ACE Report Cover
Autologous bone cage in PLIF offers similar 2-year results to PEEK cage
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Language
Download Download Download
Download
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Cite
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favorites
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Language
Download Download Download
Download
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Cite
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favorites
SPINE
Autologous bone cage in PLIF offers similar 2-year results to PEEK cage .

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2017;5(5):14 BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Aug 30;17(1):374
Contributing Authors

B Lin H Yu Z Chen Z Huang W Zhang

69 patients scheduled for single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion were randomized to one of two different implant groups: one group received an autologous cage consisting of the resected spinous process and lamina (ACSP) from earlier in the procedure, and one group received a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage. The purpose of this study was to determine and compare clinical and radiographical results of the ACSP group in comparison to the PEEK cage group over 24-month follow-up. Results demonstrated no significant differences between groups in either visual analog pain scores, functional status, fusion success, restoration of disc height, or regional lordosis of the operative level.


Publication Funding Details +
Funding:
Non-funded
Conflicts:
None disclosed

Risk of Bias

6.5/10

Reporting Criteria

13/20

Fragility Index

N/A

Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?

Was allocation adequately concealed?

Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?

Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?

Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?

Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?

Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?

Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?

Yes = 1

Uncertain = 0.5

Not Relevant = 0

No = 0

The Reporting Criteria Assessment evaluates the transparency with which authors report the methodological and trial characteristics of the trial within the publication. The assessment is divided into five categories which are presented below.

1/4

Randomization

4/4

Outcome Measurements

1/4

Inclusion / Exclusion

4/4

Therapy Description

3/4

Statistics

Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65

The Fragility Index is a tool that aids in the interpretation of significant findings, providing a measure of strength for a result. The Fragility Index represents the number of consecutive events that need to be added to a dichotomous outcome to make the finding no longer significant. A small number represents a weaker finding and a large number represents a stronger finding.

Why was this study needed now?

Posterior lumbar interbody fusion is a standard procedure performed in the treatment of patients with degenerative lumbar disc disease. Synthetic fusion cages made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) are often used to complete these procedures. While generally accepted as providing patients with excellent outcomes, PEEK cages, as a result of their synthetic nature, can result in long-term complications and need for removal. An autologous graft composed from en bloc resection of the spinous process and laminae during surgery has been suggested as a possible alternative, although data on the efficacy of this graft material is limited.

What was the principal research question?

In posterior lumbar interbody fusion, is there any significant difference between an autologous cage made from the lumbar spinal process and lamina and a standard, synthetic polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage in clinical and radiological results over 24-month follow-up?

Study Characteristics +
Population:
69 patients, between 30 and 70 years of age, scheduled for posterior lumbar interbody fusion due to symptomatic single-level degenerative lumbar disease for at least 6 months. All cases were performed under general anesthesia, with procedures standardized except for the randomized implant material. Following exposure of the spinous process and lamina, en bloc resection was performed. Decompression and discectomy were then performed, followed by measurement for implant sizing.
Intervention:
ACSP group: The implant was made up from the resected spinous process and lamina harvested previously during the procedure. The spinous process was trimmed appropriate to the size of implant needed (bone block), while the lamina was cut into small pieces to allow for impacting of the main bone block. Lastly, interpedicular screws were inserted and connected via rods. (n=34)
Comparison:
PEEK group: Following discectomy, a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage was inserted into the intervertebral space, with interpedicular screws and rods used as in the ACSP group. (n=35)
Outcomes:
Clinical assessment was made through a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, as well as the Kirkaldy-Willis criteria, which grades patients as either Excellent, Good, Fair, or Poor based on the ability to return to work and activities of daily living. Anteroposterior and lateral flexion-extension radiographs were used to assess fusion status. Computed tomography (CT) was used to assess disk height and regional lordosis (ie. angle of the upper and lower edges of the operated intervertebral disc).
Methods:
RCT; Assessor-blind, Single-surgeon
Time:
Follow-up scheduled for 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery.
What were the important findings?
  • VAS pain scores improved significantly from preoperative to postoperative within both the ACSP group (7.54+/-1.24 to 2.05+/-0.61) and the PEEK group (7.23+/-0.88 to 1.86+/-0.63); the difference between groups in postoperative VAS pain score was not statistically significant (p>0.05).
  • An "Excellent" or "Good" functional rating was given to thirty patients of each group; the remaining patients in each group were rated as "Fair". No patient of either group was rated as having a "Poor" functional outcome.
  • Successful fusion within 8-12 weeks of surgery was documented in >90% of patients in both groups, and 100% of patients by 24 months.
  • Disc height increased preoperatively to postoperatively in the ACSP group from 21.50+/-4.77mm to 43.29+/-3.62mm, and in the PEEK group from 21.91+/-3.75mm to 45.43+/-3.51mm; the difference between groups in postoperative disc height was not statistically significant.
  • No significant differences between groups were observed in regional lordosis of PLIFs at either L3/4, L4/5, or L5/S1 (all p>0.05).
  • One superficial wound infection occurred in the PEEK group. No cases of surgery-related neurological injury or hardware failure were documented in either group.
What should I remember most?

In instrumented single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion, cases completed with an autologous cage using the resected spinal process and lamina during the procedure demonstrated similar clinical and radiological results to those completed with a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage.

How will this affect the care of my patients?

The results of this study suggest that an autologous cage using the resected spinal process and lamina in posterior lumbar interbody fusion may offer an effective alternative to standard PEEK cages in these procedures. While the body of evidence on the use of the autologous cage used in the current study is still limited, if consistent efficacy is demonstrated in subsequent studies, it could represent a more inexpensive alternative to synthetic PEEK cages.

DISCLAIMER

This content found on this page is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you require medical treatment, always seek the advice of your physician or go to your nearest emergency department. The opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints expressed by the individuals on the content found on this page do not reflect the opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints of OrthoEvidence.

0 of 4 monthly FREE articles unlocked
You've reached your limit of 4 free articles views this month

Access to OrthoEvidence for as little as $1.99 per week.

Stay connected with latest evidence. Cancel at any time.
  • Critical appraisals of the latest, high-impact randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in orthopaedics
  • Access to OrthoEvidence podcast content, including collaborations with the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviews with internationally recognized surgeons, and roundtable discussions on orthopaedic news and topics
  • Subscription to The Pulse, a twice-weekly evidence-based newsletter designed to help you make better clinical decisions
Upgrade
Welcome Back!
Forgot Password?
Start your FREE trial today!

Your account will be affiliated with
and includes free access to OrthoEvidence


OR
Forgot Password?

OR
Please check your email

If an account exists with the provided email address, a password reset email will be sent to you. If you don't see an email, please check your spam or junk folder.

For further assistance, contact our support team.

Please login to enable this feature

To access this feature, you must be logged into an active OrthoEvidence account. Please log in or create a FREE trial account.

Translate ACE Report

OrthoEvidence utilizes a third-party translation service to make content accessible in multiple languages. Please note that while every effort is made to ensure accuracy, translations may not always be perfect.

How to cite this ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Autologous bone cage in PLIF offers similar 2-year results to PEEK cage. OE Journal. 2017;5(5):14. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/autologous-bone-cage-in-plif-offers-similar-2-year-results-to-peek-cage

Copy Citation
Please login to enable this feature

To access this feature, you must be logged into an active OrthoEvidence account. Please log in or create a FREE trial account.

Premium Member Feature

To access this feature, you must be logged into a premium OrthoEvidence account.

Share this ACE Report