Free access

Research Article

25 March 2019

Comparison between porous tantalum metal implants and autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a meta-analysis

Authors: Na Li [email protected], Wen-qing Hu, Wen-qiang Xin, Qi-feng Li, and Peng TianAuthor Info & Affiliations

Publication: J. Comp. Eff. Res.

Volume 8, Number 7

https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0107

PDF OtherFormats

Abstract

Aim: The objective of this study was to systematically compare the safety and efficacy of porous tantalum metal (TM) implants and autograft in single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Methods: Potential academic articles were acquired from the Cochrane Library, Medline, PubMed, Embase, Science Direct and other databases. The time range used was from the inception of the electronic databases to March 2018. Gray studies were identified from the references of included literature reports. STATA version 11.0 (Stata Corporation, TX, USA) was used to analyze the pooled data. Results: Four randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were identified according to the retrieval process. There were significant differences in operation time (mean difference [MD]: -28.846, 95% confidence interval [CI: -47.087, -10.604], p = 0.002) and satisfaction rate (odds ratio [OR]: 2.196, 95% CI: [1.061–4. 546]; p = 0.034). However, no significant difference was detected in blood loss (MD: -73.606, 95% CI: [-217.720, 70.509], p = 0.317), hospital stay (MD: -0.512, 95% CI [-1.082, 0.058]; p = 0.079), fusion rate (OR: 0.497, 95% CI [0.079, 3.115]; p = 0.455), visual analog scale (MD: -0.310, 95% CI [-0.433, -0.186]; p < 0.001) or complication rate (risk difference [RD]: -0.140, 95% CI: [-0.378, 0.099]; p = 0.251). Conclusion: Porous TM implants are equally as effective and safe as autograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion processes. In addition, porous TM implants could reduce operation time and improve clinical satisfaction significantly.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDF View Full Text

References

1.

Cepoiu-Martin M, Faris P, Lorenzetti D, Prefontaine E, Noseworthy T, Sutherland L. Artificial cervical disc arthroplasty: a systematic review. Spine 36(25), E1623–E1633 (2011).

2.

Patil PG, Turner DA, Pietrobon R. National trends in surgical procedures for degenerative cervical spine disease: 1990–2000. Neurosurgery 57(4), 753–758; discussion 753–758 (2005).

3.

Wang MC, Chan L, Maiman DJ, Kreuter W, Deyo RA. Complications and mortality associated with cervical spine surgery for degenerative disease in the United States. Spine 32(3), 342–347 (2007).

4.

Smith GW, Robinson RA. The treatment of certain cervical-spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 40-A(3), 607–624 (1958).

5.

Hacker RJ, Cauthen JC, Gilbert TJ, Griffith SL. A prospective randomized multicenter clinical evaluation of an anterior cervical fusion cage. Spine 25(20), 2646–2654; discussion 2655 (2000).

6.

Kani KK, Chew FS. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: review and update for radiologists. Skeletal Radiol. 47(1), 7–17 (2018).

7.

Peolsson A, Vavruch L, Hedlund R. Long-term randomised comparison between a carbon fibre cage and the Cloward procedure in the cervical spine. Eur. Spine J. 16(2), 173–178 (2007).

8.

Banwart JC, Asher MA, Hassanein RS. Iliac crest bone graft harvest donor site morbidity. A statistical evaluation. Spine 20(9), 1055–1060 (1995).

9.

Hanc M, Fokter SK, Vogrin M, Molicnik A, Recnik G. Porous tantalum in spinal surgery: an overview. Eur. J. Orthop. Surg. Traumatol. 26(1), 1–7 (2016).

10.

Zou X, Li H, Teng X et al. Pedicle screw fixation enhances anterior lumbar interbody fusion with porous tantalum cages: an experimental study in pigs. Spine 30(14), E392–E399 (2005).

11.

Lofgren H, Engquist M, Hoffmann P, Sigstedt B, Vavruch L. Clinical and radiological evaluation of Trabecular Metal and the Smith–Robinson technique in anterior cervical fusion for degenerative disease: a prospective, randomized, controlled study with 2-year follow-up. Eur. Spine J. 19(3), 464–473 (2010).

12.

