative pseudoarthrosis (p=0.58). However, when stratified according to the number of levels treated, the 3-level ACDF PEEK group was 3.45 times more likely to have postoperative pseudoarthrosis than the structural allograft group (p=0.01). Subsequent postoperative outcomes (rate of subsidence and change in the preoperative and postoperative segmental disc heights) were comparable between the PEEK and structural allograft groups. Patient-reported outcomes (Visual Analog Scale [VAS] of neck pain and Neck Disability Index [NDI]) were comparable. This study showed that for 3-level ACDFs, the use of structural allografts may confer higher fusion rates. However, VAS neck pain, NDI, and subsidence rates were comparable between structural allografts and PEEK cages. In addition, no significant difference in pseudoarthrosis rates was found between PEEK cages and structural allografts in patients undergoing 1- and 2-level ACDFs.

Project description:BackgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion is a standard surgical treatment for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy, but reoperations sometimes are performed to treat complications of fusion such as pseudarthrosis and adjacent-segment degeneration. A cervical disc arthroplasty is designed to preserve motion and avoid the shortcomings of fusion. Available evidence suggests that a cervical disc arthroplasty can provide pain relief and functional improvements similar or superior to an anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. However, there is controversy regarding whether a cervical disc arthroplasty can reduce the frequency of reoperations.Questions/purposesWe performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion regarding (1) the overall frequency of reoperation at the index and adjacent levels; (2) the frequency of reoperation at the index level; and (3) the frequency of reoperation at the adjacent levels.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to identify RCTs comparing cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and reporting the frequency of reoperation. We also manually searched the reference lists of articles and reviews for possible relevant studies. Twelve RCTs with a total of 3234 randomized patients were included. Eight types of disc prostheses were used in the included studies. In the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group, autograft was used in one study and allograft in 11 studies. Nine of 12 studies were industry sponsored. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and associated 95% CI were calculated for the frequency of reoperation using random-effects or fixed-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. A funnel plot suggested the possible presence of publication bias in the available pool of studies; that is, the shape of the plot suggests that smaller negative or no-difference studies may have been performed but have not been published, and so were not identified and included in this meta-analysis.ResultsThe overall frequency of reoperation at the index and adjacent levels was lower in the cervical disc arthroplasty group (6%; 108/1762) than in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion group (12%; 171/1472) (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.36-0.80; p = 0.002). Subgroup analyses were performed according to secondary surgical level. Compared with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc arthroplasty was associated with fewer reoperations at the index level (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.68; p < 0.001) and adjacent levels (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.74; p < 0.001).ConclusionsCervical disc arthroplasty is associated with fewer reoperations than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, indicating that it is a safe and effective alternative to fusion for cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. However, because of some limitations, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Additional studies are needed.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Project description:BackgroundCervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) has emerged as an alternative to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the treatment of cervical pathologies. Studies are on-going to assess the long term outcomes of CDA. This study assessed the safety and efficacy of the Prestige(®) LP Disc at 84-months follow up.MethodsProspective data from 280 CDA patients with single-level cervical disc disease with radiculopathy or myelopathy were compared with 265 historical control ACDF patients. Clinical and radiographic follow up was completed pre-operatively, intraoperatively, and at intervals up to 84 months.ResultsFollow-up rate was 75.9% for CDA and 70.0% for ACDF patients. Statistical improvements (p < 0.001) in Neck Disability Index (NDI), neck/arm pain, and SF-36 were achieved by 1.5 months in both groups and maintained through 84 months. At 84 months, 86.1% of CDA versus 80.1% of ACDF patients achieved NDI success, (≥15-point improvement over baseline). Mean NDI score improvements exceeded 30 points in both groups. SF-36 PCS/MCS mean improvements were 13.1±11.9/8.2±12.3 points for CDA and 10.7±11.8/8.3±13.6 points for ACDF. Neurological success was 92.8% for CDA and 79.7% for ACDF patients. The rate of Overall Success was 74.9% for CDA and 63.2% for ACDF. At 84 months, 17.5% of CDA and 16.6% of ACDF patients had a possibly implant- or implant-surgical procedure-related adverse event. Eighteen (6.4%) CDA and 29 (10.9%) ACDF patients had a second surgery at the index level. In CDA patients, mean angular motion at the target level was maintained at 24 (7.5°) and 84 (6.9°) months. Bridging bone was reported in 5.9%/9.5%/10.2%/13.0% of CDA patients at 24/36/60/84 months. Change in mean preoperative angulation of the adjacent segment above/below the index level was1.06±4.39/1.25±4.06 for CDA and (-0.23)±5.37/1.25±5.07 for ACDF patients. At 84 months, 90.9% of CDA and 85.6% of ACDF patients were satisfied with the results of their treatment.ConclusionsPrestige LP maintained significantly improved clinical outcomes and segmental motion; statistical superiority of CDA was concluded for overall success. This investigational device exemption study was sponsored by Medtronic Spinal and Biologics, Memphis, TN. Study approved by the Hughston Sports Medicine Center Institutional Review Board on January 7, 2005. Clinical trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00667459. All participants signed an informed consent.

Project description:BackgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) interbody implants are shaped anatomically, with a convex superior aspect, or lordotically, with an angle and flat surfaces. However, the effect of implant shape on cervical sagittal balance (CSB) is not well described.MethodsOf the 192 cases reviewed from 2018 to 2019, 118 were included with matching pre- and postoperative imaging. Cases were categorized by interbody implant type (anatomic or lordotic) and number of levels fused (1-level, 2-level, etc.). SurgiMap was used to measure cervical lordosis (CL), C2-C7 sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), T1 slope (T1S), and T1S minus CL (T1S-CL) on pre- and postoperative imaging. Pre- and postoperative parameters were compared within and between each cohort. Change in CL (ΔCL), cSVA (ΔcSVA), and T1S-CL (ΔT1S-CL) were calculated as the difference between pre- and postoperative values and were compared accordingly (1) anatomic versus lordotic and (2) 1-level versus 2-level versus 3-level fusion.ResultsThirty-nine (33.1%), 57 (48.3%), and 22 (18.6%) cases comprised the anatomic, lordotic, and mixed (anatomic and lordotic) groups, respectively. ACDFs improved CL and T1S-CL by 5.71° (p<.001) and 3.32° (p<.01), respectively. CL was improved in the lordotic (5.27°; p<.01) and anatomic (4.57°; p<.01) groups, while only the lordotic group demonstrated improvement in T1S-CL (3.4°; p=.02). There were no differences in ΔCL (p=.70), ΔcSVA (p=.89), or ΔT1S-CL (p=.1) between the groups. Two- and 3-level fusions improved CL by 7.48° (p<.01) and 9.62° (p<.01), and T1S-CL by 4.43° (p<.01) and 5.96° (p<.01), respectively.ConclusionsOverall, ACDFs significantly improved CL and T1S-CL however, there were no differences in CSB correction between the anatomic and lordotic groups. Two- and 3-level fusions more effectively improved CL (vs. single-level) and T1S-CL (vs. 3-level). These results suggest that implants should continue to be personalized to the patient's anatomy, however, future research is needed to validate these findings and incorporate the effects of preoperative deformities.

Dataset Information

Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review.

Introduction

Research question

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion and conclusion

Publications

Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets