Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34921610›Full record

ReviewJournal of materials science. Materials in medicine2021

Can activated titanium interbody cages accelerate or enhance spinal fusion? a review of the literature and a design for clinical trials.

Nathaniel Toop, Connor Gifford, Rouzbeh Motiei-Langroudi, Arghavan Farzadi, Daniel Boulter, Reza Forghani, H Francis Farhadi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nathaniel ToopDepartments of Neurological Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Connor GiffordDepartments of Neurological Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Rouzbeh Motiei-LangroudiDepartment of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Arghavan FarzadiDepartments of Neurological Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Daniel BoulterDepartment of Radiology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
Reza ForghaniDepartment of Radiology, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
H Francis FarhadiDepartment of Neurosurgery, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA. Francis.Farhadi@uky.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4668-8512

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While spinal interbody cage options have proliferated in the past decade, relatively little work has been done to explore the comparative potential of biomaterial technologies in promoting stable fusion. Innovations such as micro-etching and nano-architectural designs have shown purported benefits in in vitro studies, but lack clinical data describing their optimal implementation. Here, we critically assess the pre-clinical data supportive of various commercially available interbody cage biomaterial, topographical, and structural designs. We describe in detail the osteointegrative and osteoconductive benefits conferred by these modifications with a focus on polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium (Ti) interbody implants. Further, we describe the rationale and design for two randomized controlled trials, which aim to address the paucity of clinical data available by comparing interbody fusion outcomes between either PEEK or activated Ti lumbar interbody cages. Utilizing dual-energy computed tomography (DECT), these studies will evaluate the relative implant-bone integration and fusion rates achieved by either micro-etched Ti or standard PEEK interbody devices. Taken together, greater understanding of the relative osseointegration profile at the implant-bone interface of cages with distinct topographies will be crucial in guiding the rational design of further studies and innovations.

Indexed as

Prostheses and ImplantsSpinal FusionAnimalsBone SubstitutesClinical Trials as TopicCoated Materials, BiocompatibleHumansLumbar VertebraeOsseointegrationProsthesis DesignTitaniumBone SubstitutesCoated Materials, BiocompatibleTitanium

Identifiers

PMID34921610
PMCPMC8684547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.