Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Study Design:

Systematic literature review.

Objective:

Our primary objective was to compare reported fusion rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using structural allograft versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody devices in patients with cervical spine degeneration. Our secondary objectives were to compare differences in rates of subsidence and reoperation and in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 groups.

Methods:

Through a systematic review of the English-language literature using various databases, we identified 4702 articles. After we applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, 14 articles (7 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective studies, and 3 retrospective studies) reporting fusion rates of structural allograft or PEEK interbody devices were eligible for our analysis. No randomized controlled trials compared outcomes of structural allograft versus PEEK interbody devices. Extracted data included authors, study years, study designs, sample sizes, patient ages, duration of follow-up, types of interbody devices used, fusion rates, definition of fusion, reoperation rates, subsidence rates, and patient-reported outcomes.

Results:

Fusion rates were 82% to 100% for allograft and 88% to 98% for PEEK interbody devices. The reported data were insufficient to perform meta-analysis. Structural allograft had the highest reported rate of reoperation (14%), and PEEK interbody devices had the highest reported subsidence rate (18%). Patient-reported outcomes improved in both groups. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to compare the associations of various PEEK modifications with fusion rates.

Conclusion:

Fusion rates were similar between structural allograft and PEEK interbody devices when used for ACDF for cervical spine degeneration. Currently, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess associations of PEEK modifications with fusion rates.

Level of Evidence:

II.

Keywords

allograft anterior cervical discectomy and fusion cervical spine degeneration fusion rate interbody device patient-reported outcome polyetheretherketone interbody device structural allograft systematic review

Introduction

Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) is a common surgical treatment for cervical spine degeneration and associated cervical nerve root or spinal cord compression.^1,2 Indications for ACDF include cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy secondary to degenerative disc disease, disc herniation, spondylosis, and spinal stenosis. Interbody devices used in ACDF facilitate fusion, correct kyphosis, and restore foraminal height.^3,4 When ACDF was initially described by Cloward⁵ in 1958, structural autograft bone was used for interbody support. However, during the past several decades, various alternatives to structural autograft have gained popularity, including structural cadaveric allograft, polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody devices, and metal interbody devices.⁶

A 2017 survey of AOSpine members found that PEEK interbody devices were commonly used world-wide and structural allografts were commonly used in North America.⁷ PEEK has multiple theoretical advantages, including biocompatibility, radiolucency, favorable elasticity, and ease of procurement and storage.^8
-10 The major drawback of PEEK is that it is bio-inert and limits host bone integration.¹¹ Various strategies have been proposed to improve the biologic integration of PEEK, including augmenting PEEK devices with graft extenders, such as demineralized bone matrix or cellular products, as well as modifications to the PEEK device.^12,13 Proposed modifications include surface enhancements, such as increased surface porosity or titanium coating, and impregnation of PEEK with bioactive materials such as hydroxyapatite.¹⁴ The effects of these modifications on fusion success and clinical outcomes are unclear.

Structural allograft, including cortical allograft, corticocancellous or composite grafts, and dense cancellous grafts, is an effective alternative to autograft to achieve bony fusion in ACDF.^15,16 Among surgeons who use allograft, cortical and corticocancellous composite grafts are more popular because they provide additional structural support and resistance against subsidence,¹⁷ whereas dense cancellous grafts have been reported to have high rates of resorption.¹⁸

Our primary objective was to compare reported fusion rates after ACDF using structural allograft versus PEEK interbody devices in patients with cervical spine degeneration. Our secondary objectives were to compare differences in the rates of subsidence and reoperation and in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 groups.

Methods

Our study used publicly available information and thus was not subject to review by our institutional review board.

Search Strategy

We designed our literature search in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.¹⁹ With the assistance of a clinical informationist, we performed a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CINAHL Plus databases in October 2018 (see Appendix 1 in the online version of the article). We identified 4702 articles (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Literature search performed using PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and CINAHL Plus databases in October 2018. The purpose was to compare the fusion rates of structural allograft versus polyetheretherketone interbody devices in patients who underwent anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical spine degeneration.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

We included studies that reported results of ACDF using structural allograft, PEEK interbody devices, or modified PEEK interbody devices; analyzed patients aged ≥18 years; included results of >20 patients; were published in 1993 or later; were written in English; were randomized controlled trials or retrospective, prospective, or observational cohort studies; and reported 2-year radiographic follow-up. (For comparative studies in which only 1 of the study groups met the eligibility criteria, we limited our data abstraction and analysis to that group.)

