Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2016 Sep 1;17(1):379.
doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-1234-1.

Is PEEK cage better than titanium cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery? A meta-analysis

Zhi-Jun Li  1 , Yao Wang  2 , Gui-Jun Xu  3 , Peng Tian  3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Is PEEK cage better than titanium cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery? A meta-analysis

Zhi-Jun Li et al. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. .

Abstract

Background: This meta-analysis was performed to identify the benefits and disadvantages of the PEEK cage and titanium cage.

Methods: We used "cervical or cervicle", "titanium", and "polyetheretherketone or PEEK" as keywords. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and other databases were searched to identify eligible studies that were published before October 2015. In addition, the Google search engine was used to manually search for relevant journals or conference proceedings. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized controlled trials that compared the PEEK cage and titanium cage for anterior cervical surgery were included. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.1 software.

Results: Two randomized and two non-randomized clinical trials were retrieved with a total of 184 segments from 107 patients in the PEEK cage group and 211 segments from 128 patients in the titanium cage group. The quality assessment scores ranged from 16 to 18 with high heterogeneity. There were no differences in functional status according to the Odom criteria, fusion rate, final local segmental angle and loss of correction between the two groups. Although more subsidence occurred in the titanium cage group, the effects of loss of the local segmental angle or the whole cervical Cobb angle on cervical function in the long-term are still not clear.

Conclusion: The present meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in functional and radiographic performance between the PEEK and titanium cages, although more subsidence occurred in the titanium cage group. More high-quality studies are needed to confirm these results to offer more information for the choice in clinical practice.

Keywords: Cage; Cervical spine; Meta-analysis; Polyetheretherketone; Titanium.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart of studies
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot showing clinical functional status by Odom criteria
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot showing fusion rate between two groups
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot showing subsidence between two groups
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plot showing the final segmental angle between two groups
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. CLOWARD RB. The anterior approach for removal of ruptured cervical disks. J Neurosurg. 1958;15(6):602–17. doi: 10.3171/jns.1958.15.6.0602. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baba H, Furusawa N, Tanaka Y, Wada M, Imura S, Tomita K. Anterior decompression and fusion for cervical myeloradiculopathy secondary to ossification of the posterior ligament. Int Orthop. 1994;18(4):204–09. doi: 10.1007/BF00188323. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baba H, Furusawa N, Imura S, Kawahara N, Tsuchiya H, Tomita K. Late radiographic findings after anterior cervical fusion for spondylotic myeloradiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1993;18(15):2167–73. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199311000-00004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Younger EM, Chapman MW. Morbidity at bone graft donor sites. J Orthop Trauma. 1989;3(3):192–95. doi: 10.1097/00005131-198909000-00002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bagby GW. Arthrodesis by the distraction-compression method using a stainless steel implant. Orthopedics. 1988;11(6):931–34. - PubMed

Publication types