Cargando…
The SNAP Trial: 2-Year Results of a Double-Blind Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of a Silicon Nitride Versus a PEEK Cage in Patients After Lumbar Fusion Surgery
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: Lumbar interbody fusion with cages is performed to provide vertebral stability, restore alignment, and maintain disc and foraminal height. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is commonly used. Silicon nitride (Si(3)N(4)) is an alternative material with...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9609539/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33406905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2192568220985472 |
Sumario: | STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVES: Lumbar interbody fusion with cages is performed to provide vertebral stability, restore alignment, and maintain disc and foraminal height. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is commonly used. Silicon nitride (Si(3)N(4)) is an alternative material with good osteointegrative properties. This study was designed to assess if Si(3)N(4) cages perform similar to PEEK. METHODS: A non-inferiority double-blind multicenter RCT was designed. Patients presenting with chronic low-back pain with or without leg pain were included. Single- or double-level instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) using an oblique PEEK or Si(3)N(4) cage was performed. The primary outcome was the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). The non-inferiority margin for the RMDQ was 2.6 points on a scale of 24. Secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODI), Visual Analogue Scales (VAS), SF-36 Physical Function, patient and surgeon Likert scores, radiographic evaluations for subsidence, segmental motion, and fusion. Follow-up was planned at 3, 6, 12, and 24-months. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients were randomized (i.e. 48 to PEEK and 44 to Si(3)N(4)). Both groups showed good clinical improvements on the RMDQ scores of up to 5-8 points during follow-up. No statistically significant differences were observed in clinical and radiographic outcomes. Mean operative time and blood loss were statistically significantly higher for the Si(3)N(4) cohort. Although not statistically significant, there was a higher incidence of complications and revisions associated with the Si(3)N(4) cage. CONCLUSIONS: There was insufficient evidence to conclude that Si(3)N(4) was non-inferior to PEEK. |
---|