Trial reportEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2022
Ceramic bone graft substitute vs autograft in XLIF: a prospective randomized single-center evaluation of radiographic and clinical outcomes.
Trial report 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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of autograftJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- The role of gut microbiota in osteoporosis: underlying mechanisms, clinical associations, and emerging biomaterials.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Comparison of early bone union between anterior and posterior approach in periacetabular osteotomy: spherical periacetabular osteotomy and rotational acetabular osteotomy.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative Performance of Calcium Phosphate Grafts and Iliac Crest Autograft in Posterolateral Spinal Fusion in Rabbits.JOR spine · 2025Article
- Clinical Outcomes of 3D-Printed Titanium Patient-Specific Implants in Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Prospective Clinical Trial with a Systematic Review of Conventional Techniques.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Allograft Versus Bioactive Glass-Ceramic Cage in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Study.Global spine journal · 2025Article
- A retrospective review of MagnetOs Easypack PuttyOrthopedic reviews · 2025Article
- Emerging Technologies within Spine Surgery.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Innovative design of minimal invasive biodegradable poly(glycerol-dodecanoate) nucleus pulposus scaffold with function regeneration.Nature communications · 2023Article
- An effectiveness and economic analyses of tricalcium phosphate combined with iliac bone graft versus RhBMP-2 in single-level XLIF surgery in Thailand.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of the studyThe objective of this prospective, parallel, randomized, single-center study is to evaluate the clinical success of a commercial ceramic bone graft substitute (CBGS) for autograft in eXtreme Lateral Interbody Fusion (XLIF) procedures. Please confirm if the author names are presented accurately and in the correct sequence (given name, middle name/initial, family name). Author 1 Given name: [Cristiano Magalhães], Last name [Menezes]. Author 2 Given name: [Gabriel Carvalho], Last name [Lacerda]. Author 5 Given name: [Erica Godinho], Last name [Menezes]. Also, kindly confirm the details in the metadata are correct.yes
methodsForty-five adult subjects were consecutively enrolled and randomized into a single-level XLIF procedure using either CBGS or iliac crest bone graft autograft (30 and 15 subjects, respectively). The primary outcome was fusion rate at 12, 18, and 24 months. Secondary outcomes were pain and disability measured by HRQOL questionnaires. Kindly check and confirm whether the corresponding author and his corresponding affiliations is correctly identified.yes
resultsThe fusion rates for both CBGS and autograft groups at the 24-month follow-up were 96.4% and 100%, respectively. For the CBGS group, mean ODI, mean back pain, and mean worst leg pain significantly improved at the 24-month follow-up by 76.7% (39.9-9.3), 77.6% (7.3-1.6), and 81.3% (5.1-1.0), respectively. For the autograft group, mean ODI, mean back pain, and mean worst leg pain significantly improved during the same time period by 77.1% (35.9-8.2), 75.6% (6.1-1.5), and 86.0% (6.6-0.9), respectively (all time points between groups, p < 0.05).
conclusionThe results of this prospective, randomized study support the use of CBGS as a standalone bone graft substitute for autograft in single-level XLIF surgery. The clinical performance and safety outcomes reported here are consistent with published evidence on CBGS. Improvements in patient-reported back pain, leg pain, and disability outcomes were comparable between the CBGS and autograft groups.
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.