• Mohammad Daher, Marven Aoun, Charbel Farhat, Gaby Kreichati, Khalil Kharrat, Alan H Daniels, and Amer Sebaaly.
• Saint Joseph University, Faculty of medicine, Beirut, LEBANON; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA, 02906.
• World Neurosurg. 2024 Oct 1.

BackgroundThe most widely adopted materials for interbody fusion implants are titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK), both of which have their potential advantages and disadvantages. Despite the differences between PEEK and titanium, there is no consensus on which material provides better clinical and radiological outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the two cages.MethodsFour databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar (page 1-20)) were queried since December 2001 up until December 2023,. The clinical outcomes evaluated included the rates of adverse events, radiographic outcomes, and PROs.ResultsHigher rates of subsidence and revision were reported in PEEK cages in the lumbar spine (p=0.0006, and p=0.006 respectively). In the cervical spine, no difference was observed between PEEK and titanium in any analysis.ConclusionIn the lumbar spine, titanium cages were shown to have a lower rate of subsidence and revision compared to PEEK. As for the cervical spine, the difference between cages did not reach statistical significance in any of the analyzed outcomes.Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

5 keywords...

hide…