Trial reportDer Unfallchirurg2014
[Fusion criteria for cages as vertebral body replacement in thoracolumbar fractures].
Trial report in Der Unfallchirurg, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Additional internal fixation improves fusion rate of anterior spondylodesis in thoracic and lumbar spine fractures - a CT-based analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Article
- [PEEK cage fusion after anterior cervical corpectomy : Clinical and radiological results in patients with spondylotic myelopathy].Der Orthopade · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo commonly accepted criteria to evaluate bony incorporation of cages as vertebral body replacement in thoracolumbar fractures exist. The goal of this study was a thorough radiological evaluation of the fusion process in posterior-anterior stabilized fractures. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this study 35 patients were evaluated radiologically including computed tomography (CT) scanning and bone mineral density measurement inside the cages. Correction loss, cage subsidence and tilting, bone growth in and around the cages as well as bone mineral density were assessed. Fusion grading was assessed with defined criteria (i.e. bridging bone, bone growth through the cage, stability in functional X-rays and no radiolucent lines).
resultsAfter 12 months minor subsidence and tilting of the cages had caused significant correction loss of the basal plate angle of 2.4° on average. Of the patients 20 (57%) fulfilled the criteria for complete or incomplete fusion and 5 (14%) showed no signs of bony fusion. Bone mineral density measurements were unreliable due to metallic artefacts.
conclusionsThe advocated criteria allow accurate assessment of bony incorporation of cages. Bony incorporation can be detected in and around the cages over time; however, only 57% of patients showed signs of bony fusion after 1 year.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.