Comparison of Long-term Follow-Up of n-HA PA66 Cage and PEEK Cage of Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Multi-level Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: A Stepwise Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Qiujiang Li, Qingyang Gao, Lei Wang, Limin Liu, Huiliang Yang, Yueming Song
Comparison of Long-term Follow-Up of n-HA PA66 Cage and PEEK Cage of Lumbar Interbody Fusion in Multi-level Degenerative Lumbar Diseases: A Stepwise Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Objective:: Previous studies have confirmed that the nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 (n-HA/PA66) cage is an ideal alternative material for degenerative lumbar disease (DLD) comparable to the polyether ether ketone (PEEK) cage due to its similar radiographic fusion, subsidence rate, and clinical results. However, these studies were restricted to one-level surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term clinical and radiologic outcomes between n-HA PA66 cage and PEEK cage for patients with multi-level degenerative lumbar diseases (DLDs).
Methods:: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent multi-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) from June 2010 to December 2016 with a minimum 6-year follow-up. Matched-pair analysis was performed using a 1-to-1 closest neighbor approach to match patients who received an n-HA PA66 cage with those who received a PEEK cage. Clinical outcomes and radiographic evaluations were compared between the two groups. The independent student's t-test and χ2-test were applied to compare the differences between groups.
Results:: At the end of the propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, 48 patients from n-HA/PA66 group were matched to 48 patients in the PEEK group. No significant difference was observed in cage subsidence and bony fusion except for adjacent segment degeneration (ASD). The occurrence of ASD was 14.58% (7/48) in the n-HA/PA 66 group, which was significantly less than that in the PEEK group (33.33% [16/48]) (p = 0.031). Although the intervertebral space height (IH), segmental angle (SA) and lumbar lordosis (LL) significantly increased after surgery in both groups, there was no significant difference at any time point after surgery (p > 0.05). The visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores significantly improved in both groups at 3m postoperative, 1y postoperative and at final follow-up. However, there were no significant differences in the VAS and ODI score at any time point (p > 0.05). The total complications and re-admission rate were not different between the two groups.
Conclusion:: Overall, our data suggest that the outcomes of n-HA/PA66 cage group are comparable to those of the PEEK cage group, with a similar high fusion rate and low cage subsidence rate as PEEK cages, except its lower rate of ASD occurrence.
Adjacent segment degeneration / Nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 / Polyether ether ketone / Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion
[1] |
Heemskerk JL, Oluwadara AO, Clifton W, Quinones-Hinojosa A, Abode-Iyamah KO. Long-term clinical outcome of minimally invasive versus open single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for degenerative lumbar diseases: a meta-analysis. Spine J. 2021;21(12):2049–2065.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[2] |
Kurra S, Lavelle WF, Silverstein MP, Savage JW, Orr RD. Long-term outcomes of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in patients with spinal stenosis and degenerative scoliosis. Spine J. 2018;18(6):1014–1021.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[3] |
Kim SB, Jeon TS, Heo YM, Lee WS, Yi JW, Kim TK, et al. Radiographic results of single level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion in degenerative lumbar spine disease: focusing on changes of segmental lordosis in fusion segment. Clin Orthop Surg. 2009;1(4):207–213.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[4] |
Harms J, Rolinger H. A one-stager procedure in operative treatment of spondylolistheses: dorsal traction-reposition and anterior fusion (author's transl). Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb. 1982;120(3):343–347.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[5] |
Zhou J, Wang B, Dong J, Li X, Zhou X, Fang T, et al. Instrumented transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with single cage for the treatment of degenerative lumbar disease. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131(9):1239–1245.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[6] |
Muthiah N, Yolcu YU, Alan N, Agarwal N, Hamilton DK, Ozpinar A. Evolution of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium interbody devices for spinal procedures: a comprehensive review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2022;31(10):2547–2556.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[7] |
Mishra S, Chowdhary R. PEEK materials as an alternative to titanium in dental implants: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(1):208–222.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[8] |
Jang JW, Lee JK, Lee JH, Hur H, Kim TW, Kim SH. Effect of posterior subsidence on cervical alignment after anterior cervical corpectomy and reconstruction using titanium mesh cages in degenerative cervical disease. J Clin Neurosci. 2014;21(10):1779–1785.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[9] |
Rihn JA, Patel R, Makda J, Hong J, Anderson DG, Vaccaro AR, et al. Complications associated with single-level transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Spine J. 2009;9(8):623–629.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[10] |
Buttermann GR, Freeman AL, Simmons BH. Allograft-reconstructed iliac bone graft donor site remodels to viable bone and its feasibility for revision fusion. Int J Spine Surg. 2022;17(1):60–68.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[11] |