We excluded studies that reported on ACDF using zero-profile or stand-alone devices; ACDF performed without anterior cervical plating; cervical corpectomy; circumferential (360° or 540°) fusion; interventions to facilitate fusion in addition to the interbody device (eg, bone morphogenic protein, stem cells, autograft, platelets); ACDF for nondegenerative conditions; ACDF for adjacent-segment disease (adjacent to previous ACDF); or revision ACDF for nonunion or other conditions. We also excluded animal studies, cadaveric studies, case reports, correspondence, letters to the editor, technical notes, abstracts, and poster presentations. Level of evidence of the articles included in this systematic review was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.²⁰

Study Selection

Two independent reviewers screened the studies for eligibility. A third reviewer served as an arbitrator when there was disagreement between the 2 primary reviewers. Each article’s title and abstract were reviewed. Articles that could not be excluded on the basis of this review were retrieved for full-text review (n = 101). Covidence Systematic Review Software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) was used to facilitate the screening and selection process. Fourteen articles (7 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective studies, and 3 retrospective studies) met our eligibility criteria and were included in the review (Table 1).

Table 1.

Studies of Fusion Rates in Patients Who Underwent Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion for Cervical Spine Degeneration.

First Author, Year	Study Characteristics							Outcomes (%)
First Author, Year	Design	Study Groups	Sample Size	Mean Age (Years)	Follow-up (Years)	Indications (No. of Patients)	Levels (No. of Patients)	2-Year Fusion	Reoperation	Subsidence
Feiz-Erfan,²⁴ 2007	RCT	Allograft with vs without platelets	50	46	2	DDD (29); herniated disc (21)	1 (18); 2 (29)	85	4	NR
Campbell,²³ 2009	RCT	Allograft with vs without cervical collar	257	44	2	Radiculopathy or myelopathy	1 (257)	96 (braced); 100 (nonbraced)	0.7	NR
Feng,²⁷ 2018	RCT	PEEK with vs without tricalcium phosphate	23	64	2	Radiculopathy (12); myelopathy (5); radiculomyelopathy (6)	1 (5); 2 (12); 3 (6)	98	NR	0
Coric,²⁶ 2011	RCT	Allograft vs arthroplasty	133	44	2	Radiculopathy or myelopathy	1 (133)	82	5	NR
Gornet,²² 2017	RCT	Allograft vs arthroplasty	188	47	2	Radiculopathy or myelopathy	2 (188)	82	8	4
Hisey,²¹ 2015	RCT	Allograft vs arthroplasty	81	44	4	Radiculopathy or myelopathy	1 (81)	94^a	NR	NR
Mummaneni,²⁵ 2007	RCT	Allograft vs arthroplasty	265	44	2	Radiculopathy or myelopathy	1 (265)	98	8.6	NR
Suchomel,³⁰ 2004	PC	Allograft vs autograft	NA^b	48	2	Spondylosis and/or cervical disc prolapse/protrusion	1 or 2 (NA^b)	93	NR	0
Zigler,²⁸ 2016	PC	1- vs 2-level allograft	186	45	5	Radiculopathy or myelopathy	1 (81); 2 (105)	89 (1-level); 79 (2-level)	14	NR
Schlosser,³¹ 2006	RC	Allograft	219	52	6	Unknown	1 (80); 2 (57); 3 (53); 4 (29)	98^c	8	NR
El-Tantawy,³² 2015	PC	2- vs 3- vs 4-level PEEK implant	28	40	2	Neck pain and radiculopathy	2 (10); 3 (10); 4 (8)	93	0	2
Niu,²⁹ 2010	PC	PEEK vs titanium implant	25	52	2	Radiculopathy or myelopathy	1 (16); 2 (9)	100^d	0	0
Cabraja,³⁴ 2012	RC	PEEK vs titanium implant	42	58	2	Radiculopathy (34); myelopathy (8)	1 (42)	88^e	NR	14
Dufour,³³ 2010	RC	PEEK implant	28	48	2.7	Radiculopathy or myelopathy	1 (19); 2 (9)	94	NR	0

Abbreviations: ACDF, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; DDD, degenerative disc disease; NA, not available; NR, none reported; PC, prospective cohort; PEEK, polyetheretherketone; RC, retrospective cohort; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

^a Fusion rate reported at 4 years.

