ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2019
Clinical and radiographic evaluation of bioactive glass in posterior cervical and lumbar spinal fusion.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic Review of Bioactive Glass Cages in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Bone fusion materials: past, present, and future.Asian spine journal · 2025Article
- Transforming spinal surgery with innovations in biologics and additive manufacturing.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Bone Regeneration: A Review of Current Treatment Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Properties and antibacterial effectiveness of metal-ion doped borate-based bioactive glasses.Future microbiology · 2025Review
- Synthetic osteobiologics in spine surgery: a review.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Optimisation and Validation of an Induced Membrane Technique Model to Assess Bone Regeneration in Rats.Journal of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2025Article
- An Evolution of Shoulder Periprosthetic Infections Management: MicroDTTect, Bioactive Glass and Tantalum Cones Employment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Ceramic Biologics for Bony Fusion-a Journey from First to Third Generations.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSpinal surgery of degenerative painful segments is a valuable treatment option in the management of chronic cervical and low back pain. The surgery consists in stabilizing and fusing painful vertebral segment(s). The objective of the study was to report our experience with 45S5 bioactive glass (BAG) to obtain inter-vertebral fusion in the context of posterior spine surgery. MATERIAL AND
methodIn this retrospective study, 30 patients with a wide range of degenerative and traumatic conditions of the cervical or lumbar spine underwent spinal fusion utilizing a synthetic bone graft substitute of BAG (GlassBone™, Noraker, Lyon-Villeurbanne, France). The pain was evaluated by VAS score, and graft consolidation was assessed on according radiographic images at 1-year post-op.
resultsAll patients underwent posterior spinal fusion either in the cervical or the thoraco-lumbar spine. Multi-level fusions represented the majority of the cohort (43% of patients with more than seven levels treated). Radiographic imaging demonstrated excellent fusion rates (93%) at final follow-up, equivalent to the outcomes reported in the literature for autogenous bone, with excellent bone bridging and no spinal implant loosening. Only two cases of non-union were encountered. Additionally, 90% of the patients demonstrated recovery at 1 year after surgery with a pain reduction of 60%.
conclusionThe results of this retrospective study suggest that the 45S5 BAG may be an interesting alternative option to autologous graft, in terms of safety and bone fusion efficiency. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV Retrospective study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31236682What 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.