ArticleDer Orthopade2017
[PEEK cage fusion after anterior cervical corpectomy : Clinical and radiological results in patients with spondylotic myelopathy].
Article in Der Orthopade, 2017. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) has become a standard procedure for patients with spondylotic myelopathy due to multisegmental stenosis of the cervical canal. In addition to the fusion technique using autogenous bone grafts and titanium implants, synthetic polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages have been used increasingly during the last years. However, limited evidence on the clinical and radiological results of PEEK cages for ACCF exists in the literature. The study presented here is the largest series to date reporting clinical and radiological outcome as well as complication rates after one to three-level ACCF using PEEK cages augmented by an anterior plate-screw osteosynthesis. MATERIALS AND
methodsRetrospective study on 101 patients after stand-alone PEEK cage-ACCF with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. The number of hardware failures and implant-related surgical revisions were determined. The rate of subsidence and fusion and the course of lordotic alignment were analysed. The neck disability index (NDI) and the European myelopathy score (EMS) were assessed.
resultsScrew complications were detected in 8/101 cases and 3 cases of cage dislocation occurred, resulting in an overall implant related revision rate of 2.9 % (all revision cases showed cage dislocation). The rate of cage subsidence >3 mm was 12 % and solid fusion was achieved in 82 % of the patients. NDI, EMS and lordotic alignment improved significantly.
conclusionsPEEK cages are a safe and effective alternative to titanium cages or autogenous bone graft for ACCF. Further randomized evaluation of different fusion techniques in ACCF is still necessary.
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.