^b Eighty patients were included in the study. The number of patients allocated to each group was not reported.

^c Fusion rate reported at unknown time period.

^d Fusion rate reported at 1 year.

^e Fusion rate reported at 2.4 years.

Data Extraction and Analysis

Using a standardized data extraction form, we extracted the following information: authors, study years, study designs, sample sizes, patient ages, duration of follow-up, types of interbody device used, fusion rates, definitions of fusion, reoperation rates, subsidence rates, and patient-reported outcomes (ie, visual analogue scale [VAS] for pain, Neck Disability Index [NDI], Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, and Odom’s criteria). Descriptive statistics were calculated and reported as appropriate. There were insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis.

Results

Fusion Rates

In 11 studies, fusion was assessed by an independent or blinded physician.^{21

-31} Criteria for fusion success differed slightly among studies, although motion (commonly defined as <2° or <4° change in angulation between the spinous processes) on flexion-extension radiographs is the commonly used method to determine fusion success (Table 2).

Table 2.

Definitions of Fusion in Studies of Structural Allograft and PEEK Interbody Devices in Patients With Cervical Spine Degeneration Who Underwent Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

First Author, Year	Definition of Fusion
Feiz-Erfan,²⁴ 2007	Absence of major angular motion (≤2°) on flexion/extension radiographs and <50% lucency at each potential fusion surface.
Campbell,²³ 2009	“The presence of bridging trabecular bone as evidenced by continuous bony connection of the vertebral bodies above and below in at least one of the following areas: lateral, anterior, posterior, and/or through the allograft ring implant; angulation of less than 4° on flexion-extension radiographs; and absence of radiolucency covering more than 50% of either the superior or inferior surface of the graft.”
Feng,²⁷ 2018	“1) rotation <4° and <1.25 mm translation with the absence of motion adjacent to interspinous processes (>3 mm) in the flexion-extension view and (2) the presence of continuous trabecular bone bridging was revealed by CT scan in at least one of the following locations: anterior, within, or posterior to the PEEK cage.”
Coric,²⁶ 2011	“1) bridging trabecular bone; 2) angular motion less than 5°; 3) translational motion less than 3 mm; and 4) less than 50% radiolucency along the bone-implant interface.”
Gornet,²² 2017	“1) angulation ≤4°, 2) bridging bone as a continuous bony connection with the vertebral bodies above and below, and 3) no radiolucency covering more than 50% of either the superior or inferior surface of the graft.”
Hisey,²¹ 2015	“Bridging bone across the disk space, <2 degrees angular motion measured from flexion to extension, and <50% radiolucent lines at the graft vertebral endplate interfaces.”
Mummaneni,²⁵ 2007	“1) bone spanning the two VBs in the treated segment; 2) less than 4° of motion on dynamic radiographs; and 3) radiolucencies covering no more than 50% of the implant surface.”
Suchomel,³⁰ 2004	According to criteria of Brown et al⁴⁸: “Complete: Complete bridging of trabeculae between adjacent vertebral bodies and bone graft; Partial: Less than 50% bridging trabeculae; Non-union: Lack of trabecular bridging.”
Zigler,²⁸ 2016	Unknown
Schlosser,³¹ 2006	No radiolucency within the construct and no evidence of instrumentation failure.
Niu,²⁹ 2010	“Lack of a radiolucent line between the cage and endplate as well as the lack of translation or angulation change in the lateral cervical flexion-extension radiographs at the 1-year follow-up.”
Cabraja,³⁴ 2012	“Movement of less than 2° was measured, and by the absence of motion between the spinous processes on lateral flexion-extension radiographs.”
El-Tantawy,³² 2015	“…continuity of the trabeculae between end-plates with the absence of lucency at the cage/end-plate interface. This was confirmed by stability on dynamic views (not more than 2 mm widening of the inter-spinous distance) or by CT in suspected fusions.”
Dufour,³³ 2010	On CT scan, “excellent fusion,” bone continuity on ≥1 image in both planes; “good fusion,” bone continuity on ≥1 image in 1 plane; “no fusion,” no visible bone continuity in any plane.

Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; PEEK, polyetheretherketone; VB, vertebral body.

Structural Allograft

Nine studies (1354 patients) reported fusion data with the use of structural allograft: 5 used corticocancellous allograft,^{21,24,26,28,31} 2 used unspecified cortical allograft,^22,25 1 used fibular allograft,³⁰ and 1 did not report the type of allograft used.²³ The fusion rates among these 9 studies were 82% to 100%. Among the 5 studies that used corticocancellous allograft, fusion rates at 2 years or more were 82% to 97% (Table 1).

A prospective comparison of 1-level and 2-level ACDF using corticocancellous allograft reported fusion rates of 89% and 79%, respectively, at 2 years, and 93% and 86%, respectively, at 5 years.²⁸ The reported fusion rates for unspecified cortical grafts at 2 years were 82%²² to 97%.²⁵ In a prospective study, Suchomel et al³⁰ assessed fusion rates of fibular allograft versus structural autograft and found that the fibular allograft group had fusion rates of 85.5% at 1 year and 93.4% at 2 years.

PEEK Interbody Devices

Five studies using PEEK interbody devices (146 patients) were included in our final analysis, including 1 randomized controlled trial,²⁷ 2 prospective studies,^29,32 and 2 retrospective studies.^33,34 Rates of fusion for PEEK interbody devices in these 5 studies were 88% to 98%.

In a prospective study by El-Tantawy,³² 10 patients underwent 2-level fusion, 10 underwent 3-level fusion, and 8 underwent 4-level fusion with stand-alone PEEK cage. Fusion was achieved at a mean of 14.9 weeks for 2-level, 15.2 weeks for 3-level, and 16.1 weeks for 4-level fusion, with no significant differences. The authors reported a fusion rate of 93% at 2-year follow-up (Table 2). Dufour et al³³ reported a fusion rate of 94% for 28 PEEK patients at a mean follow-up of 32 months.

Subsidence Rates

Structural Allograft

Among the studies of structural allograft, only 2 reported subsidence rates. Gornet et al²² reported the highest subsidence rate (4.3%, 6/138 patients) at 2-year follow-up. In the study by Suchomel et al,³⁰ none of the patients developed subsidence at 2-year follow-up.

PEEK Interbody Devices

High subsidence rates were reported in the study of PEEK interbody devices by El-Tantawy,³² occurring at 7 fusion levels in 5 patients (18%); however, no patient underwent revision surgery. Cabraja et al³⁴ reported a subsidence rate of 14% (6/42), with no reoperations. The remaining articles discussing PEEK fusion rates did not report any subsidence among their patients.^27,29,33

Reoperation Rates

Structural Allograft

In studies using structural allograft interbody, the incidence of reoperation for all reasons was 0.7% (1/149 patients) to 13.9% (26/186 patients) (Table 1).^23,28 Overall, the rates of reoperation for pseudarthrosis with structural allograft interbody were 1.8% to 6.4%.^28,31

PEEK Interbody Devices

Among the 5 studies involving PEEK devices, 2 reported no reoperations^29,32 and 3 did not monitor for reoperation^27,33,34 (Table 1).

Patient-Reported Outcomes

Eleven studies reported patient-reported outcomes, with VAS and NDI being the most frequently used measures.^{21

-29,32,34}

Structural Allograft

Seven studies described patient-reported outcomes, with an overall significant improvement in clinical outcomes assessed by VAS and NDI scores.^21

-26,28 Feiz-Erfan et al²⁴ reported subjective improvements overall. In VAS scores ranging from 3 to 30, the mean VAS score at baseline for all patients was 15.5; at 2-year follow-up the mean score had improved to 7.0.²⁴ Similarly, Coric et al²⁶ showed a >20% improvement in NDI scores at 2-year follow-up. The methods used for assessing patient-reported outcomes were heterogeneous, limiting quantitative analysis of association of allograft interbody with clinical outcomes.

