Cargando…

Does PEEK/HA Enhance Bone Formation Compared With PEEK in a Sheep Cervical Fusion Model?

BACKGROUND: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has a wide range of clinical applications but does not directly bond to bone. Bulk incorporation of osteoconductive materials including hydroxyapatite (HA) into the PEEK matrix is a potential solution to address the formation of a fibrous tissue layer between...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walsh, William R., Pelletier, Matthew H., Bertollo, Nicky, Christou, Chris, Tan, Chris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5052200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27549990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4994-x
_version_ 1782458190482374656
author Walsh, William R.
Pelletier, Matthew H.
Bertollo, Nicky
Christou, Chris
Tan, Chris
author_facet Walsh, William R.
Pelletier, Matthew H.
Bertollo, Nicky
Christou, Chris
Tan, Chris
author_sort Walsh, William R.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has a wide range of clinical applications but does not directly bond to bone. Bulk incorporation of osteoconductive materials including hydroxyapatite (HA) into the PEEK matrix is a potential solution to address the formation of a fibrous tissue layer between PEEK and bone and has not been tested. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using in vivo ovine animal models, we asked: (1) Does PEEK-HA improve cortical and cancellous bone ongrowth compared with PEEK? (2) Does PEEK-HA improve bone ongrowth and fusion outcome in a more challenging functional ovine cervical fusion model? METHODS: The in vivo responses of PEEK-HA Enhanced and PEEK-OPTIMA(®) Natural were evaluated for bone ongrowth in the form of dowels implanted in the cancellous and cortical bone of adult sheep and examined at 4 and 12 weeks as well as interbody cervical fusion at 6, 12, and 26 weeks. The bone-implant interface was evaluated with radiographic and histologic endpoints for a qualitative assessment of direct bone contact of an intervening fibrous tissue later. Gamma-irradiated cortical allograft cages were evaluated as well. RESULTS: Incorporating HA into the PEEK matrix resulted in more direct bone apposition as opposed to the fibrous tissue interface with PEEK alone in the bone ongrowth as well as interbody cervical fusions. No adverse reactions were found at the implant–bone interface for either material. Radiography and histology revealed resorption and fracture of the allograft devices in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating HA into PEEK provides a more favorable environment than PEEK alone for bone ongrowth. Cervical fusion was improved with PEEK-HA compared with PEEK alone as well as allograft bone interbody devices. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Improving the bone–implant interface with a PEEK device by incorporating HA may improve interbody fusion results and requires further clinical studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5052200
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50522002016-10-20 Does PEEK/HA Enhance Bone Formation Compared With PEEK in a Sheep Cervical Fusion Model? Walsh, William R. Pelletier, Matthew H. Bertollo, Nicky Christou, Chris Tan, Chris Clin Orthop Relat Res Symposium: Advances in PEEK Technology BACKGROUND: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has a wide range of clinical applications but does not directly bond to bone. Bulk incorporation of osteoconductive materials including hydroxyapatite (HA) into the PEEK matrix is a potential solution to address the formation of a fibrous tissue layer between PEEK and bone and has not been tested. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using in vivo ovine animal models, we asked: (1) Does PEEK-HA improve cortical and cancellous bone ongrowth compared with PEEK? (2) Does PEEK-HA improve bone ongrowth and fusion outcome in a more challenging functional ovine cervical fusion model? METHODS: The in vivo responses of PEEK-HA Enhanced and PEEK-OPTIMA(®) Natural were evaluated for bone ongrowth in the form of dowels implanted in the cancellous and cortical bone of adult sheep and examined at 4 and 12 weeks as well as interbody cervical fusion at 6, 12, and 26 weeks. The bone-implant interface was evaluated with radiographic and histologic endpoints for a qualitative assessment of direct bone contact of an intervening fibrous tissue later. Gamma-irradiated cortical allograft cages were evaluated as well. RESULTS: Incorporating HA into the PEEK matrix resulted in more direct bone apposition as opposed to the fibrous tissue interface with PEEK alone in the bone ongrowth as well as interbody cervical fusions. No adverse reactions were found at the implant–bone interface for either material. Radiography and histology revealed resorption and fracture of the allograft devices in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating HA into PEEK provides a more favorable environment than PEEK alone for bone ongrowth. Cervical fusion was improved with PEEK-HA compared with PEEK alone as well as allograft bone interbody devices. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Improving the bone–implant interface with a PEEK device by incorporating HA may improve interbody fusion results and requires further clinical studies. Springer US 2016-08-22 2016-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5052200/ /pubmed/27549990 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4994-x Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Symposium: Advances in PEEK Technology
Walsh, William R.
Pelletier, Matthew H.
Bertollo, Nicky
Christou, Chris
Tan, Chris
Does PEEK/HA Enhance Bone Formation Compared With PEEK in a Sheep Cervical Fusion Model?
title Does PEEK/HA Enhance Bone Formation Compared With PEEK in a Sheep Cervical Fusion Model?
title_full Does PEEK/HA Enhance Bone Formation Compared With PEEK in a Sheep Cervical Fusion Model?
title_fullStr Does PEEK/HA Enhance Bone Formation Compared With PEEK in a Sheep Cervical Fusion Model?
title_full_unstemmed Does PEEK/HA Enhance Bone Formation Compared With PEEK in a Sheep Cervical Fusion Model?
title_short Does PEEK/HA Enhance Bone Formation Compared With PEEK in a Sheep Cervical Fusion Model?
title_sort does peek/ha enhance bone formation compared with peek in a sheep cervical fusion model?
topic Symposium: Advances in PEEK Technology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5052200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27549990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4994-x
work_keys_str_mv AT walshwilliamr doespeekhaenhanceboneformationcomparedwithpeekinasheepcervicalfusionmodel
AT pelletiermatthewh doespeekhaenhanceboneformationcomparedwithpeekinasheepcervicalfusionmodel
AT bertollonicky doespeekhaenhanceboneformationcomparedwithpeekinasheepcervicalfusionmodel
AT christouchris doespeekhaenhanceboneformationcomparedwithpeekinasheepcervicalfusionmodel
AT tanchris doespeekhaenhanceboneformationcomparedwithpeekinasheepcervicalfusionmodel