Abstract
PEEK rods construct has been proposed to allow better load sharing among spinal components when compared to the more traditional Titanium rods constructs. However, such proposal has largely derived from single-load in-vitro testing and the biomechanical differences between the two constructs when subjected to fatigue loading remain unknown. Current study comparatively analyzed the in-vitro biomechanical performance of PEEK and Titanium rod constructs as spinal implants through a 5 hour fatigue loading test. The disc height and intradiscal pressure of the instrumented and adjacent levels pre- and post-loading were recorded for analysis. The stress levels on the rods and bone stress near the screw-bone interface were also collected to investigate the likely failure rates of the two constructs. The results showed that the Titanium rods construct demonstrated a minimum amount of loss of disc height and intradiscal pressure at the instrumented level, however, a significant loss of the disc height and intradiscal pressure at adjacent levels compared to the intact spine were identified. In contrast, the disc height and intradiscal pressure of the PEEK rods were found to be comparable to those of the intact spine for all levels. The PEEK rods group also showed significantly less bone stress near the screw-bone interface compared to the Titanium rods group. Current study has demonstrated the potential benefits of the PEEK rods construct in reducing the risks of adjacent segment disease and implant failure rates when compared to the more traditional Titanium rods construct.