PEEK Interbody Devices

Overall outcomes improved among the 4 studies that reported patient-reported outcomes.^27,29,32,34 The success rate of surgery as measured by Odom’s criteria was 64% in the study by Cabraja et al.³⁴ In the randomized controlled trial comparing an empty PEEK cage with PEEK packed with β-tricalcium phosphate, patients in both groups showed improvements in VAS, NDI, and Japanese Orthopaedic Association scores.²⁷

Discussion

We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare fusion rates of structural allograft versus PEEK interbody devices in patients with cervical spine degeneration who underwent ACDF. Of the 14 studies included in our review, the overall fusion rates were 82% to 100%^{21

-26,28,30,31} for structural allograft and 88% to 98%^27,29,32
-34 for PEEK interbody devices. The lack of randomized controlled trials comparing these 2 interbody devices, in addition to the variability in methodology to assess fusion, sample sizes, and other methods among studies, precluded meta-analysis.

Because fusion is a key determinant of success after ACDF,³⁵ a standard for determining fusion rate is needed in cervical spine fusion studies. Several widely varying criteria for determining radiographic fusion were reported (Table 2). The most common components of the definitions included <50% radiolucency along the bone-implant surface and a specified degree of angular motion on dynamic radiographs (<2° or <4°). Most studies classified fusion as a binary variable; however, some studies classified fusion as “complete,” “partial,” and “nonunion”³⁰ or “excellent,” “good,” and “no fusion.”³³ Most studies used multiple observers to determine radiographic fusion, and none of the 14 studies reported intraobserver differences in determination of fusion. In 2008, it was presumed that a consensus definition of cervical fusion was beginning to form.³⁶ In a recently published systematic review by Oshina et al,³⁷ 10 criteria were described for fusion assessment in ACDF. Most commonly, the surgeon’s subjective assessment of bridging trabecular bone between endplates and the absence of a radiolucent gap were used to assess fusion. The problem of heterogeneity in fusion assessment is commonly described in systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting fusion rates in ACDF.^38
-40 A universally accepted criterion for fusion assessment is needed to standardize studies and allow for comparison.³⁶

Patient-reported outcomes were reported in only 10 of the 14 studies, indicating that patient-reported outcomes are often not the focus of studies that describe interbody devices, even among those with 2-year follow-up. In the studies that described patient-reported outcomes, the results were not always directly comparable, further illustrating the need for reporting and standardizing outcomes in cervical spine surgery studies. A recent review by Nayak et al⁴¹ also acknowledged that the numerous patient-reported outcome measures and the variability in minimal clinically important differences between these measures limit comparisons of clinical outcomes in spine surgery research.

We required minimum radiographic follow-up of 2 years for inclusion in our review (Table 3). The 1 high-quality study excluded because of a lack of 2-year radiographic follow-up was the PIERCE-PEEK Study (Prospective International Multicenter Evaluation of Radiological and Clinical Effects of Stand-Alone PEEK Intervertebral Spacers for ACDF) by Suess et al.⁹ The authors followed a cohort of 356 patients who underwent ACDF with PEEK interbody devices without any osteopromotive fillers and without additional anterior instrumentation. Complete radiographic fusion occurred for 43% of patients at 6 months, 73% of patients at 12 months, and 83% of patients at 18 months. The authors recommended against using PEEK interbody devices alone without fillers because of delayed fusion. It is unclear whether delayed fusion was the result of a lack of osteopromotive fillers or a lack of anterior instrumentation to provide additional stabilization to support fusion.

Table 3.

Power Calculation, Sample Size, and Reporting of Patients Lost to Follow-up.

First Author, Year	OCEBM Level of Evidence	Who Assessed Fusion	Power Calculation and Sample Size	Follow-up Rate, % (Follow-up duration, y)
Feiz-Erfan,²⁴ 2007	II	Physician not in study	NR	85 (2)
Campbell,²³ 2009	I	Physician not in study	NR	NR
Feng,²⁷ 2018	II	2 Blinded physicians	NR	NR
Coric,²⁶ 2011	II	Physician not in study	NR	87 (2)
Gornet,²² 2017	I	Physician not in study	Reported	85 (2)
Hisey,²¹ 2015	II	Physician not in study	Reported	79 (4)
Mummaneni,²⁵ 2007	II	Physician not in study	NR	75 (2)
Suchomel,³⁰ 2004	III	Treating surgeon and independent radiologist	NR	99 (2)
Zigler,²⁸ 2016	III	Physician not in study	NR	1-level: 82 (5); 2-level: 90 (5)
Schlosser,³¹ 2006	IV	Physician not in study	NR	94 (2)
Niu,²⁹ 2010	IV	Physician not in study	NR	NR
Cabraja,³⁴ 2012	IV	NR	NR	NR
El-Tantawy,³² 2015	IV	NR	NR	100 (2)
Dufour,³³ 2010	IV	NR	NR	100 (1)

