ArticleScientific reports2022
Evaluation of the contact surface between vertebral endplate and 3D printed patient-specific cage vs commercial cage.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Ex vivo mechanical evaluation of anatomically and mechanically conforming patient-specific lumbar spinal fusion cages designed by full-scale topology optimization.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Impact of endplate-graft geometric matching on cage subsidence following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- A Review of Synthetic Bone Grafts in Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Risk Factors for Poor Matching of Intervertebral Fusion Devices After Posterior Vertebral Column Resection in Patients With Kyphosis or Kyphoscoliosis.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Patient-specific implants and spinal alignment outcomes.North American Spine Society journal · 2024Article
- Tomographic Assessment of Fusion Rate, Implant-Endplate Contact Area, Subsidence, and Alignment With Lumbar Personalized Interbody Implants at 1-Year Follow-Up.International journal of spine surgery · 2024Article
- Biomechanical Comparison of Subsidence Between Patient-Specific and Non-Patient-Specific Lumbar Interbody Fusion Cages.Global spine journal · 2024Article
- Evolution of the Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF): From Open to Percutaneous to Patient-Specific.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- The Evolution of Lateral Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Journey from Past to Present.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Optimizing Spinal Fusion Cage Design to Improve Bone Substitute Filling on Varying Disc Heights: A 3D Printing Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biomechanical study. To evaluate the performance of the contact surface for 3D printed patient-specific cages using CT-scan 3D endplate reconstructions in comparison to the contact surface of commercial cages. Previous strategies to improve the surface of contact between the device and the endplate have been employed to attenuate the risk of cage subsidence. Patient-specific cages have been used to help, but only finite-element studies have evaluated the effectiveness of this approach. There is a possible mismatch between the CT-scan endplate image used to generate the cage and the real bony endplate anatomy that could limit the performance of the cages. A cadaveric model is used to investigate the possible mismatch between 3D printed patient-specific cages and the endplate and compare them to commercially available cages (Medtronic Fuse and Capstone). Contact area and contact stress were used as outcomes. When PS cage was compared to the Capstone cage, the mean contact area obtained was 100 ± 23.6 mm
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.