Gao Y, Ou Y, Deng Q, He B, Du X, Li J. Comparison between titanium mesh and autogenous iliac bone graft to restore vertebral height through posterior approach for the treatment of thoracic and lumbar spinal tuberculosis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(4):e175567.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[12] |
Zhong D, Lin L, Liu Y, Ke ZY, Wang Y. Analysis of Nanohydroxyapatite/Polyamide-66 cage, titanium mesh, and iliac crest in spinal reconstruction of the patients with thoracic and lumbar tuberculosis. Neurol India. 2022;70(Supplement):S230–S238.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[13] |
Zhang HQ, Wang YX, Wu JH, Chen J. Debridement and Interbody graft using titanium mesh cage, posterior Monosegmental instrumentation, and fusion in the surgical treatment of Monosegmental lumbar or lumbosacral pyogenic vertebral osteomyelitis via a posterior-only approach. World Neurosurg. 2020;135:e116–e125.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[14] |
Lv ZT, Xu Y, Cao B, Dai J, Zhang SY, Huang JM, et al. Titanium-coated PEEK versus uncoated PEEK cages in lumbar Interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Clin Spine Surg. 2022;36:198–209.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[15] |
Yao YC, Chou PH, Lin HH, Wang ST, Chang MC. Outcome of Ti/PEEK versus PEEK cages in minimally invasive Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion. Global Spine J. 2021;13(2):472–478.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[16] |
Seaman S, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M, Torner JC, Hitchon PW. Titanium vs. polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: meta-analysis and review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci. 2017;44:23–29.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[17] |
Mcgilvray KC, Waldorff EI, Easley J, Seim HB, Zhang N, Linovitz RJ, et al. Evaluation of a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) titanium composite interbody spacer in an ovine lumbar interbody fusion model: biomechanical, microcomputed tomographic, and histologic analyses. Spine J. 2017;17(12):1907–1916.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[18] |
Zhang Y, Deng X, Jiang D, Luo X, Tang K, Zhao Z, et al. Long-term results of anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion with nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 strut for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Sci Rep. 2016;6:26751.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[19] |
Bonfield W, Grynpas MD, Tully AE, Bowman J, Abram J. Hydroxyapatite reinforced polyethylene–a mechanically compatible implant material for bone replacement. Biomaterials. 1981;2(3):185–186.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[20] |
Hu B, Yang X, Hu Y, Lyu Q, Liu L, Zhu C, et al. The n-HA/PA66 cage versus the PEEK cage in anterior cervical fusion with single-level discectomy during 7 years of follow-up. World Neurosurg. 2019;123:e678–e684.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[21] |
Hu B, Wang L, Song Y, Hu Y, Lyu Q, Liu L, et al. A comparison of long-term outcomes of nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 cage and titanium mesh cage in anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: a clinical follow-up study of least 8 years. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2019;176:25–29.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[22] |
Yang X, Song Y, Liu L, Liu H, Zeng J, Pei F. Anterior reconstruction with nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 cage after thoracic and lumbar corpectomy. Orthopedics. 2012;35(1):e66–e73.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[23] |
Deng QX, Ou YS, Zhu Y, Zhao ZH, Liu B, Huang Q, et al. Clinical outcomes of two types of cages used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for the treatment of degenerative lumbar diseases: n-HA/PA66 cages versus PEEK cages. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2016;27(6):102.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[24] |
Peng L, Guo J, Lu JP, Jin S, Wang P, Shen HY. Risk factors and scoring system of cage Retropulsion after posterior lumbar Interbody fusion: a retrospective observational study. Orthop Surg. 2021;13(3):855–862.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[25] |
Wang T, Ding W. Risk factors for adjacent segment degeneration after posterior lumbar fusion surgery in treatment for degenerative lumbar disorders: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2020;15(1):582.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[26] |
Mendoza-Elias N, Dunbar M, Ghogawala Z, Whitmore RG. Opioid use, risk factors, and outcome in lumbar fusion surgery. World Neurosurg. 2020;135:e580–e587.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[27] |
Rosenberg WS, Mummaneni PV. Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: technique, complications, and early results. Neurosurgery. 2001;48(3):569–575.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[28] |
Gercek E, Arlet V, Delisle J, Marchesi D. Subsidence of stand-alone cervical cages in anterior interbody fusion: warning. Eur Spine J. 2003;12(5):513–516.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[29] |
Gruskay JA, Webb ML, Grauer JN. Methods of evaluating lumbar and cervical fusion. Spine J. 2014;14(3):531–539.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[30] |
Kim SI, Min HK, Ha KY, Park HY, Cho CH, Cho RK, et al. Effects of restoration of sagittal alignment on adjacent segment degeneration in instrumented lumbar fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020;45(23):E1588–E1595.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[31] |
Pfirrmann CW, Metzdorf A, Zanetti M, Hodler J, Boos N. Magnetic resonance classification of lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(17):1873–1878.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[32] |
Bharadwaj UU, Ben-Natan AR, Huang J, Pedoia V, Chou D, Majumdar S, et al. Evaluation of 2 novel ratio-based metrics for lumbar spinal stenosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2022;43(10):1530–1538.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[33] |
