Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37401063›Full record

ArticleNeurospine2023

Three-Dimensional-Printed Titanium Versus Polyetheretherketone Cages for Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Systematic Review of Comparative In Vitro, Animal, and Human Studies.

Neal A. Patel, Sinead O’Bryant, Christopher D. Rogers, Candler K. Boyett, Sachiv Chakravarti, Julian Gendreau, Nolan J. Brown, Zach A. Pennington, Neill B. Hatcher, Cathleen Kuo and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurospine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Neal A. PatelSchool of Medicine, Mercer University, Columbus, GA, USA
Sinead O’BryantSchool of Medicine, Mercer University, Savannah, GA, USA
Christopher D. RogersSchool of Medicine, Mercer University, Columbus, GA, USA
Candler K. BoyettSchool of Medicine, Mercer University, Savannah, GA, USA
Sachiv ChakravartiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, Baltimore, MD, USA
Julian GendreauDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering, Baltimore, MD, USA
Nolan J. BrownDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California Irvine, Orange, CA, USA
Zach A. PenningtonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MI, USA
Neill B. HatcherSchool of Medicine, Mercer University, Columbus, GA, USA
Cathleen KuoDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
Luis Daniel Diaz-AguilarDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
Martin H. PhamDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
Mercer University · USJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of California San Diego · USMayo Clinic in Florida · USUniversity at Buffalo, State University of New York · USUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Interbody fusion is a workhorse technique in lumbar spine surgery that facilities indirect decompression, sagittal plane realignment, and successful bony fusion. The 2 most commonly employed cage materials are titanium (Ti) alloy and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). While Ti alloy implants have superior osteoinductive properties they more poorly match the biomechanical properties of cancellous bones. Newly developed 3-dimensional (3D)-printed porous titanium (3D-pTi) address this disadvantage and are proposed as a new standard for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) devices. In the present study, the literature directly comparing 3D-pTi and PEEK interbody devices is systematically reviewed with a focus on fusion outcomes and subsidence rates reported in the in vitro, animal, and human literature. A systematic review directly comparing outcomes of PEEK and 3D-pTi interbody spinal cages was performed. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Mean Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score for cohort studies was 6.4. A total of 7 eligible studies were included, comprising a combination of clinical series, ovine animal data, and in vitro biomechanical studies. There was a total population of 299 human and 59 ovine subjects, with 134 human (44.8%) and 38 (64.4%) ovine models implanted with 3D-pTi cages. Of the 7 studies, 6 reported overall outcomes in favor of 3D-pTi compared to PEEK, including subsidence and osseointegration, while 1 study reported neutral outcomes for device related revision and reoperation rate. Though limited data are available, the current literature supports 3D-pTi interbodies as offering superior fusion outcomes relative to PEEK interbodies for LIF without increasing subsidence or reoperation risk. Histologic evidence suggests 3D-Ti to have superior osteoinductive properties that may underlie these superior outcomes, but additional clinical investigation is merited.

Indexed as

Interbody implantLumbar fusionPolyetherether ketonePrinted titaniumSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37401063
PMCPMC10323354
OpenAlexW4382601403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.