ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2022
Attitudes and trends in the use of radiolucent spinal implants: A survey of the North American Spine Society section of spinal oncology.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone implants versus titanium implants for spinal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Outcomes and Complications Associated With 191 Carbon Fiber Pedicle Screws in Spinal Oncology Patients.International journal of spine surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-Assisted Placement of Thoracic Carbon-Fiber-Reinforced Polyetheretherketone (CFR-Peek) Pedicle Screws in the Cervical Spine for Giant Cell Tumor: Technical Note.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mitigating dosimetric perturbations from large metal implants utilizing spot-scanning proton arc therapy.Medical dosimetry : official journal of the American Association of Medical Dosimetrists · 2026Article
- Use of carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK cages in spinal oncology patients: An institutional experience with emphasis on surgical, complication and imaging characteristics.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Cervical chordoma en bloc resection and staged suprascapular nerve transfer reanimation: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2025Article
- Article
- Anterior Corpectomy and Vertebroplasty With Carbon-Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cage for Invasive Spinal Meningioma.Cureus · 2025Article
- Enhanced strength and durability of long fiber type carbon fiber reinforced plastic rods over titanium alloy rods for spinal fixation.North American Spine Society journal · 2025Article
- Radiotherapy and surgery: can this combination be further optimized for patients with metastatic spine disease?The oncologist · 2025Review
- Role of Posterior Carbon Fiber Implants in Spine Tumor Surgery.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- Personalized Approaches to Spine Surgery.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Review
- Carbon fiber lumbopelvic reconstruction following sacral giant cell tumor resection: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: In spinal oncology, titanium implants pose several challenges including artifact on advanced imaging and therapeutic radiation perturbation. To mitigate these effects, there has been increased interest in radiolucent carbon fiber (CF) and CF-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK) implants as an alternative for spinal reconstruction. This study surveyed the members of the North American Spine Society (NASS) section of Spinal Oncology to query their perspectives regarding the clinical utility, current practice patterns, and recommended future directions of radiolucent spinal implants. Methods: In February 2021, an anonymous survey was administered to the physicians of the NASS section of Spinal Oncology. Participation in the survey was optional. The survey contained 38 items including demographic questions as well as multiple-choice, yes/no questions, Likert rating scales, and short free-text responses pertaining to the "clinical concept", "efficacy", "problems/complications", "practice pattern", and "future directions" of radiolucent spinal implants. Results: Fifteen responses were received (71.4% response rate). Six of the participants (40%) were neurosurgeons, eight (53.3%) were orthopedic surgeons, and one was a spinal radiation oncologist. Overall, there were mixed opinions among the specialists. While several believed that radiolucent spinal implants provide substantial benefits for the detection of disease recurrence and radiation therapy options, others remained less convinced. Ongoing concerns included high costs, low availability, limited cervical and percutaneous options, and suboptimal screw and rod designs. As such, participants estimated that they currently utilize these implants for 27.3% of anterior and 14.7% of all posterior reconstructions after tumor resection. Conclusion: A survey of the NASS section of Spinal Oncology found a lack of consensus with regards to the imaging and radiation benefits, and several ongoing concerns about currently available options. Therefore, routine utilization of these implants for anterior and posterior spinal reconstructions remains low. Future investigations are warranted to practically validate these devices' theoretical risks and benefits.
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.