Abbreviations: NR, not reported; OCEBM, Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

The use of bone graft extenders or biologic materials in addition to PEEK cages has been reported and advocated to improve fusion success.⁴² However, the reported fusion rates with materials such as hydroxyapatite are approximately 85%, which is similar to the rate achieved with structural allograft or PEEK alone.³⁸ Future studies examining the influence of interbody devices on fusion rates should adjust for use of bone graft extender and fusion augmentation materials.

Although PEEK provides good biocompatibility and strength, it is unable to bond directly to bone and to osseointegrate.^11,43 Modifications to PEEK designed to address the issue of osseointegration have gained popularity. These modifications include hydroxyapatite-coated PEEK, porous PEEK, titanium plasma–coated PEEK, carbon fiber–reinforced PEEK, and polyetherketone.⁴⁴ Our study did not control for these variations because there is insufficient high-quality evidence comparing these modifications. We hypothesize that modifications to PEEK result in superior biomechanical properties and superior osseointegration compared with unmodified, legacy PEEK devices.

Although we excluded patients who underwent ACDF without anterior plating, the use of stand-alone interbody devices without anterior plating is common in Europe. Studies of autograft report that use of an anterior cervical plate improved fusion rates from 93.5% to 98%.⁴⁵ To our knowledge, no high-quality studies have compared the outcomes of plated versus unplated 1- and 2-level ACDF with modern implants, indicating an important area for future research.

In addition to the potential differences in fusion rates between structural allograft and PEEK interbody devices, these devices may differ greatly in cost. Although studies comparing costs between structural allograft and PEEK devices are limited, a 2015 study by Virk et al¹⁶ estimated the costs per quality-adjusted life-year for ACDF using PEEK ($3328), allograft ($2492), and autograft ($2492). However, they did not account for regional variations in cost. In some regions, because of storage, regulatory, and cultural reasons, obtaining structural allograft can be difficult or cost prohibitive. Future studies focusing on cost differences among interbody devices are needed.

When pooling results from the studies we analyzed, the subsidence rate was higher in patients who had PEEK versus allograft devices; however, none of the studies included in this review directly compared subsidence rates of PEEK versus allograft. It is important to note that although structural allograft had lower reported subsidence rates, it is difficult to assess for subsidence on radiographs because of the resemblance of allograft to native bone on imaging. In contrast, PEEK cages have embedded radiopaque markers, which potentially allow for better visualization of subsidence. In a direct comparative study that did not meet criteria for inclusion in our review, no significant difference in subsidence rates was seen between allograft and PEEK interbody devices used in ACDF.⁴⁶ It is also important to consider that although subsidence after ACDF procedures has been well studied, the effects of subsidence on clinical outcomes and fusion rates after ACDF remain unclear.⁴⁷

Limitations are inherent in systematic reviews. In our study, heterogeneity of fusion assessment, stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria, and possible missed cases contribute to the limitations. The discrepancy in fusion assessment prevented us from performing a meta-analysis. In addition, the lack of level-I evidence with a direct comparison of structural allograft versus PEEK makes it difficult to form robust conclusions. Further high-quality evidence is required to provide evidence-based treatments for patients with cervical spine degeneration undergoing ACDF. A thorough search and review of the literature, as well as strict adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines contributed to the strengths of this systematic review.

