» Articles » PMID: 38811965

Biomechanical Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Rods and Titanium Alloy Rods in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: a Finite Element Analysis

Overview
Journal BMC Surg
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2024 May 29
PMID 38811965
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Whether polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods have potential as an alternative to titanium alloy (Ti) rods in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) remains unclear, especially in cases with insufficient anterior support due to the absence of a cage. The purpose of this study was to investigate biomechanical differences between PEEK rods and Ti rods in TLIF with and without a cage.

Methods: An intact L1-L5 lumbar finite element model was constructed and validated. Accordingly, four TLIF models were developed: (1) Ti rods with a cage; (2) PEEK rods with a cage; (3) Ti rods without a cage; and (4) PEEK rods without a cage. The biomechanical properties were then compared among the four TLIF constructs.

Results: With or without a cage, no obvious differences were found in the effect of PEEK rods and Ti rods on the range of motion, adjacent disc stress, and adjacent facet joint force. Compared to Ti rods, PEEK rods increase the average bone graft strain (270.8-6055.2 µE vs. 319.0-8751.6 µE). Moreover, PEEK rods reduced the stresses on the screw-rod system (23.1-96.0 MPa vs. 7.2-48.4 MPa) but increased the stresses on the cage (4.6-35.2 MPa vs. 5.6-40.9 MPa) and endplates (5.7-32.5 MPa vs. 6.6-37.6 MPa).

Conclusions: Regardless of whether a cage was used for TLIF, PEEK rods theoretically have the potential to serve as an alternative to Ti rods because they may provide certain stability, increase the bone graft strain, and reduce the posterior instrumentation stress, which might promote bony fusion and decrease instrumentation failure.

Citing Articles

A Finite Element Study of Simulated Fusion in an L4-L5 Model: Influence of the Combination of Materials in the Screw-and-Rod Fixation System on Reproducing Natural Bone Behavior.

Ceddia M, Lamberti L, Trentadue B Biomimetics (Basel). 2025; 10(2).

PMID: 39997095 PMC: 11853378. DOI: 10.3390/biomimetics10020072.


Quantitative relationships between elastic modulus of rod and biomechanical properties of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.

Li J, Du Z, Cao S, Lu T, Sun Z, Wei H Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2025; 12():1510597.

PMID: 39845378 PMC: 11752904. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2024.1510597.

References
1.
Shim C, Park S, Lee S, Lim T, Chun K, Kim D . Biomechanical evaluation of an interspinous stabilizing device, Locker. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008; 33(22):E820-7. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181894fb1. View

2.
Hsieh Y, Tsuang F, Kuo Y, Chen C, Chiang C, Lin C . Biomechanical analysis of single-level interbody fusion with different internal fixation rod materials: a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020; 21(1):100. PMC: 7023693. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-3111-1. View

3.
Selim A, Mercer S, Tang F . Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Rods for Lumbar Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Spine Surg. 2018; 12(2):190-200. PMC: 6159719. DOI: 10.14444/5027. View

4.
Patel D, Yoo J, Karmarkar S, Lamoutte E, Singh K . Interbody options in lumbar fusion. J Spine Surg. 2019; 5(Suppl 1):S19-S24. PMC: 6626748. DOI: 10.21037/jss.2019.04.04. View

5.
Ahn Y, Chen W, Lee K, Park K, Lee S . Comparison of the load-sharing characteristics between pedicle-based dynamic and rigid rod devices. Biomed Mater. 2008; 3(4):044101. DOI: 10.1088/1748-6041/3/4/044101. View