Similar fusion rate and clinical outcome in ACDF completed with PEEK vs titanium cage .
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2017;5(5):12 BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Sep 1;17:379Four studies (two randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and two non-RCT comparative trials) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with either a polyetheretherketon (PEEK) cage or a titanium cage. Pooled results demonstrated no significant differences in the rate of successful fusion, clinical outcome on the Odom's criteria measure, final segmental angle, or loss in segmental correction over follow-up between groups. A significantly higher incidence of cage migration was noted with titanium cages. The results from this meta-analysis were based on data from only four studies, only two of which were RCTs. This highlights the need for additional RCTs to verify the results of this meta-analysis and strengthen the current body of literature comparing PEEK and titanium cages in ACDF procedures.
Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?
Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?
Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?
Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?
Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?
Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?
Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?
Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?
Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?
How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?
Ja = 1
Ungewiss = 0.5
Nicht relevant = 0
Nein = 0
Die Bewertung der Berichtskriterien bewertet die Transparenz, mit der die Autoren die methodischen und studienspezifischen Merkmale der Studie in der Veröffentlichung angeben. Die Bewertung ist in fünf Kategorien unterteilt, die im Folgenden vorgestellt werden.
3/4
Introduction
2/4
Accessing Data
3/4
Analysing Data
3/4
Results
3/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
Der Fragilitätsindex ist ein Instrument, das bei der Interpretation signifikanter Ergebnisse hilft und ein Maß für die Stärke eines Ergebnisses liefert. Der Fragilitätsindex gibt die Anzahl der aufeinanderfolgenden Ereignisse an, die zu einem dichotomen Ergebnis hinzugefügt werden müssen, damit das Ergebnis nicht mehr signifikant ist. Eine kleine Zahl steht für ein schwächeres Ergebnis und eine große Zahl für ein stärkeres Ergebnis.
Warum wurde diese Studie jetzt benötigt?
Degenerative disease and radiculopathy of the cervical spine have traditionally been treated via anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). Two common materials for fusion cages are polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium. Despite their common use in ACDF procedures, only a few randomized controlled trials have been performed comparing the two types of cages, and a meta-analysis pooling the results of the high-quality literature had yet to be performed.
Was war die wichtigste Forschungsfrage?
In anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, are there any significant differences in the rate of successful fusion, clinical outcome, or radiographic measures between procedures completed with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages and titanium cages?
- Dichotomized results for Odom's criteria of clinical outcome demonstrated no significant difference between PEEK cages and titanium cages (3 studies; OR 0.89 [95%CI 0.49-1.63]; p=0.71).
- Qualitative assessment of the Neck Disability Index demonstrated significantly lower NDI scores for the PEEK group compared to the titanium group at 12-month follow-up in one study, while no significant differences were noted between groups at over 2-year follow-up in another study.
- No significant difference in overall fusion rate was observed between PEEK groups and titanium groups (3 studies; OR 0.20 [95%CI 0.01-3.93]; p=0.29).
- The incidence of cage subsidence was significantly higher for titanium cages (33/211) compared to PEEK cages (11/184) (4 studies; OR 3.14 [95%CI 1.56-6.30]; p=0.001).
- Analyses demonstrated no significant differences in either final segmental angle (3 studies; MD -1.19 [95%CI -2.60, 0.23]; p=0.10) or loss of segmental correction at follow-up (3 studies; MD 2.03 [95%CI -1.10, 5.17]; p=0.20).
Was sollte ich mir besonders merken?
In anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), no significant differences were observed between PEEK cages and titanium cages in pooled results of fusion success, the clinical outcome on Odom's criteria, or angle of segmental correction. Cage migration was significantly more frequent with titanium cages compared to PEEK cages.
Wie wird sich dies auf die Behandlung meiner Patienten auswirken?
The results of this study suggest that the use of either a PEEK cage or a titanium cage offers similar results following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. However, the current results are based on data from only four studies and ever fewer randomized controlled trials. As such, additional RCTs are needed to verify the suggestions of the current body of literature comparing PEEK and titanium cages in ACDF procedures.
HAFTUNGSAUSSCHLUSS
Der Inhalt dieser Seite dient nur zu Informationszwecken und ist nicht als Ersatz für professionelle medizinische Beratung, Diagnose oder Behandlung gedacht. Wenn Sie eine medizinische Behandlung benötigen, wenden Sie sich immer an Ihren Arzt oder suchen Sie die nächstgelegene Notaufnahme auf. Die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte, die von den Personen auf dieser Seite geäußert werden, spiegeln nicht die Meinungen, Überzeugungen und Standpunkte von OrthoEvidence wider.
0 von 4 monatliche KOSTENLOSE Artikel freigeschaltet