Conclusions

Similar fusion rates have been reported for structural allograft and PEEK interbody devices for ACDF in patients with cervical spine degeneration. No high-quality randomized controlled trials or high-quality cohort comparisons directly compared structural allograft versus PEEK interbody devices in ACDF. Future research is needed to assess the outcomes of various modified PEEK devices and bone graft substitutes and extenders.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, GSJ883256_Appendix1 - Structural Allograft Versus PEEK Implants in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

Supplemental Material, GSJ883256_Appendix1 for Structural Allograft Versus PEEK Implants in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review by Amit Jain, Majd Marrache, Andrew Harris, Varun Puvanesarajah, Brian J. Neuman, Zorica Buser, Jeffrey C. Wang, S. Tim Yoon, Hans Jörg Meisel and AOSpine Knowledge Forum Degenerative in Global Spine Journal

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study used publicly available information and thus was not subject to review from our institutional review board.

Acknowledgements

We thank Carrie L. Price, MLS, clinical informationist at the Welch Medical Library, for her assistance in developing the search strategy, and Yabin Wu from AOSpine International for his tireless effort and support of this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Amit Jain, MD

Majd Marrache, MD

Zorica Buser, PhD

S. Tim Yoon, MD

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

References

Cherry

. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for cervical disc disease. AORN J. 2002;76:996–1004,1007–1012.

Riew

Ecker

Dettori

. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for the management of axial neck pain in the absence of radiculopathy or myelopathy. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2010;1:45–50.

Hosoi

Tonomura

Takatori

, et al. Usefulness of anterior cervical fusion using titanium interbody cage for treatment of cervical degenerative disease with preoperative segmental kyphosis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e7749.

Liu

Xiong

Long

, et al. A new source of structural autograft for ACDF surgery: cervical laminae. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8:9100–9106.

Cloward

. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg. 1958;15:602–617.

Kim

Park

Jung

, et al. An early comparative analysis of the use of autograft versus allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Korean J Spine, 2012;9:142–146.

Yoon

Konopka

Wang

, et al. ACDF graft selection by surgeons: survey of AOSpine members. Global Spine J. 2017;7:410–416.

Lemcke

Al-Zain

Meier

Suess

. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) spacers for anterior cervical fusion: A retrospective comparative effectiveness clinical trial. Open Orthop J. 2011;5:348–353.

Suess

Schomaker

Cabraja

Danne

Kombos

Hanna

. Empty polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF) show slow radiographic fusion that reduces clinical improvement: results from the prospective multicenter “PIERCE-PEEK” study. Patient Saf Surg. 2017;11:12.

10.

Panayotov

Orti

Cuisinier

Yachouh

. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for medical applications. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2016;27:118.

11.

Torstrick

Lin

ASP

Potter

, et al. Porous PEEK improves the bone-implant interface compared to plasma-sprayed titanium coating on PEEK. Biomaterials. 2018;185:106–116.

12.

Kim

Lee

Jang

Park

Hur

. Polyetheretherketone cage with demineralized bone matrix can replace iliac crest autografts for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in subaxial cervical spine injuries. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2017;60:211–219.

13.

Lee

Nam

, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing bone union rate following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using a polyetheretherketone cage: hydroxyapatite/B-tricalcium phosphate mixture versus hydroxyapatite/demineralized bone matrix mixture. Asian Spine J. 2015;9:30–38.

14.

Chong

Pelletier

Mobbs

Walsh

. The design evolution of interbody cages in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:99.

15.

Samartzis

Shen

Goldberg

. Is autograft the gold standard in achieving radiographic fusion in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with rigid anterior plate fixation? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30:1756–1761.

16.

Virk

Elder

Sandhu

Khan

. The cost effectiveness of polyetheretheketone (PEEK) cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:E482–E492.

17.

Oryan

Alidadi

Moshiri

Maffulli

. Bone regenerative medicine: classic options, novel strategies, and future directions. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:18.

18.

Rhee

Patel

Yoon

Franklin

. High graft resorption rates with dense cancellous allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32:2980–2984.

19.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

20.

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. OCEBM levels of evidence. https://www.cebm.net/2016/05/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/. Accessed July 17; 2019

21.

Hisey

Bae

Davis

, et al. Prospective, randomized comparison of cervical total disk replacement versus anterior cervical fusion: results at 48 months follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28:E237–E243.

22.

Gornet

Lanman

Burkus

, et al. Cervical disc arthroplasty with the Prestige LP disc versus anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, at 2 levels: results of a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial at 24 months. J Neurosurg Spine. 2017;26:653–667.

23.

