ArticleGlobal spine journal2020
Structural Allograft Versus PEEK Implants in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.
Article in Global spine journal, 2020. 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, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of cage type on subsidence following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a retrospective study.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Advancements in biomaterials and bioactive solutions for lumbar spine fusion cages: Current trends and future perspectives.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
- Could the Type of Allograft Used for Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Affect Surgical Outcome? A Comparison Between Cortical Ring Allograft and Cortico-Cancellous Allograft.Clinics in orthopedic surgery · 2025Article
- Anterior cervical decompression and fusion at one and two levels: trends and factors associated with structural allograft versus synthetic cages.North American Spine Society journal · 2024Article
- Dosing Strategy for Osteobiologics Used in ACDF Surgery: Influence on Fusion Rates and Associated Complications. A Systematic Literature Review.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- A Comparison between Structural Allografts and Polyetheretherketone Interbody Spacers Used in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- The Use of Osteobiologics in Single versus Multi-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Effect of Interbody Composition on the Development of Pseudarthrosis Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.Asian spine journal · 2023Article
- Biomaterials for Interbody Fusion in Bone Tissue Engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Synthetic Cages Associated With Increased Rates of Revision Surgery and Higher Costs Compared to Allograft in ACDF in the Nonelderly Patient.Neurospine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic literature review.
objectiveOur primary objective was to compare reported fusion rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using structural allograft versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody devices in patients with cervical spine degeneration. Our secondary objectives were to compare differences in rates of subsidence and reoperation and in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 groups.
methodsThrough a systematic review of the English-language literature using various databases, we identified 4702 articles. After we applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, 14 articles (7 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective studies, and 3 retrospective studies) reporting fusion rates of structural allograft or PEEK interbody devices were eligible for our analysis. No randomized controlled trials compared outcomes of structural allograft versus PEEK interbody devices. Extracted data included authors, study years, study designs, sample sizes, patient ages, duration of follow-up, types of interbody devices used, fusion rates, definition of fusion, reoperation rates, subsidence rates, and patient-reported outcomes.
resultsFusion rates were 82% to 100% for allograft and 88% to 98% for PEEK interbody devices. The reported data were insufficient to perform meta-analysis. Structural allograft had the highest reported rate of reoperation (14%), and PEEK interbody devices had the highest reported subsidence rate (18%). Patient-reported outcomes improved in both groups. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to compare the associations of various PEEK modifications with fusion rates.
conclusionFusion rates were similar between structural allograft and PEEK interbody devices when used for ACDF for cervical spine degeneration. Currently, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess associations of PEEK modifications with fusion rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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.