PEEK Versus Ti Interbody Fusion Devices: Resultant Fusion, Bone Apposition, Initial and 26-Week Biomechanics
- PMID: 22801456
- DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31826851a4
PEEK Versus Ti Interbody Fusion Devices: Resultant Fusion, Bone Apposition, Initial and 26-Week Biomechanics
Abstract
Study design: Comparative evaluation of in vitro and in vivo biomechanics, resulting fusion and histomorphometric aspects of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) versus titanium (Ti) interbody fusion devices in an animal model with similar volumes of bone graft.
Objective: Identify differences in the characteristics of fusion and biomechanics immediately following implantation (time 0) and at 26 weeks with each interbody implant.
Summary of background data: PEEK has been well accepted in spinal surgery, it provides a closer match to the mechanical properties of bone than metallic implants such as Ti. This is thought to reduce graft stress shielding and subsidence of interbody fusion devices. There remains controversy as to the overall influence of this as a factor influencing resultant fusion and initial stability. Although material modulus is 1 factor of importance, other design factors are likely to play a large role determining overall performance of an interbody implant.
Methods: A Ti and PEEK device of similar size with a central void to accommodate graft material were compared. The PEEK device had a ridged surface on the caudal and cephalad surfaces, whereas Ti device allowed axial compliance and had bone ingrowth endplates and polished internal surfaces. A 2-level ALIF was performed in 9 sheep and fusion, biomechanics, and bone apposition were evaluated at 26 weeks. Time 0 in vitro biomechanical tests were performed to establish initial stability immediately after implantation.
Results: No differences were detected in the biomechanical measures of each of the devices in in vitro time 0 tests. All levels were fused by 26 weeks with considerably lower range of motion when compared with in vitro tests. Range of motion in all modes of bending was reduced by over 70% when compared with intact values for axial rotation (Ti-74%, PEEK-71%), lateral bending (Ti-90%, PEEK-88%), and flexion/extension (Ti-92%, PEEK-91%). Mechanical properties of fusions formed with each implant did not differ; however, bone apposition was variable with polished internal Ti surfaces being lower than PEEK and treated Ti endplates showing the greatest levels. Graft material displayed axial trabecular alignment with both implants.
Conclusions: Although material properties and surface characteristics resulted in differing amounts of biological integration from the host, both implants were capable of producing excellent fusion results using similar volumes of bone graft.
Similar articles
-
Biomechanical rationale for using polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for lumbar interbody fusion-A finite element study.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006 Dec 15;31(26):E992-8. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000250177.84168.ba. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006. PMID: 17172990
-
Host bone response to polyetheretherketone versus porous tantalum implants for cervical spinal fusion in a goat model.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 May 1;37(10):E571-80. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318240f981. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012. PMID: 22146277
-
Porous titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium cage has better osseointegration and less micromotion than a poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in sheep vertebral fusion.Artif Organs. 2013 Dec;37(12):E191-201. doi: 10.1111/aor.12153. Epub 2013 Oct 22. Artif Organs. 2013. PMID: 24147953
-
Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: Meta-analysis and review of the literature.J Clin Neurosci. 2017 Oct;44:23-29. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.06.062. Epub 2017 Jul 21. J Clin Neurosci. 2017. PMID: 28736113 Review.
-
Titanium (Ti) cages may be superior to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes of spinal interbody fusions using Ti versus PEEK cages.Eur Spine J. 2021 May;30(5):1285-1295. doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06748-w. Epub 2021 Feb 8. Eur Spine J. 2021. PMID: 33555365 Review.
Cited by
-
Animal Model for Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Literature Review.Spine Surg Relat Res. 2024 Mar 11;8(4):373-382. doi: 10.22603/ssrr.2023-0262. eCollection 2024 Jul 27. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2024. PMID: 39131411 Free PMC article. Review.
-
In vivo Assessment of AMP2, a Novel Ceramic-Binding BMP-2, in Ovine Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2024 Oct 1;49(19):1381-1390. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000005091. Epub 2024 Jul 11. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2024. PMID: 38988089 Free PMC article.
-
Immune cell response to orthopedic and craniofacial biomaterials depends on biomaterial composition.Acta Biomater. 2023 Apr 15;161:285-297. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2023.03.007. Epub 2023 Mar 9. Acta Biomater. 2023. PMID: 36905954 Free PMC article.
-
Factors influencing cage subsidence in anterior cervical corpectomy and discectomy: a systematic review.Eur Spine J. 2023 Mar;32(3):957-968. doi: 10.1007/s00586-023-07530-w. Epub 2023 Jan 28. Eur Spine J. 2023. PMID: 36708398 Review.
-
The improved bioactive n-HA/PA66 cage versus the PEEK cage in anterior cervical fusion: results from a 6-year follow-up and a case-matched study.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Dec 21;23(1):1113. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-06081-3. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022. PMID: 36544134 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Research Materials