ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2020
Imaging evaluation of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 strut in cervical construction after 1-level corpectomy: a retrospective study of 520 patients.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of nano-hydroxyapatite matrix graft in inter-vertebral fusion therapy: a meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Pooled it
- Three-dimensional printed artificial vertebral body versus titanium mesh cage and nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 cage in anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: a retrospective cohort study with a minimum 5-year follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Observational
- Biomaterials for vertebral body repair: interior augmentation and total replacement-a literature review of bone fusion outcomes in clinical studies.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Review
- L1 vertebral body replacement using 3D-printed polylactic acid bioimplants:Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of Nano-Hydroxyapatite/Polyamide 66 Strut in Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Article
- A novel nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 strut for reducing subsidence after one-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: a finite-element study.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes between the n-HA/PA66 Cage and the PEEK Cage Used in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Matched-Pair Case Control Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Efficacy of NHP66 Bioactive Cage on Patients with Cervical Spine Injury in Short-Track Speed Skating.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Observational
- Enhancement of the bone-implant interface by applying a plasma-sprayed titanium coating on nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide66 implants in a rabbit model.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe application of nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66(n-HA/PA66) struts has become reliable in anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) as a source of sufficient segmental stability. This was a retrospective and long-term imaging evaluation of the n-HA/PA66 strut in 1-level ACCF.
methodsThe patients between June 2006 and December 2014, who underwent 1-level ACCF using an n-HA/PA66 strut, were reviewed. The neurological status was assessed using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score and axial pain was evaluated using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and the radiographic parameters were determined by X-ray and 3-D CT examinations when necessary for the evaluation of bone fusion using the Brantigan scale and imaging characteristics.
resultsA total of 520 patients underwent one-level ACCF, with a mean follow-up (FU) duration of 72.38 ± 24.56 months. The level of surgery was C4 in 58 cases, C5 in 173 cases, C6 in 208 cases, and C7 in 81 cases. According to the Brantigan scale, on X-ray examination, the bony fusion rate was observed to be 40%, 70%, 93%, and 98% at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and the final FU. An interesting radiographic appearance of the bone graft growth pattern was classified into three types. 95% of the patients accounted for types a and b. No significant differences were observed in age, hospitalization duration, surgical haemorrhage volume, or fusion rate among the types except in the percentage and sex of the patients among the types. Type a had better cervical lordosis, and less subsidence than types b and c (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in segment angle between type a and type b. Type c was more often observed with subsidence rate, segmental angle loss and cervical alignment loss than types a and b (P < 0.05). Type a also had a slightly higher fusion rate, than types b and c, but there were no significant differences. The overall mean JOA score at the final follow-up among the groups were significantly improved comparing that preoperatively and no significant differences were found among the groups, no matter pre-operation or final follow-up. The overall mean VAS score at the final follow-up among the groups were significantly improved comparing that preoperatively and no significant differences in preoperative VAS score were found among the groups. However, the VAS score at the final follow-up of type a or type b was better than type c. No patients received revision surgery.
conclusionsThe type a bone graft growth pattern could allow a lower incidence of subsidence and better maintenance of local and global alignment to be achieved and is thus proposed for surgeons.
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.