ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2023
Titanium‑coated polyetheretherketone cages vs. polyetheretherketone cages in lumbar interbody fusion: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Three-Dimensional Printing of a Spinal Interbody: Design Principles, Biomaterials, and Translational Considerations.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Radiographic and Clinical Comparison of Polyetheretherketone Versus 3D-Printed Titanium Cages in Lumbar Interbody Fusion-A Single Institution's Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of biological performance of 3D printed trabecular porous tantalum spine fusion cage in large animal models.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2025Article
- Innovative Developments in Lumbar Interbody Cage Materials and Design: A Comprehensive Narrative Review.Asian spine journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fusion material is one of the key factors in the success of lumbar interbody fusion surgery. The present meta-analysis compared the safety and efficacy of titanium-coated (Ti) polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and PEEK cages. Published literature on the use of Ti-PEEK and PEEK cages in lumbar interbody fusion was systematically searched on Embase, PubMed, Central, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang databases. A total of 84 studies were retrieved and seven were included in the present meta-analysis. Literature quality was assessed using the Cochrane systematic review methodology. After data extraction, meta-analysis was performed using the ReviewManager 5.4 software. Meta-analysis showed that, compared with that in the PEEK cage group, the Ti-PEEK cage group showed a higher interbody fusion rate at 6 months postoperatively (95% CI, 1.09-5.60; P=0.03) and improved Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at 3 months postoperatively [95% CI, -7.80-(-0.62); P=0.02] and visual analog scale (VAS) scores of back pain at 6 months postoperatively [95% CI, -0.8-(-0.23); P=0.0008]. However, there were no significant differences in intervertebral bone fusion rate (12 months after surgery), cage subsidence rate, ODI score (6 and 12 months after surgery) or VAS score (3 and 12 months after surgery) between the two groups. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the Ti-PEEK group had an improved interbody fusion rate and higher postoperative ODI score in the early postoperative period (≤6 months).
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.