Posterior lumbar interbody fusion using non resorbable poly-ether-ether-ketone versus resorbable poly-l-lactide-co-d,l-lactide fusion devices. Clinical outcome at a minimum of 2-year follow-up

Previous papers on resorbable poly-l-lactide-co-d,l-lactide (PLDLLA) cages in spinal fusion have failed to report adequately on patient-centred clinical outcome measures. Also comparison of PLDLLA cage with a traditionally applicable counterpart has not been previously reported. This is the first randomized prospective study that assesses clinical outcome of PLDLLA cage compared with a poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) implant. Twenty-six patients were randomly assigned to undergo instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) whereby either a PEEK cage or a PLDLLA cage was implanted. Clinical outcome based on visual analogue scale scores for leg pain and back pain, as well as Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and SF-36 questionnaires were documented and analysed. When compared with preoperative values, all clinical parameters have significantly improved in the PEEK group at 2 years after surgery with the exception of SF-36 general health, SF-36 mental health and SF-36 role emotional scores. No clinical parameter showed significant improvement at 2 years after surgery compared with preoperative values in the PLDLLA patient group. Only six patients (50%) in the PLDLLA group showed improvement in the VAS scores for leg and back pain as well as the ODI, as opposed to 10 patients (71%) in the PEEK group. One-third of the patients in the PLDLLA group actually reported worsening of their pain scores and ODI. Three cases of mild to moderate osteolysis were seen in the PLDLLA group. Following up on our preliminary report, these 2-year results confirm the superiority of the PEEK implant to the resorbable PLDLLA implant in aiding spinal fusion and alleviating symptoms following PLIF in patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis associated with either canal stenosis or foramen stenosis or both and emanating from a single lumbar segment

Time-dependent failure in load-bearing polymers: a potential hazard in structural applications of polylactides

With their excellent biocompatibility and relatively high mechanical strength, polylactides are attractive candidates for application in load-bearing, resorbable implants. Pre-clinical studies provided a proof of principle for polylactide cages as temporary constructs to facilitate spinal fusion, and several cages already made it to the market. However, also failures have been reported: clinical studies reported considerable amounts of subsidence with lumbar spinal fusion cages, and in an in vivo goat study, polylactide spinal cages failed after only three months of implantation, although mechanical testing had predicted sufficient strength for at least eight months. The failures appear to be related to the long-term performance of polylactides under static loading conditions, a phenomenon which is common to all glassy polymers and finds its origin in stress-activated molecular mobility leading to plastic flow. This paper reviews the mechanical properties and deformation kinetics of amorphous polylactides. Compression tests were performed with various strain rates, and static stress experiments were done to determine time-to failure. Pure PLLA appeared to have a higher yield strength than its co-polymers with d-lactide, but the kinetic behaviour of the polymers was the same: an excellent short-term strength at higher loading rates, but lifetime under static stress is rather poor. As spinal implants need to maintain mechanical integrity for a period of at least six months, this has serious implications for the clinical application of amorphous polylactides in load bearing situations. It is recommended that standards for mechanical testing of implants made of polymers be revised in order to consider this typical time-dependent behaviour