Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28765800›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2017

Fortifying the Bone-Implant Interface Part 2: An In Vivo Evaluation of 3D-Printed and TPS-Coated Triangular Implants.

Regina F MacBarb, Derek P Lindsey, Shane A Woods, Peggy A Lalor, Mukund I Gundanna, Scott A Yerby

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Fusion-a Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Impact of industry 4.0 to create advancements in orthopaedics.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2020
    Article
  15. Three-Dimensional Printing in Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2019
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Regina F MacBarbSI-BONE, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA.
Derek P LindseySI-BONE, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA.
Shane A WoodsMPI Research, Mattawan, MI, USA.
Peggy A LalorHistion LLC, Everett, WA, USA.
Mukund I GundannaBrazos Spine, College Station, TX.
Scott A YerbySI-BONE, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA.
SI-Bone (United States) · USBrazosport College · USMPI Research (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMinimally invasive surgical fusion of the sacroiliac (SI) joint using machined solid triangular titanium plasma spray (TPS) coated implants has demonstrated positive clinical outcomes in SI joint pain patients. Additive manufactured (AM),

methodsA bilateral ovine distal femoral defect model was used to evaluate the cancellous bone-implant interfaces of TPS-coated and AM implants. Four implant groups (n=6/group/time-point) were included: 1)TPS-coated, 2)AM, 3)AM+HA, and 4)AM+Autograft. The bone-implant interfaces of 6- and 12-week specimens were investigated via radiographic, biomechanical, and histomorphometric methods.

resultsImaging showed peri-implant bone formation around all implants. Push-out testing demonstrated forces greater than 2500 N, with no significant differences among groups. While TPS implants failed primarily at the bone-implant interface, AM groups failed within bone ~2-3mm away from implant surfaces. All implants exhibited bone ongrowth, with no significant differences among groups. AM implants had significantly more bone ingrowth into their porous surfaces than TPS-coated implants (

conclusionsBoth TPS and AM implants exhibited substantial bone ongrowth and ingrowth, with additional bone through growth into the AM implants' core. Overall, AM implants experienced significantly more bone infiltration compared to TPS implants. While HA-coating did not further enhance results, the addition of autograft fostered greater osteointegration for AM implants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Additive manufactured implants with a porous surface provide a highly interconnected porous surface that has comparatively greater surface area for bony integration. Results suggest this may prove advantageous toward promoting enhanced biomechanical stability compared to TPS-coated implants for SI joint fusion procedures.

Indexed as

3d-printingadditive manufacturingbiomechanical stabilityosteointegrationsacroiliac jointtitanium plasma spray coating

Identifiers

PMID28765800
PMCPMC5537984
OpenAlexW2620702423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.