Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2017
Porous silicon nitride spacers versus PEEK cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical and radiological results of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implantation of an empty polyetheretherketone cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective randomised controlled study with 2 years follow-up.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Review
- Is Ti-Coated PEEK Superior to PEEK for Lumbar and Cervical Fusion Procedures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Antiviral efficacy of silicon nitride against SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV: implications for PPE innovation.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Could the different surgical goals of fusion and non-fusion also be achieved in combination within the same patient? Clinical and radiological outcome of hybrid cervical spine surgery.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2024Article
- Interim 1-Year Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Using Hydroxyapatite-Infused Polyetheretherketone Interbody Cages.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- From Unregulated Networks to Designed Microstructures: Introducing Heterogeneity at Different Length Scales in Photopolymers for Additive Manufacturing.Chemical reviews · 2024Review
- Comparison of Different Osteobiologics in Terms of Imaging Modalities and Time Frames for Fusion Assessment in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Do the Choice of Fusion Construct With and Without Autograft Influence the Fusion and Complication Rates in Patients Undergoing 1 or 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery? A PRISMA-Compliant Network Meta-Analysis.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- 3D-Printed PEEK/Silicon Nitride Scaffolds with a Triply Periodic Minimal Surface Structure for Spinal Fusion Implants.ACS applied bio materials · 2023Article
- Does titanium cage subsidence affect clinical outcomes in ACDF surgery? A tertiary centre experience.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2023Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Silicon Nitride and Biomaterial Modulus as it Relates to Subsidence Risk in Spinal Fusion Surgery.North American Spine Society journal · 2022Review
- Complications in Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review of Clinically Used Cages.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- The SNAP Trial: 2-Year Results of a Double-Blind Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of a Silicon Nitride Versus a PEEK Cage in Patients After Lumbar Fusion Surgery.Global spine journal · 2022Article
- Bioactive Silicon Nitride Implant Surfaces with Maintained Antibacterial Properties.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022Article
- Silicon Nitride as a Biomedical Material: An Overview.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- PEEK versus titanium-coated PEEK cervical cages: fusion rate.Acta neurochirurgica · 2022Article
- Radiological and Clinical Outcomes after Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF) with an Innovative 3D Printed Cellular Titanium Cage Filled with Vertebral Bone Marrow.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- Promoting osteoblasts responsesJournal of orthopaedic translation · 2020Article
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
purposeAnterior cervical discectomy with fusion is a common procedure for treating radicular arm pain. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) plastic is a frequently used material in cages for interbody fusion. Silicon nitride is a new alternative with desirable bone compatibility and imaging characteristics. The aim of the present study is to compare silicon nitride implants with PEEK cages filled with autograft harvested from osteophytes.
methodsThe study is a prospective, randomized, blinded study of 100 patients with 2 years follow-up. The primary outcome measure was improvement in the Neck Disability Index. Other outcome measures included SF-36, VAS arm pain, VAS neck pain, assessment of recovery, operative characteristics, complications, fusion and subsidence based on dynamic X-ray and CT scan.
resultsThere was no significant difference in NDI scores between the groups at 24 months follow-up. At 3 and 12 months the NDI scores were in favor of PEEK although the differences were not clinically relevant. On most follow-up moments there was no difference in VAS neck and VAS arm between both groups, and there was no statistically significant difference in patients' perceived recovery during follow-up. Fusion rate and subsidence were similar for the two study arms and about 90% of the implants were fused at 24 months.
conclusionsPatients treated with silicon nitride and PEEK reported similar recovery rates during follow-up. There was no significant difference in clinical outcome at 24 months. Fusion rates improved over time and are comparable between both groups.
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.