Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goldberg, Jacob L., Meaden, Ross M., Hussain, Ibrahim, Gadjradj, Pravesh S., Quraishi, Danyal, Sommer, Fabian, Carnevale, Joseph A., Medary, Branden, Wright, Drew, Riew, K. Daniel, Hartl, Roger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9560672/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36248133
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2022.100923
_version_ 1784807804482093056
author Goldberg, Jacob L.
Meaden, Ross M.
Hussain, Ibrahim
Gadjradj, Pravesh S.
Quraishi, Danyal
Sommer, Fabian
Carnevale, Joseph A.
Medary, Branden
Wright, Drew
Riew, K. Daniel
Hartl, Roger
author_facet Goldberg, Jacob L.
Meaden, Ross M.
Hussain, Ibrahim
Gadjradj, Pravesh S.
Quraishi, Danyal
Sommer, Fabian
Carnevale, Joseph A.
Medary, Branden
Wright, Drew
Riew, K. Daniel
Hartl, Roger
author_sort Goldberg, Jacob L.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9560672
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95606722022-10-14 Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review Goldberg, Jacob L. Meaden, Ross M. Hussain, Ibrahim Gadjradj, Pravesh S. Quraishi, Danyal Sommer, Fabian Carnevale, Joseph A. Medary, Branden Wright, Drew Riew, K. Daniel Hartl, Roger Brain Spine Article 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. Elsevier 2022-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9560672/ /pubmed/36248133 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2022.100923 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Goldberg, Jacob L.
Meaden, Ross M.
Hussain, Ibrahim
Gadjradj, Pravesh S.
Quraishi, Danyal
Sommer, Fabian
Carnevale, Joseph A.
Medary, Branden
Wright, Drew
Riew, K. Daniel
Hartl, Roger
Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review
title Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review
title_full Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review
title_fullStr Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review
title_short Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review
title_sort titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9560672/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36248133
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bas.2022.100923
work_keys_str_mv AT goldbergjacobl titaniumversuspolyetheretherketoneversusstructuralallograftinanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionasystematicreview
AT meadenrossm titaniumversuspolyetheretherketoneversusstructuralallograftinanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionasystematicreview
AT hussainibrahim titaniumversuspolyetheretherketoneversusstructuralallograftinanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionasystematicreview
AT gadjradjpraveshs titaniumversuspolyetheretherketoneversusstructuralallograftinanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionasystematicreview
AT quraishidanyal titaniumversuspolyetheretherketoneversusstructuralallograftinanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionasystematicreview
AT sommerfabian titaniumversuspolyetheretherketoneversusstructuralallograftinanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionasystematicreview
AT carnevalejosepha titaniumversuspolyetheretherketoneversusstructuralallograftinanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionasystematicreview
AT medarybranden titaniumversuspolyetheretherketoneversusstructuralallograftinanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionasystematicreview
AT wrightdrew titaniumversuspolyetheretherketoneversusstructuralallograftinanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionasystematicreview
AT riewkdaniel titaniumversuspolyetheretherketoneversusstructuralallograftinanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionasystematicreview
AT hartlroger titaniumversuspolyetheretherketoneversusstructuralallograftinanteriorcervicaldiscectomyandfusionasystematicreview