• Qing Peng, Sheng Yang, Yu Zhang, Huanxiang Liu, Bo Meng, Wenjie Zhao, Man Hu, Yongbo Zhang, Liuyang Chen, Hua Sun, Liang Zhang, and Haisheng Wu.
• Department of Orthopedics, Clinical Medical College of Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
• World Neurosurg. 2023 Oct 1; 178: 162171.e7162-171.e7.

BackgroundInter body spacers have been widely used in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery; however, it is not clear whether one implant shows superior clinical outcomes compared with the other. This systematic review and meta-analysis comprehensively evaluated the radiologic outcomes and patient-reported outcomes of structural allograft versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery.MethodsExtensive literature searches were conducted on online databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Library, until January 2023. The present study adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool were used to assess the quality of the included studies.ResultsFifteen studies, encompassing 8020 patients, met the eligibility criteria. The results indicate that structural allografts show a higher fusion rate compared with PEEK implants (odds ratio [OR], 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-3.37; P ＝0.03; I2 = 71%). In addition, the structural allograft group also had a lower pseudarthrosis rate (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.20-0.80; P = 0.009; I2 = 75%) and reoperation rate (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.81; P = 0.007; I2 = 38%).ConclusionsOur systematic review and meta-analysis show that structural allograft has a higher fusion rate compared with PEEK implants in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery. In addition, structural allograft has a lower pseudarthrosis rate and reoperation rate.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

4 keywords...

hide…