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 Society2018
Implantation of an empty polyetheretherketone cage in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a prospective randomised controlled study with 2 years follow-up.
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, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A nationwide registry study of surgical and patient-reported outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Part 2 - cage with versus without local bone graft.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Observational
- Is Ti-Coated PEEK Superior to PEEK for Lumbar and Cervical Fusion Procedures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Structural Allograft Versus Mechanical Interbody Devices Augmented With Osteobiologics in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- PEEK versus titanium-coated PEEK cervical cages: fusion rate.Acta neurochirurgica · 2022Article
- Titanium versus polyetheretherketone versus structural allograft in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: A systematic review.Brain & spine · 2022Article
- Symptomatic pseudarthrosis requiring revision surgery after 1- or 2-level ACDF with plating: peek versus allograft.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2020Article
- Structural Allograft Versus PEEK Implants in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Radiological and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: Comparing titanium and PEEK (polyetheretherketone) cages.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the clinical outcomes, radiographic results and fusion rate of ACDF between empty PEEK cages and PEEK cages packed with β-tricalcium phosphate.
methodsForty-five patients were prospectively enrolled with cervical degenerative disc disease who requiring ACDF with a PEEK cage. 23 patients were randomised to the study group (empty cages) and 22 patients were in the control group (cages filled with β-tricalcium phosphate). Both patient groups were fixed with a cervical locking plate. A CT scan was performed 12 months postoperatively and 24 months if not confirmed fused at 12 months to evaluate the status of fusion. Clinical status was evaluated using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS).
results46 levels (97.88%) in the study group and 44 levels (97.77%) in the control group were confirmed as fused at 24 months. There was no significant difference between the fusion rates observed in the study and control groups (p = 0.82). There was no significant difference in JOA, ODI, or VAS scores at 24 months follow-up. The results showed that the members of the non-fusion group tended to be older than the individuals in the fusion group at 12 months, but was not significant in statistics.
conclusionsSimilar fusion rates and clinical outcomes were achieved when using ACDF with PEEK cages and instrumentation, regardless of whether the cage was filled with bone substitute at 24 months follow-up. Fusion rates improved over time and are comparable between both groups. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary material.
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.