ArticleOrthopaedic surgery2023
Comparison of Long-Term Outcomes between the n-HA/PA66 Cage and the PEEK Cage Used in Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease: A Matched-Pair Case Control Study.
Article in Orthopaedic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and radiological outcomes of titanium cage versus polyetheretherketone cage in lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Optimal cage biomaterials for fusion and subsidence outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion: a network meta-analysis of 4881 patients.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 · 2026Review
- Innovative 3D-printed porous piezoelectric poly(vinylidene fluoride) cages with accelerated spinal fusion.Materials today. Bio · 2025Article
- Pear-Shaped Disc as a Risk Factor for Postoperative Sclerotic Modic Changes After Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Personalized porous tantalum implants crafted via 3D printing: new horizons in complex cervical-thoracic spinal fusion.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- A comparison of anterior reconstruction of spinal defect using nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 cage and autologous iliac bone for thoracolumbar tuberculosis: a stepwise propensity score matching analysis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Comparative evaluation of multi-fold rib and structural iliac bone grafts in single-segment thoracic and thoracolumbar spinal tuberculosis: clinical and radiological outcomes.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Does Preoperative Modic Changes Influence the Short-term Fusion Rate of Single Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion?-a Matched-pair Case Control Study.Orthopaedic surgery · 2023Article
- Long-term outcomes of the nano-hydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 cage versus the titanium mesh cage for anterior reconstruction of thoracic and lumbar corpectomy: a retrospective study with at least 7 years of follow-up.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide-66 (n-HA/PA66) cage is a novel bioactive nonmetal cage that is now used in some medical centers, while the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cage is a typical device that has been widely used for decades with excellent clinical outcomes. This study was performed to compare the long-term radiographic and clinical outcomes of these two different cages used in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF).
methodsIn this retrospective and matched-pair case control study, we included 200 patients who underwent TLIF from January 2010 to December 2014 with a minimum 7-year follow-up. One hundred patients who used n-HA/PA66 cages were matched with 100 patients who used PEEK cages for age, sex, diagnosis, and fusion level. The independent student's t-test and Pearson's chi-square test were used to compare the two groups regarding radiographic (fusion status, cage subsidence rate, segmental angle [SA], and interbody space height [IH]) and clinical (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], and Visual Analog Scale [VAS] for back and leg) parameters preoperatively, postoperatively, and at the final follow-up.
resultsThe n-HA/PA66 and PEEK groups had similar fusion rates of bone inside and outside the cage at the final follow-up (95.3% vs 91.8%, p = 0.181, 92.4% vs 90.1%, p = 0.435). The cage union ratios exposed to the upper and lower endplates of the n-HA/PA66 group were significantly larger than those of the PEEK group (p < 0.05). The respective cage subsidence rates in the n-HA/PA66 and PEEK groups were 10.5% and 17.5% (p = 0.059). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the SA, IH, ODI scores, or VAS scores at any time point. The n-HA/PA66 group showed high fusion and low subsidence rates during long-term follow-up.
conclusionBoth n-HA/PA66 and PEEK cages can achieve satisfactory long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in TLIF. However, the n-HA/PA66 group showed significantly larger cage union ratios than the PEEK group. Therefore, the results indicated that the n-HA/PA66 cage is an ideal alternative material comparable to the PEEK cage in TLIF.
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.