ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2019
Randomized Controlled Trial of Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion With Ti- and CaP-Nanocoated Polyetheretherketone Cages: Comparative Study of the 1-Year Radiological and Clinical Outcome.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimal cage biomaterials for fusion and subsidence outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion: a network meta-analysis of 4881 patients.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 · 2026Review
- Is Ti-Coated PEEK Superior to PEEK for Lumbar and Cervical Fusion Procedures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Titanium‑coated polyetheretherketone cages vs. polyetheretherketone cages in lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- An alternative method to evaluate lumbar interbody fusion status focusing on position change of screw-rod constructs.European radiology · 2023Article
- Fusion assessment in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2022Article
- Sustainable Surface Modification of Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Implants by Hydroxyapatite/Silica Coating-An In Vivo Animal Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of cage subsidence in standalone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: novel 3D-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage.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 · 2021Article
- Integral fixation titanium/polyetheretherketone cages for cervical arthrodesis: Two-year clinical outcomes and fusion rates using β-tricalcium phosphate or supercritical carbon dioxide treated allograft.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolyetheretherketone (PEEK) is a popular material for posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) cages, although osseointegration remains limited. To optimize PEEK cage characteristics, titanium (Ti) and calcium phosphate (CaP) nanocoatings have been developed with proven mechanical safety. This multicenter randomized controlled trial compared the clinical and radiological outcome parameters of nanocoated and uncoated PEEK cages, up to 1 year after surgery.
methodsStandard open PLIF surgery was performed on 127 patients, randomized in 3 groups: Ti-nanocoated (n = 44), CaP-nanocoated (n = 46), and uncoated PEEK cages (n = 37). Clinical assessments up to 1 year after surgery included visual analogue scales (VASs), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). Primary radiological outcome parameters were implant stability and fusion status, assessed by x-ray and computed tomography (CT) scans. Patients, surgeons, and postsurgery analysts were blinded.
resultsPLIF surgery with all cage types resulted in significant improvements of clinical outcome parameters, exceeding the minimum clinically important differences. No significant differences in VAS, ODI, or SF-36 scores were found among the 3 groups. One year after the surgery, 65.6% of patients with uncoated PEEK cages achieved definite fusion. Significantly more patients with nanocoated PEEK cages achieved definite fusion: 93.9% for Ti nanocoating (
conclusionsThe similar clinical outcome improvements after 1 year suggest that nanocoated PEEK cages have the same safety and efficacy as the clinically accepted uncoated PEEK cages. Furthermore, nanocoated PEEK cages achieved a better fusion rate than uncoated PEEK cages at the 1-year follow-up. A 5-year follow-up study is warranted to revisit the findings. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The safety, efficacy, and enhanced osseointegration of nanocoated PEEK cages were demonstrated. Osseointegration is a significant predictor of positive long-term clinical outcomes and improved implant longevity, implying a clinical added value of nanocoatings. Enhanced osseointegration becomes even more important in minimally invasive spine surgery and in patients at risk for incomplete fusion.
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.