Fernandez-Fairen M, Sala P, Dufoo M Jr, Ballester J, Murcia A, Merzthal L. Anterior cervical fusion with tantalum implant: a prospective randomized controlled study. Spine 33(5), 465–472 (2008).

13.

Wigfield C, Robertson J, Gill S, Nelson R. Clinical experience with porous tantalum cervical interbody implants in a prospective randomized controlled trial. Brit. J. Neurosurg. 17(5), 418–425 (2003).

14.

Kasliwal MK, Baskin DS, Traynelis VC. Failure of porous tantalum cervical interbody fusion devices: two-year results from a prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical study. J. Spinal Disord. Tech. 26(5), 239–245 (2013).

15.

Jagannathan J, Shaffrey CI, Oskouian RJ et al. Radiographic and clinical outcomes following single-level anterior cervical discectomy and allograft fusion without plate placement or cervical collar. J. Neurosurg. Spine 8(5), 420–428 (2008).

16.

Chau AM, Mobbs RJ. Bone graft substitutes in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Eur. Spine J. 18(4), 449–464 (2009).

17.

Deutsch H, Haid R, Rodts G Jr, Mummaneni PV. The decision-making process: allograft versus autograft. Neurosurgery 60(1 Suppl. 1), S98–S102 (2007).

18.

van Limbeek J, Jacobs WC, Anderson PG, Pavlov PW. A systematic literature review to identify the best method for a single level anterior cervical interbody fusion. Eur. Spine J. 9(2), 129–136 (2000).

19.

Murr LE, Gaytan SM, Martinez E, Medina F, Wicker RB. Next generation orthopaedic implants by additive manufacturing using electron beam melting. Int. J. Biomater. 2012, 245727 (2012).

20.

Murr LE, Gaytan SM, Medina F et al. Next-generation biomedical implants using additive manufacturing of complex, cellular and functional mesh arrays. Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 368(1917), 1999–2032 (2010).

21.

Yang J, Cai H, Lv J et al. In vivo study of a self-stabilizing artificial vertebral body fabricated by electron beam melting. Spine 39(8), E486–E492 (2014).

22.

Wu SH, Li Y, Zhang YQ et al. Porous titanium-6 aluminum-4 vanadium cage has better osseointegration and less micromotion than a poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in sheep vertebral fusion. Artificial Org. 37(12), E191–E201 (2013).

23.

Black J. Biological performance of tantalum. Clin. Mat. 16(3), 167–173 (1994).

24.

Bobyn JD, Stackpool GJ, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 81(5), 907–914 (1999).

25.

Blanco JF, Sanchez-Guijo FM, Carrancio S, Muntion S, Garcia-Brinon J, del Canizo MC. Titanium and tantalum as mesenchymal stem cell scaffolds for spinal fusion: an in vitro comparative study. Eur. Spine J. 20(Suppl. 3), 353–360 (2011).

26.

Cattrysse E, Moens M, Schaillee E, D'Haens J, Van Roy P. Changed cervical kinematics after fusion surgery. Eur. Spine J. 21(7), 1353–1359 (2012).

27.

Fassett DR, Apfelbaum RI, Hipp JA. Comparison of fusion assessment techniques: computer-assisted versus manual measurements. J. Neurosurg. Spine 8(6), 544–547 (2008).

28.

Zoega B, Karrholm J, Lind B. Outcome scores in degenerative cervical disc surgery. Eur. Spine J. 9(2), 137–143 (2000).

29.

Shimamoto N, Cunningham BW, Dmitriev AE, Minami A, McAfee PC. Biomechanical evaluation of stand-alone interbody fusion cages in the cervical spine. Spine 26(19), E432–E436 (2001).

30.

Vavruch L, Hedlund R, Javid D, Leszniewski W, Shalabi A. A prospective randomized comparison between the cloward procedure and a carbon fiber cage in the cervical spine: a clinical and radiologic study. Spine 27(16), 1694–1701 (2002).

31.

Cauthen JC, Kinard RE, Vogler JB et al. Outcome analysis of noninstrumented anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion in 348 patients. Spine 23(2), 188–192 (1998).

32.

Ryu SI, Mitchell M, Kim DH. A prospective randomized study comparing a cervical carbon fiber cage to the Smith–Robinson technique with allograft and plating: up to 24 months follow-up. Eur. Spine J. 15(2), 157–164 (2006).

|