ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2020
Efficacy of Biocage in treating single-segment lumbar degenerative disease in patients with high risk of non-fusion: a prospective controlled study with at least 2 years' follow-up.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Allografts and Spinal Fusion.International journal of spine surgery · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of an allogeneic bone cage (Biocage; Beijing Datsing Bio-Tech Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) for treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disease in patients with a high risk of non-fusion.
methodsFrom January 2013 to December 2016, 67 patients who underwent lumbar fusion were divided into the Biocage group (n = 33) and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) group (n = 34). The patients were followed up for 24 to 48 months. The mean intervertebral height of the fusion level, fusion rate, height of the intervertebral foramen, visual analog scale score, and Oswestry disability index were compared.
resultsThe PEEK group had a lower fusion rate than the Biocage group (88.24% vs. 90.91%), although the difference was not statistically significant. During follow-up, the height of the intervertebral space was similar between the Biocage and PEEK groups (12.88 ± 0.45 and 12.84 ± 1.01 mm, respectively). The height of the intervertebral foramen was larger in the Biocage than PEEK group (20.67 ± 1.34 vs. 20.00 ± 2.05 mm). Good clinical efficacy was achieved in both groups.
conclusionThe Biocage is efficient and safe for treatment of single-segment lumbar degenerative disease in patients with a high risk of non-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.