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?
Sim = 1
Incerto = 0,5
Não relevante = 0
Não = 0
A Avaliação dos Critérios de Relato avalia a transparência com que os autores relatam as caraterísticas metodológicas e do ensaio na publicação. A avaliação está dividida em cinco categorias que são apresentadas de seguida.
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
O Índice de Fragilidade é uma ferramenta que auxilia na interpretação de achados significativos, fornecendo uma medida de força para um resultado. O Índice de Fragilidade representa o número de eventos consecutivos que precisam de ser adicionados a um resultado dicotómico para que o resultado deixe de ser significativo. Um número pequeno representa um resultado mais fraco e um número grande representa um resultado mais forte.
Porque é que este estudo era necessário agora?
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.
Qual era a principal questão de investigação?
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).
De que é que me devo lembrar mais?
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.
Como é que isto afectará o tratamento dos meus doentes?
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.
AVISO LEGAL
O conteúdo desta página destina-se apenas a fins informativos e não pretende substituir o aconselhamento, diagnóstico ou tratamento médico profissional. Se necessitar de tratamento médico, procure sempre o conselho do seu médico ou dirija-se ao serviço de urgência mais próximo. As opiniões, crenças e pontos de vista expressos pelos indivíduos no conteúdo encontrado nesta página não reflectem as opiniões, crenças e pontos de vista da OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 artigos mensais GRATUITOS desbloqueados
