CERVICAL DISC REPLACEMENT WITH POLYETHERETHERKETONE CAGES: CLINICAL EXPERIENCE WITH 151 CASES
Abstract
Background: There is active debate amongst surgeons regarding best available method for cervical inter-body fusion. This study evaluates success of disc replacement with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in patients operated for cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy. Methods: This case series was conducted between 2008 and 2012 during which 151 patients were treated with cervical inter-body fusion with PEEK cages. PEEK cages were packed with cancellous bone taken from iliac crest. The duration of follow up was 1 year. Subsidence, fusion, cage migration, and/or breakage were assessed using serial cervical X-Rays. Results: Mean age was 42.6 years with standard deviation of 9.37. No implant insufficiency was observed in any case while fusion rate was 100%. Conclusion: Many techniques and materials are available for use in vertebral inter-body fusion. The use of PEEK cage seems to be a good alternative in that it has minimal complications and gives excellent results in skilled hands and gives results comparable to other options.
Keywords: Cervical discectomy, inter body implant, PEEK cageReferences
Epstein NE. Iliac crest autograft versus alternative constructs for anterior cervical spine surgery: Pros, cons, and costs. Surg Neurol Int 2012;3(Suppl 3):S143-56.
Parker, D., Bussink, J., van de Grampel, H. T., Wheatley, G. W., Dorf, E.-U., Ostlinning, E., Reinking, K., Schubert, F., Jünger, O. and Wagener, R. 2012. Polymers, High-Temperature. Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry
Ng ZY, Nawaz I. Computer-Designed PEEK Implants: A Peek Into The Future of Cranioplasty? J Craniofac Surg 2014;25(1):e55-8.
Mastronardi L, Ducati A, Ferrante L. Anterior cervical fusion with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the treatment of degenerative disc disease. Preliminary observations in 36 consecutive cases with a minimum 12-month follow-up. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2006;148:307-12.
Popescu CE, Muller JU, Costachescu B. 1 year experience with Solis PEEK cages in cervical discectomy and fusion. Romanian Neurosurgery 2008;16 nr.2:27-33.
Thorell W, Cooper J, Hellbusch L, Leibrock L. The long term clinical outcome of patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy with and without intervertebral bone graft placement. Neurosurgery 1998;43:268-73.
Watters WC 3rd, Levinthal R. Anterior cervical discectomy with and without fusion: results complications and long term follow up. Spine 1994;19:2343-7.
Wilson DH, Campbell DD. Anterior cervical discectomy without bone graft. Report of 71 cases. J Neurosurg 1977;47:551-5.
Sonntag VK, Klara P. Controversy in spine care. Is fusion necessary after anterior cervical discectomy? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996;21:1111-3.
Kraft M, Koch DK, Bushelow M. An investigation into PEEK-on-PEEK as a bearing surface candidate for cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 2012;12(7):603-11.
Kahraman S, Daneyemez M, Kayali H, Solmaz I, Beduk A, Akay M. Polyetheretherketone (Peek) Cages For Cervical Interbody Replacement: Clinical Experience. Turk Neurosurg 2006;16(3):120-3.
Brown MD, Malinin TI, Davis PB. A roentgenographic evaluation of frozen allografts versus autografts in anterior cervical spine fusions. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1976;(119):231-6.
Cho DY, Liau WR, Lee WY, Liu JT, Chiu CL, Sheu PC. Preliminary experience using a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in the treatment of cervical disc disease. Neurosurgery 2002;51:1343-9.
Krammer M, Dietl R, Lumenta CB, Kettler A, Wilke HJ, Buttner A, et al. Resistance of the lumbar spine against axial compression forces after implantation of three different posterior lumbar interbody cages. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2001;143:1217-22.
Wilke HJ, Kettler A, Claes L. Stabilizing effect and sintering tendency of 3 different cages and bone cement for fusion of cervical vertebrae segments. Orthopade 2002;31(5):472-80.
Casey AT. Bone grafts and anterior cervical discectomy-lack of evidence, but no lack of opinion. Br J Neurosurg 1999;13:445-8.
Savolainen S, Usenius JP, Hernesniemi J. Iliac crest versus artificial bone grafts in 250 cervical fusions. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1994;129(1-2):54-7.
Siddiqui AA, Jackowski A (2003) Cage versus tricortical graft for cervical interbody fusion. A prospective randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85-B(7):1019-25.
Pelletier M, Cordaro N, Lau A, Walsh WR. (2012) PEEK Versus Ti Interbody Fusion Devices: Resultant Fusion, Bone Apposition, Initial and 26 Week Biomechanics. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2012; [Epub ahead of print]
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad is an OPEN ACCESS JOURNAL which means that all content is FREELY available without charge to all users whether registered with the journal or not. The work published by J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad is licensed and distributed under the creative commons License CC BY ND Attribution-NoDerivs. Material printed in this journal is OPEN to access, and are FREE for use in academic and research work with proper citation. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad accepts only original material for publication with the understanding that except for abstracts, no part of the data has been published or will be submitted for publication elsewhere before appearing in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. The Editorial Board of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad makes every effort to ensure the accuracy and authenticity of material printed in J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. However, conclusions and statements expressed are views of the authors and do not reflect the opinion/policy of J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad or the Editorial Board.
USERS are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
AUTHORS retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks such as ResearchGate, Academia.eu, and social media sites such as Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Scholar and any other professional or academic networking site.
