Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36111476›Full record

Trial reportZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery2022

[Application of three-dimensional printed porous titanium alloy cage and poly-ether-ether-ketone cage in posterior lumbar interbody fusion].

Yanjin Wang, Yingjie Zhou, Xubin Chai, Hanjie Zhuo

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Recent advances of 3D-printing in spine surgery.Surgical neurology international · 2024
    Review
  3. Review
  4. [Research progress on the influence of Modic changes on lumbar interbody fusion and its treatment measure].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023
    Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yanjin WangLuoyang Pingle Orthopedic Graduate School, Henan University of Chinese Medicine, Zhengzhou Henan, 450046, P. R. China.
Yingjie ZhouNo.2 Department of Spinal Surgery, Luoyang Orthopedic-Traumatological Hospital of Henan Province (Henan Provincial Orthopedic Hospital), Luoyang Henan, 471002, P. R. China.
Xubin ChaiNo.2 Department of Spinal Surgery, Luoyang Orthopedic-Traumatological Hospital of Henan Province (Henan Provincial Orthopedic Hospital), Luoyang Henan, 471002, P. R. China.
Hanjie ZhuoNo.2 Department of Spinal Surgery, Luoyang Orthopedic-Traumatological Hospital of Henan Province (Henan Provincial Orthopedic Hospital), Luoyang Henan, 471002, P. R. China.
Luoyang Orthopedic-Traumatological Hospital of Henan Province · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Henan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness between three-dimensional (3D) printed porous titanium alloy cage (3D Cage) and poly-ether-ether-ketone cage (PEEK Cage) in the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). Methods: A total of 66 patients who were scheduled to undergo PLIF between January 2018 and June 2019 were selected as the research subjects, and were divided into the trial group (implantation of 3D Cage, Results: The operations of two groups were completed successfully. There was 1 case of dural rupture complicated with cerebrospinal fluid leakage during operation in the trial group, and no complication occurred in the other patients of the two groups. All incisions healed by first intention. There was no significant difference in operation time and intraoperative blood loss between groups ( Conclusion: There is no significant difference between 3D Cage and PEEK Cage in PLIF, in terms of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, complications, postoperative neurological recovery, and final intervertebral fusion. But the former can effectively reduce vertebral body subsidence and accelerate intervertebral fusion.

Indexed as

KetonesSpinal FusionAlloysBenzophenonesBlood Loss, SurgicalBone ScrewsEtherEthersEthyl EthersHumansLumbar VertebraePolymersPorosityTitaniumTreatment OutcomeAlloysBenzophenonesEtherEthersEthyl EthersKetonespolyetheretherketonePolymersTitaniumCagePosterior lumbar interbody fusionthree-dimensional printing technologytitanium alloy

Identifiers

PMID36111476
PMCPMC9626292
OpenAlexW4296030050

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.