ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022
Single-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Interbody Fusion: A Comparison between Porous Tantalum and Polyetheretherketone Cages.
Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trabecular metal technology (TMT) cups in primary total hip arthroplasty: outcomes and survivorship of a large cohort.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2025Article
- Progress of porous tantalum surface-modified biomaterial coatings in bone tissue engineering.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2025Review
- Innovative Developments in Lumbar Interbody Cage Materials and Design: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Zero-Profile Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cages Filled with Biphasic Calcium Phosphate (BCP) in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion (ACDF): A Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy of Preoperative Coronal MRI-Guided Minimally Invasive Surgery for Cervical Spondylotic Radiculopathy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
- The impact of over-distraction on adjacent segment pathology and cage subsidence in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion.Scientific reports · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior cervical discectomy and interbody fusion (ACDF) may be performed with different kinds of stand-alone cages. Tantalum and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) are two of the most commonly used materials in this procedure. Few comparisons between different stand-alone implants for ACDF have been reported in the literature. Methods: We performed a comparison between patients who underwent ACDF with either a porous tantalum or a PEEK stand-alone cage, in two spine surgery units for single-level disc herniation. Clinical outcome [Neck Disability Index (NDI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Short Form-36 (SF-36)] and radiological outcome (lordosis, fusion and subsidence) were measured before surgery and at least one year after surgery in both groups. Results: Thirty-eight patients underwent ACDF with a porous tantalum cage, and thirty-one with a PEEK cage. The improvement of NDI and SF-36 was significantly superior in the PEEK group (p = 0.002 and p = 0.049 respectively). Moreover, the variation of the Cobb angle for the cervical spine was significantly higher in the PEEK group (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In a retrospective analysis of two groups of patients with at least one year of follow-up, a stand-alone PEEK cage showed superior clinical results, with improved cervical lordosis, compared to a stand-alone porous tantalum cage. Further studies are needed to confirm these data.
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.