Salzmann SN, Okano I, Jones C, Zhu J, Lu S, Onyekwere I, et al. Preoperative MRI-based vertebral bone quality (VBQ) score assessment in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion. Spine J. 2022;22(8):1301–1308.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[34] |
Dibble CF, Zhang JK, Greenberg JK, Javeed S, Khalifeh JM, Jain D, et al. Comparison of local and regional radiographic outcomes in minimally invasive and open TLIF: a propensity score-matched cohort. J Neurosurg Spine. 2022;37:384–394.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[35] |
Adl AD, Okano I, Oezel L, Zhu J, Chiapparelli E, Shue J, et al. Evaluation of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: novel 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. Eur Spine J. 2021;30(8):2377–2384.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[36] |
Singhatanadgige W, Sukthuayat A, Tanaviriyachai T, Kongtharvonskul J, Tanasansomboon T, Kerr SJ, et al. Risk factors for polyetheretherketone cage subsidence following minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Acta Neurochir. 2021;163(9):2557–2565.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[37] |
Stein IC, Than KD, Chen KS, Wang AC, Park P. Failure of a polyether-ether-ketone expandable interbody cage following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(Suppl 4):S555–S559.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[38] |
Kim MC, Chung HT, Cho JL, Kim DJ, Chung NS. Subsidence of polyetheretherketone cage after minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2013;26(2):87–92.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[39] |
Le TV, Baaj AA, Dakwar E, Burkett CJ, Murray G, Smith DA, et al. Subsidence of polyetheretherketone intervertebral cages in minimally invasive lateral retroperitoneal transpsoas lumbar interbody fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(14):1268–1273.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[40] |
Lee JH, Lee JH, Park JW, Lee HS. Fusion rates of a morselized local bone graft in polyetheretherketone cages in posterior lumbar interbody fusion by quantitative analysis using consecutive three-dimensional computed tomography scans. Spine J. 2011;11(7):647–653.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[41] |
Schomacher M, Finger T, Koeppen D, Suss O, Vajkoczy P, Kroppenstedt S, et al. Application of titanium and polyetheretherketone cages in the treatment of pyogenic spondylodiscitis. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2014;127:65–70.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[42] |
Qian X, Yuan F, Zhimin Z, Anchun M. Dynamic perfusion bioreactor system for 3D culture of rat bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells on nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 scaffold in vitro. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013;101(6):893–901.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[43] |
Xu Q, Lu H, Zhang J, Lu G, Deng Z, Mo A. Tissue engineering scaffold material of porous nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide 66. Int J Nanomedicine. 2010;5:331–335.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[44] |
Wang X, Li Y, Wei J, de Groot K. Development of biomimetic nano-hydroxyapatite/poly(hexamethylene adipamide) composites. Biomaterials. 2002;23(24):4787–4791.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[45] |
Xiong Y, Ren C, Zhang B, Yang H, Lang Y, Min L, et al. Analyzing the behavior of a porous nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 (n-HA/PA66) composite for healing of bone defects. Int J Nanomedicine. 2014;9:485–494.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[46] |
Ekman P, Moller H, Shalabi A, Yu YX, Hedlund R. A prospective randomised study on the long-term effect of lumbar fusion on adjacent disc degeneration. Eur Spine J. 2009;18(8):1175–1186.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[47] |
Sears WR, Sergides IG, Kazemi N, Smith M, White GJ, Osburg B. Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis. Spine J. 2011;11(1):11–20.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[48] |
Yun YI, Jeon I, Kim SW, Yu D. Risk factors for adjacent segment disease requiring reoperation after posterior lumbar interbody fusion with screw fixation: focus on paraspinal muscle, facet joint, and disc degeneration. Acta Neurochir. 2022;164(3):913–922.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[49] |
Ye J, Yang S, Wei Z, Cai C, Zhang Y, Qiu H, et al. Incidence and risk factors for adjacent segment disease after Transforaminal lumbar Interbody fusion in patients with lumbar degenerative diseases. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:8185–8192.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[50] |
Kim HJ, Kang KT, Chun HJ, Lee CK, Chang BS, Yeom JS. The influence of intrinsic disc degeneration of the adjacent segments on its stress distribution after one-level lumbar fusion. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(4):827–837.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[51] |
Nakase H, Park YS, Kimura H, Sakaki T, Morimoto T. Complications and long-term follow-up results in titanium mesh cage reconstruction after cervical corpectomy. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2006;19(5):353–357.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[52] |
Kast E, Derakhshani S, Bothmann M, Oberle J. Subsidence after anterior cervical inter-body fusion. A randomized prospective clinical trial. Neurosurg Rev. 2009;32(2):207–214.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
[53] |
Kim S, Chun HJ, Yi HJ, Bak KH, Kim DW, Lee YK. Long-term follow-up radiologic and clinical evaluation of cylindrical cage for anterior interbody fusion in degenerative cervical disc disease. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2012;52(2):107–113.
CrossRef
Google scholar
|
/
〈 | 〉 |