Clinical Effectiveness of Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Tritanium C Anterior Cervical Cage vs. PEEK Cage

• Published in: Spine Surgery and Related Research 2024/07/27, Vol.8(4), pp.399-408
• Main Authors: Croft, Andrew J., Wiedel, Abigail J., Steinle, Anthony M., Zakieh, Omar, Pennings, Jacquelyn S., Davidson, Claudia, Zuckerman, Scott L., Abtahi, Amir M., Stephens, Byron F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion; Clinical Outcomes; Fusion; Interbody Fusion; PEEK Cage; Subsidence; Tritanium C Cage
• ISSN: 2432-261X; 2432-261X
• DOI: 10.22603/ssrr.2023-0140

Introduction: Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) has proven to be a clinically efficient and cost-effective method for treating patients with degenerative cervical spine conditions. New intervertebral implant products are being developed to improve fusion and stability while decreasing complications. This study assesses the effectiveness of Tritanium C (Tri-C) Anterior Cervical Cage (Stryker) in the treatment of degenerative disk disease (DDD) of the cervical spine compared with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages.Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using data prospectively collected from two institutions. Patients who underwent ACDFs for DDD using either the Tri-C cage or PEEK cage were identified. The patients' demographics, comorbidities, operative variables, and baseline patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected. PROs included the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and numeric rating scale (NRS) for neck and arm pain. The primary outcomes included 3- and 12-month PROs as well as the rates of 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation, and perioperative complication. The radiographic outcomes included rates of subsidence, cage movement, and successful fusion within 12 months. Multivariate linear regression models were run to identify variables predictive of 12-month PROs.Results: A total of 275 patients who underwent ACDF were included in this study and were divided into two groups: PEEK (n=213) and Tri-C (n=62). Both groups showed improvement in neck and arm pain and NDI postoperatively. When Tri-C and PEEK were compared, no significant differences were observed in the 3- or 12-month changes in neck or arm pain or NDI. Furthermore, there were no differences in the rates of 90-day readmission, 90-day reoperation, and perioperative complication. Regression analysis revealed that Tri-C vs. PEEK was not a significant predictor of any outcome.Conclusions: Our results indicate that the use of porous titanium Tri-C cage during ACDFs is an effective method for managing cervical DDD in terms of PROs, perioperative morbidity, and radiologic parameters. No significant difference was observed in any clinical outcome between patients undergoing ACDF using the Tri-C cage and those in whom the PEEK cage was used.Level of Evidence: III