Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) is commonly used as a spinal spacer for intervertebral fusion surgery. Unfortunately, PEEK is bioinert and does not effectively osseointegrate into living bone. In contrast, comparable spacers made of silicon nitride (Si₃N₄) possess a surface nanostructure and chemistry that encourage appositional bone healing. This observational study was designed to compare the outcomes of these two biomaterials when implanted as spacers in an adult caprine model. Lumbar interbody fusion surgeries were performed at two adjacent levels in eight adult goats using implants of PEEK and Si₃N₄. At six-months after surgery, the operative and adjacent spinal segments were extracted and measured for bone fusion, bone volume, bone-implant contact (BIC) and soft-tissue implant contact (SIC) ratios, and biodynamic stability. The null hypothesis was that no differences in these parameters would be apparent between the two groups. Fusion was observed in seven of eight implants in each group with greater bone formation in the Si₃N₄ group (52.6%) versus PEEK (27.9%; p = 0.2). There were no significant differences in BIC ratios between PEEK and Si₃N₄, and the biodynamic stability of the two groups was also comparable. The results suggest that Si₃N₄ spacers are not inferior to PEEK and they may be more effective in promoting arthrodesis.

@en

Background: Acetabular cup orientation plays a key role in implant stability and the success of total hip arthroplasty. To date, the orientation has been measured with different imaging modalities and definitions, leading to lack of consensus on optimal cup placement. A 3-dimensional (3D) concept involving a trigonometric description enables unambiguous definitions. Our objective was to test the validity and reliability of a 3D trigonometric description of cup
orientation.

Methods: Computed tomographic scans of the pelvis, performed for vascular assessment of 20 patients with 22 primary total hip replacements in situ, were systematically collected. On multiplanar reconstructions, 3 observers independently measured cup orientation retrospectively in terms of coronal inclination, sagittal tilt, and transverse version. The angles measured in 2 planes were used to calculate the angle in the third plane via a trigonometric algorithm. For correlation and reliability analyses, intraobserver and interobserver differences between measured and calculated angles were evaluated with use of the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results: Measured and calculated angles had ICCs of 0.953 for coronal inclination, 0.985 for sagittal tilt, and 0.982 for transverse version. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability had ICCs of 0.987 and 0.987, respectively, for coronal inclination; 0.979 and 0.981, respectively, for sagittal tilt; and 0.992 and 0.978, respectively, for transverse version.

Conclusions: The 3D concept with its trigonometric algorithm is a valid and reliable tool for the measurement of cup orientation.

Clinical Relevance: By calculating the transverse version of cups from coronal inclination and sagittal tilt measurements, the trigonometric algorithm enables a 3D definition of cup orientation, regardless of the imaging modality used. In addition, it introduces sagittal tilt that, like pelvic tilt, rotates around the transverse axis.@en