ReviewSurgical neurology international2022
Review of anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) using different polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages.
Review in Surgical neurology international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomechanical analysis of a newly designed and 3D printed plate-locking interbody cage: an observational study of finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Multiple anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) techniques now use a variety of Polyehteretherketone (PEEK) cages; stand-alone (SA) and zero-profile (ZP) with/without screws, cages filled with demineralized bone matrix/autograft, and cages coated with hydroxyapatite or titanium. We compared the safety/ efficacy between different PEEK ACDF cage constructs in 17 studies, and in some cases, additionally contrasted results with "routine" ACDF (i.e. series/historical data performed with combinations of iliac autograft/allograft and plates). Methods: We focused on the clinical outcomes, fusion rates, postoperative radiographic changes/lordosis/ subsidence, and/or reoperation rates for various PEEK ACDF constructs vs. "routine" ACDF. Results: One to 3 and 4-level PEEK ACDF cages demonstrated high fusion rates, few cage failures, and low reoperation rates. Subsidence for PEEK ACDF cages did not reduce fusion rates or diminish the quality of postoperative outcomes. Further, titanium-coated (T-C) PEEK cages lowered fusion rates in one study (i.e. 44.1% fusions vs. 88.2% for routine PEEK ACDF) while ACDF PEEK cages coated with hydroxyapatite (HA) showed only a "trend" toward enhanced arthrodesis. Conclusion: One to 3-4 multilevel ACDF PEEK cage constructs demonstrated comparable safety/efficacy when compared with each other, or in select cases, with "routine" ACDF (i.e. using autograft/allograft and plates).
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.