ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
The improved bioactive n-HA/PA66 cage versus the PEEK cage in anterior cervical fusion: results from a 6-year follow-up and a case-matched study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Risk factors for cage subsidence in patients undergoing cervical fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe nanohydroxyapatite/polyamide 66 (n-HA/PA66) cage, a bioactive nonmetal cage, is fabricated in a hollow cylindrical shape and has been widely used for decades with good clinical outcomes for anterior cervical fusion. However, there remain some radiological complications, such as a slightly high subsidence rate. To improve the clinical outcomes, the improved n-HA/PA66 cage now has been developed into a trapezoidal and wedge shape, a better biomechanical shape matching the cervical spine that is similar to that of the PEEK cage. However, there have been no long-term comparisons of the improved n-HA/PA66 cage and PEEK cage in anterior cervical reconstruction.
methodsFifty-eight patients who underwent single-level anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) with the improved n-HA/PA66 cage (n-HA/PA66 group) were matched with patients with the PEEK cage (PEEK group) by clinical presentation, segment, age and sex. All patients underwent a minimum of 6 years of follow-up. The radiographic parameters (cage subsidence, fusion status, cervical lordosis, and segmental sagittal alignment) and clinical parameters (10-point visual analogue scale, Neck Disability Index and Japanese Orthopedic Association scores) from patients were evaluated before surgery, immediately after surgery, and at the latest follow-up.
resultsThe n-HA/PA66 and PEEK groups were well matched in terms of clinical presentation, segment, age, and sex at surgery. The n-HA/PA66 and PEEK cages had similar fusion rates at 6 months postoperatively (n-HA/PA66: 58.6% vs. PEEK: 51.7%, P = 0.455) and at the last follow-up (n-HA/PA66: 96.6% vs. PEEK: 93.1%, P = 0.402). The respective cage subsidence rates in the n-HA/PA66 and PEEK groups were 6.9 and 12.1% (P = 0.342). The correction of SA was similar between the groups at the final follow-up (n-HA/PA66: 4.29 ± 1.99 vs. PEEK: 3.99 ± 2.59 P = 0.464). There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean cervical lordosis, visual analogue scale scores of the neck and arm, NDI scores, JOA scores or patients' overall satisfaction at the final follow-up.
conclusionAfter single-level ACDF, the improved n-HA/PA66 cage had similar excellent results in both radiological and clinical outcomes compared with the PEEK cage over 6 years of follow-up. According to these results, the improved n-HA/PA66 cage and the PEEK cage could be comparable for ACDF.
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.