Titanium‑coated polyetheretherketone cages vs. polyetheretherketone cages in lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

Li,Songfeng; Li,Xiyong; Bai,Xiaohui; Wang,Yunlu; Han,Pengfei; Li,Hongzhuo

doi:10.3892/etm.2023.12004

Titanium‑coated polyetheretherketone cages vs. polyetheretherketone cages in lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

Authors:
- Songfeng Li
- Xiyong Li
- Xiaohui Bai
- Yunlu Wang
- Pengfei Han
- Hongzhuo Li
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Orthopaedics, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, Shanxi 046000, P.R. China
Published online on: May 9, 2023 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2023.12004
Article Number: 305
Copyright: © Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Fusion material is one of the key factors in the success of lumbar interbody fusion surgery. The present meta‑analysis compared the safety and efficacy of titanium‑coated (Ti) polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and PEEK cages. Published literature on the use of Ti‑PEEK and PEEK cages in lumbar interbody fusion was systematically searched on Embase, PubMed, Central, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang databases. A total of 84 studies were retrieved and seven were included in the present meta‑analysis. Literature quality was assessed using the Cochrane systematic review methodology. After data extraction, meta‑analysis was performed using the ReviewManager 5.4 software. Meta‑analysis showed that, compared with that in the PEEK cage group, the Ti‑PEEK cage group showed a higher interbody fusion rate at 6 months postoperatively (95% CI, 1.09‑5.60; P=0.03) and improved Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at 3 months postoperatively [95% CI, ‑7.80‑(‑0.62); P=0.02] and visual analog scale (VAS) scores of back pain at 6 months postoperatively [95% CI, ‑0.8‑(‑0.23); P=0.0008]. However, there were no significant differences in intervertebral bone fusion rate (12 months after surgery), cage subsidence rate, ODI score (6 and 12 months after surgery) or VAS score (3 and 12 months after surgery) between the two groups. The results of the meta‑analysis showed that the Ti‑PEEK group had an improved interbody fusion rate and higher postoperative ODI score in the early postoperative period (≤6 months).

