ArticleNeurospine2020
Polyetheretherketone Versus Titanium Cages for Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature.
Article in Neurospine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and radiological outcomes of titanium cage versus polyetheretherketone cage in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- 3D-printed porous titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of subsidence.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical and radiological results of TLIF surgery with titanium-coated PEEK or uncoated PEEK cages: a prospective single-centre randomised study.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 · 2024Trial
- Comparison of the short-term efficacy of percutaneous endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion with the application of a expandable versus PEEK cage for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disease.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Evaluation of three methods of coaxial endoscopic lumbar fusion for treating lumbar degenerative diseases: a retrospective cohort study.Neurosurgical review · 2026Article
- Osteointegration and Fusion After TLIF: Trabecular Titanium Cage with SVF-Hydrogel Compared with PEEK Cage.Orthopedic reviews · 2026Article
- Advances in Titanium-Based Biomaterial for Human Bone Scaffolds: Narrative Review on Design, Fabrication, Surface Engineering, Implantation, and Biological Evaluation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- 'Rebound Phenomenon' - a Cause of Early Cage Back-out in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Surgery: Insights from Case Series of 1545 Patients.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Use of Double Cages for Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Comparison of 3-Dimensional-Printed Titanium and Polyetheretherketone Cages.International journal of spine surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Analysis of the anti-subsidence mechanical properties of novel 3D-printed titanium cages compared to conventional titanium cages.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Unilateral biportal endoscopy for minimally invasive spinal fusion: Advancements in biomaterials and clinical outcome optimization.World journal of orthopedics · 2025Review
- Preclinical evaluation of lateral interbody fusions using 3D printed PEEK or 3D printed titanium cages.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Anterior lumbar interbody fusion implants: a narrative review of current trends and future directions.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Review
- Radiographic and Clinical Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Versus 3D-Printed Titanium Cages in Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Single Institution's Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Application of Biocomposite Hydrogel With Developed Trabecular Cage in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Clinical Case Report.Clinical medicine insights. Case reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Healthcare Outcomes of Patients Treated with 3D-Printed-Titanium and PEEK Cages During Fusion Procedures in the Lumbar Spine.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Feasibility of Non-window Three-Dimensional-Printed Porous Titanium Cage in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Pilot Trial.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2023Observational
- Titanium‑coated polyetheretherketone cages vs. polyetheretherketone cages in lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLumbar fusion with implantation of interbody cage is a common procedure for treatment of lumbar degenerative disease. This study aims to compare the fusion and subsidence rates of titanium (Ti) versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody cages after posterior lumbar interbody fusion and investigate the effect of clinical and radiological outcomes following fusion on patient-reported outcomes.
methodsA systematic search strategy of 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane) was conducted using different MeSH (medical subject headings) terms until January 2020. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed and random-effect models based upon the heterogeneity (I2) to estimate the association between interbody cages and the measured outcomes.
resultsA total of 1,094 patients from 11 studies were reviewed. The final analysis included 421 patients (38.5%) who had lumbar surgery using a Ti and/or a Ti-coated interbody cage and 673 patient (61.5%) who had lumbar surgery using a PEEK cage. Overall, PEEK interbody devices were associated with a significantly lower fusion rate compared with Ti interbody devices (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41-0.93; p = 0.02). There was no difference in subsidence rates between Ti and PEEK groups (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.54-1.52; p = 0.71). Also, there were no statistically significant differences in visual analogue scale (VAS)-low back pain (p = 0.14) and Japanese Orthopedic Association scale (p = 0.86) between the 2 groups. However, the PEEK group had lower odds of leg pain after surgery compared to the Ti group (OR [VAS-leg], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.28-0.94; p = 0.003).
conclusionTi and Ti-coated PEEK cages used for posterior lumbar interbody fusion are associated with similar rates of subsidence, but a higher rate of fusion compared to PEEK interbody cages. Randomized controlled trials are needed to better assess the effect of cage materials and potential factors that could influence the outcomes of interbody lumbar 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.