Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35689111›Full record

ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2022

Evolution of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium interbody devices for spinal procedures: a comprehensive review of the literature.

Nallammai Muthiah, Yagiz Ugur Yolcu, Nima Alan, Nitin Agarwal, David Kojo Hamilton, Alp Ozpinar

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in 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, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Nallammai MuthiahSchool of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3170-1929
Yagiz Ugur YolcuDepartment of Neurosurgery, The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Nima AlanDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Nitin AgarwalDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
David Kojo HamiltonDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Alp OzpinarDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 200 Lothrop St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. ozpinara@upmc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionInterbody fusion is commonly utilized for arthrodesis and stability among patients undergoing spine surgery. Over the last few decades, interbody device materials, such as titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK), have been replacing traditional autografts and allografts for interbody fusion. As such, with the exponential growth of bioengineering, a large variety cage surface technologies exist. Different combinations of cage component materials and surface modifications have been created to optimize interbody constructs for surgical use. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of common surface technologies, their performance in the clinical setting, and recent modifications and material combinations. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a comprehensive review of the literature on titanium and PEEK as medical devices between 1964 and 2021. We searched five major databases, resulting in 4974 records. Articles were screened for inclusion manually by two independent reviewers, resulting in 237 articles included for review.

conclusionInterbody devices have rapidly evolved over the last few decades. Biomaterial and biomechanical modifications have allowed for continued design optimization. While titanium has a high osseointegrative capacity, it also has a high elastic modulus and is radio-opaque. PEEK, on the other hand, has a lower elastic modulus and is radiolucent, though PEEK has poor osseointegrative capacity. Surface modifications, material development advancements, and hybrid material devices have been utilized in search of an optimal spinal implant which maximizes the advantages and minimizes the disadvantages of each interbody material.

Indexed as

Spinal FusionTitaniumBenzophenonesBiocompatible MaterialsHumansKetonesPolyethylene GlycolsPolymersBenzophenonesBiocompatible MaterialsKetonespolyetheretherketonePolyethylene GlycolsPolymersTitanium3D printingCervicalLumbarPorousTechnology

Identifiers

PMID35689111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.