View Figures

View References

1	Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, Groff MW, Khoo L, Matz PG, Mummaneni P, Watters WC III, Wang J, Walters BC, et al: Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 12: Pedicle screw fixation as an adjunct to posterolateral fusion for low-back pain. J Neurosurg Spine. 2:700–706. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	de Kunder SL, Rijkers K, Caelers IJMH, de Bie RA, Koehler PJ and van Santbrink H: Lumbar interbody fusion: A historical overview and a future perspective. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 43:1161–1168. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Verma R, Virk S and Qureshi S: Interbody fusions in the lumbar spine: A review. HSS J. 16:162–167. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Lv ZT, Xu Y, Cao B, Dai J, Zhang SY, Huang JM, Liang S and Jiang FX: Titanium-coated PEEK versus uncoated PEEK cages in lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Clin Spine Surg: Aug 24, 2022 (Epub ahead of print).
5	Su EP, Justin DF, Pratt CR, Sarin VK, Nguyen VS, Oh S and Jin S: Effects of titanium nanotubes on the osseointegration, cell differentiation, mineralisation and antibacterial properties of orthopaedic implant surfaces. Bone Joint J. 100-B:9–16. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Li C, Liao Z, Zhu J, et al: Structure and materials of lumbar interbody fusion apparatus. Int J Orthop. 38:360–363. 2017.
7	Ma R and Tang T: Current strategies to improve the bioactivity of PEEK. Int J Mol Sci. 15:5426–5445. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Mobbs RJ, Phan K, Assem Y, Pelletier M and Walsh WR: Combination Ti/PEEK ALIF cage for anterior lumbar interbody fusion: Early clinical and radiological results. J Clin Neurosci. 34:94–99. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Olivares-Navarrete R, Hyzy SL, Slosar PJ, Schneider JM, Schwartz Z and Boyan BD: Implant materials generate different peri-implant inflammatory factors: Poly-ether-ether-ketone promotes fibrosis and microtextured titanium promotes osteogenic factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 40:399–404. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Setzer M, Eleraky M, Johnson WM, Aghayev K, Tran ND and Vrionis FD: Biomechanical comparison of anterior cervical spine instrumentation techniques with and without supplemental posterior fusion after different corpectomy and discectomy combinations: Laboratory investigation. J Neurosurg Spine. 16:579–584. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Nemoto O, Asazuma T, Yato Y, Imabayashi H, Yasuoka H and Fujikawa A: Comparison of fusion rates following transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone cages or titanium cages with transpedicular instrumentation. Eur Spine J. 23:2150–2155. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Seaman S, Kerezoudis P, Bydon M, Torner JC and Hitchon PW: Titanium vs polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody fusion: Meta-analysis and review of the literature. J Clin Neurosci. 44:23–29. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Han CM, Lee EJ, Kim HE, Koh YH, Kim KN, Ha Y and Kuh SU: The electron beam deposition of titanium on polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and the resulting enhanced biological properties. Biomaterials. 31:3465–3470. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Hasegawa T, Ushirozako H, Shigeto E, Ohba T, Oba H, Mukaiyama K, Shimizu S, Yamato Y, Ide K, Shibata Y, et al: The titanium-coated PEEK cage maintains better bone fusion with the endplate than the PEEK cage 6 months after PLIF surgery: A multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 45:E892–E902. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Rickert M, Fleege C, Tarhan T, Schreiner S, Makowski MR, Rauschmann M and Arabmotlagh M: Transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using polyetheretherketone oblique cages with and without a titanium coating: A randomised clinical pilot study. Bone Joint J. 99-B:1366–1372. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Sakaura H, Ikegami D, Fujimori T, Sugiura T, Yamada S and Mukai Y: Surgical outcomes after posterior lumbar interbody fusion using traditional trajectory screw fixation or cortical bone trajectory screw fixation: A comparative study between the polyetheretherketone cage and the same shape titanium-coated polyetheretherketone cage. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 209(106945)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Schnake KJ, Fleiter N, Hoffmann C, Pingel A, Scholz M, Langheinrich A and Kandziora F: PLIF surgery with titanium-coated PEEK or uncoated PEEK cages: A prospective randomised clinical and radiological study. Eur Spine J. 30:114–121. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Singhatanadgige W, Tangchitcharoen N, Kerr SJ, Tanasansomboon T, Yingsakmongkol W, Kotheeranurak V and Limthongkul W: Comparison of PEEK and TiPEEK in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A randomized clinical trial. World Neurosurg. 68:2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Willems K, Lauweryns P, Verleye G and VAN Goethem J: Randomized controlled trial of posterior lumbar interbody fusion with Ti- and CaP-nanocoated polyetheretherketone cages: Comparative study of the 1-year radiological and clinical outcome. Int J Spine Surg. 13:575–587. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Yao YC, Chou PH, Lin HH, Wang ST and Chang MC: Outcome of Ti/PEEK versus PEEK cages in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion. Global Spine J. 13:472–478. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 343(d5928)2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	Stang A: Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 25:603–605. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Rade M, Määttä JH, Freidin MB, Airaksinen O, Karppinen J and Williams FMK: Vertebral endplate defect as initiating factor in intervertebral disc degeneration: Strong association between endplate defect and disc degeneration in the general population. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 43:412–419. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
24	Hey HWD, Lau ET, Tan KA, Lim JL, Choong D, Lau LL, Liu KG and Wong HK: Lumbar spine alignment in six common postures: An ROM analysis with implications for deformity correction. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 42:1447–1455. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
25	Barrey C, Jund J, Noseda O and Roussouly P: Sagittal balance of the pelvis-spine complex and lumbar degenerative diseases. A comparative study about 85 cases. Eur Spine J. 16:1459–1467. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
26	Lee JH, Lee JH, Yoon KS, Kang SB and Jo CH: Comparative study of unilateral and bilateral cages with respect to clinical outcomes and stability in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Neurosurgery. 63:109–114. 2008.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
27	Fang S and Zeng Z: Research progress of bone grafting material in interbody fusion. J Spinal Surg. 16:57–61. 2018.
28	Wu X, Liu X, Wei J, Ma J, Deng F and Wei S: Nano-TiO2/PEEK bioactive composite as a bone substitute material: In vitro and in vivo studies. Int J Nanomedicine. 7:1215–1225. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
29	Assem Y, Mobbs RJ, Pelletier MH, Phan K and Walsh WR: Radiological and clinical outcomes of novel Ti/PEEK combined spinal fusion cages: a systematic review and preclinical evaluation. Eur Spine J. 26:593–605. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
30	Massaad E, Fatima N, Kiapour A, Hadzipasic M, Shankar GM and Shin JH: Polyetheretherketone versus titanium cages for posterior lumbar interbody fusion: Meta-analysis and review of the literature. Neurospine. 17:125–135. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
31	Gittens RA, McLachlan T, Olivares-Navarrete R, et al: The effects of combined micron-/submicron-scale surface roughness and nanoscale features on cell proliferation and differentiation. Biomaterials. 32:3395–3403. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
32	Kashii M, Kitaguchi K, Makino T and Kaito T: Comparison in the same intervertebral space between titanium-coated and uncoated PEEK cages in lumbar interbody fusion surgery. J Orthop Sci. 25:565–570. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
33	Walsh WR, Pelletier MH, Christou C, He J, Vizesi F and Boden SD: The in vivo response to a novel Ti coating compared with polyether ether ketone: Evaluation of the periphery and inner surfaces of an implant. Spine J. 18:1231–1240. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
34	Chong E, Mobbs RJ, Pelletier MH and Walsh WR: Titanium/Polyetheretherketone Cages for Cervical Arthrodesis with Degenerative and Traumatic Pathologies: Early Clinical Outcomes and Fusion Rates. Orthop Surg. 8:19–26. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar