TY - JOUR
T1 - Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion performed using structural allograft or polyetheretherketone
T2 - Pseudarthrosis and revision surgery rates with minimum 2-year follow-up
AU - Wang, Minghao
AU - Chou, Dean
AU - Chang, Chih Chang
AU - Hirpara, Ankit
AU - Liu, Yilin
AU - Chan, Andrew K.
AU - Pennicooke, Brenton
AU - Mummaneni, Praveen V.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© AANS 2020.
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - OBJECTIVE Both structural allograft and PEEK have been used for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). There are reports that PEEK has a higher pseudarthrosis rate than structural allograft. The authors compared pseudarthrosis, revision, subsidence, and loss of lordosis rates in patients with PEEK and structural allograft. METHODS The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who were treated with ACDF at their hospital between 2005 and 2017. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with either PEEK or structural allograft, anterior plate fixation, and a minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were hybrid PEEK and allograft cases, additional posterior surgery, adjacent corpectomies, infection, tumor, stand-alone or integrated screw and cage devices, bone morphogenetic protein use, or lack of a minimum 2-year follow-up. Demographic variables, number of treated levels, interbody type (PEEK cage vs structural allograft), graft packing material, pseudarthrosis rates, revision surgery rates, subsidence, and cervical lordosis changes were collected. These data were analyzed by Pearson�fs chi-square test (or Fisher�fs exact test, according to the sample size and expected value) and Student t-test. RESULTS A total of 168 patients (264 levels total, mean follow-up time 39.5 �} 24.0 months) were analyzed. Sixty-one patients had PEEK, and 107 patients had structural allograft. Pseudarthrosis rates for 1-level fusions were 5.4% (PEEK) and 3.4% (allograft) (p > 0.05); 2-level fusions were 7.1% (PEEK) and 8.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05); and . 3-level fusions were 10% (PEEK) and 11.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the subsidence magnitude between PEEK and allograft in 1-, 2-, and . 3-level ACDF (p > 0.05). Postoperative lordosis loss was not different between cohorts for 1- and 2-level surgeries. CONCLUSIONS In 1- and 2-level ACDF with plating involving the same number of fusion levels, there was no statistically significant difference in the pseudarthrosis rate, revision surgery rate, subsidence, and lordosis loss between PEEK cages and structural allograft.
AB - OBJECTIVE Both structural allograft and PEEK have been used for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). There are reports that PEEK has a higher pseudarthrosis rate than structural allograft. The authors compared pseudarthrosis, revision, subsidence, and loss of lordosis rates in patients with PEEK and structural allograft. METHODS The authors performed a retrospective review of patients who were treated with ACDF at their hospital between 2005 and 2017. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with either PEEK or structural allograft, anterior plate fixation, and a minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were hybrid PEEK and allograft cases, additional posterior surgery, adjacent corpectomies, infection, tumor, stand-alone or integrated screw and cage devices, bone morphogenetic protein use, or lack of a minimum 2-year follow-up. Demographic variables, number of treated levels, interbody type (PEEK cage vs structural allograft), graft packing material, pseudarthrosis rates, revision surgery rates, subsidence, and cervical lordosis changes were collected. These data were analyzed by Pearson�fs chi-square test (or Fisher�fs exact test, according to the sample size and expected value) and Student t-test. RESULTS A total of 168 patients (264 levels total, mean follow-up time 39.5 �} 24.0 months) were analyzed. Sixty-one patients had PEEK, and 107 patients had structural allograft. Pseudarthrosis rates for 1-level fusions were 5.4% (PEEK) and 3.4% (allograft) (p > 0.05); 2-level fusions were 7.1% (PEEK) and 8.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05); and . 3-level fusions were 10% (PEEK) and 11.1% (allograft) (p > 0.05). There was no statistical difference in the subsidence magnitude between PEEK and allograft in 1-, 2-, and . 3-level ACDF (p > 0.05). Postoperative lordosis loss was not different between cohorts for 1- and 2-level surgeries. CONCLUSIONS In 1- and 2-level ACDF with plating involving the same number of fusion levels, there was no statistically significant difference in the pseudarthrosis rate, revision surgery rate, subsidence, and lordosis loss between PEEK cages and structural allograft.
KW - ACDF
KW - Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion
KW - PEEK cage
KW - Pseudarthrosis
KW - Revision surgery
KW - Structural allograft
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85082760560&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3171/2019.9.SPINE19879
DO - 10.3171/2019.9.SPINE19879
M3 - Article
C2 - 31835252
AN - SCOPUS:85082760560
SN - 1547-5654
VL - 32
SP - 562
EP - 569
JO - Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
JF - Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
IS - 4
ER -