Campbell

Carreon

Traynelis

Anderson

. Use of cervical collar after single-level anterior cervical fusion with plate: is it necessary? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:43–48.

24.

Feiz-Erfan

Harrigan

Sonntag

Harrington

. Effect of autologous platelet gel on early and late graft fusion in anterior cervical spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7:496–502.

25.

Mummaneni

Burkus

Haid

Traynelis

Zdeblick

. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6:198–209.

26.

Coric

Nunley

Guyer

, et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter study of cervical arthroplasty: 269 patients from the Kineflex|C artificial disc investigational device exemption study with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;15:348–358.

27.

Feng

Chang

Chou

Lin

Wang

Liu

. Implantation of an empty polyetheretherketone cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective randomised controlled study with 2 years follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2018;27:1358–1364.

28.

Zigler

Rogers

Ohnmeiss

. Comparison of 1-level versus 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical and radiographic follow-up at 60 months. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016;41:463–469.

29.

Niu

Liao

Chen

. Outcomes of interbody fusion cages used in 1 and 2-levels anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23:310–316.

30.

Suchomel

Barsa

Buchvald

Svobodnik

Vanickova

. Autologous versus allogenic bone grafts in instrumented anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective study with respect to bone union pattern. Eur Spine J. 2004;13:510–515.

31.

Schlosser

Schwarz

Awad

, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with allograft and anterior plating: a report on 219 patients/469 levels with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Neurosurg Q. 2006;16:183–186.

32.

El-Tantawy

. Is it possible to eliminate the plate-related problems and still achieve satisfactory outcome after multilevel anterior cervical discectomy? Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25(suppl 1):S135–S145.

33.

Dufour

Huppert

Louis

, et al. Radiological analysis of 37 segments in cervical spine implanted with a peek stand-alone device, with at least one year follow-up. Br J Neurosurg. 2010;24:633–640.

34.

Cabraja

Oezdemir

Koeppen

Kroppenstedt

. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:172.

35.

Kotsias

Mularski

Kuhn

Hanna

Suess

. Does partial coating with titanium improve the radiographic fusion rate of empty PEEK cages in cervical spine surgery? A comparative analysis of clinical data. Patient Saf Surg. 2017;11:13.

36.

Sethi

Devney

Steiner

Riew

. Diagnosing cervical fusion: a comprehensive literature review. Asian Spine J. 2008;2:127–143.

37.

Oshina

Oshima

Tanaka

Riew

. Radiological fusion criteria of postoperative anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2018;8:739–750.

38.

Zadegan

Abedi

Jazayeri

, et al. Bone morphogenetic proteins in anterior cervical fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2017;104:752–787.

39.

Oliver

Goncalves

Kerezoudis

, et al. Comparison of outcomes for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with and without anterior plate fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018;43:E413–E422.

40.

Tuchman

Brodke

Youssef

, et al. Autograft versus allograft for cervical spinal fusion: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2017;7:59–70.

41.

Nayak

Coats

Abdullah

Stein

Malhotra

. Tracking patient-reported outcomes in spinal disorders. Surg Neurol Int. 2015;6:S490–S499.

42.

Fischer

Cassilly

Cantor

Edusei

Hammouri

Errico

. A systematic review of comparative studies on bone graft alternatives for common spine fusion procedures. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:1423–1435.

43.

Walsh

Bertollo

Christou

Schaffner

Mobbs

. Plasma-sprayed titanium coating to polyetheretherketone improves the bone-implant interface. Spine J. 2015;15:1041–1049.

44.

Torstrick

Safranski

Burkus

, et al. Getting PEEK to stick to bone: the development of porous PEEK for interbody fusion devices. Tech Orthop. 2017;32:158–166.

45.

Mobbs

Rao

Chandran

. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: analysis of surgical outcome with and without plating. J Clin Neurosci. 2007;14:639–642.

46.

Yson

Sembrano

Santos

. Comparison of allograft and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage subsidence rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). J Clin Neurosci. 2017;38:118–121.

47.

Karikari

Jain

Owens

, et al. Impact of subsidence on clinical outcomes and radiographic fusion rates in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27:1–10.

48.

Brown

Malinin

Davis

. A roentgenographic evaluation of frozen allografts versus autografts in anterior cervical spine fusions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976;119:231–236.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB