ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2024
Titanium-Coated Polyetheretherketone Cages Vs Full Titanium Cages for Stand-Alone 1- or 2-Level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Comparative Study.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk of subsidence following ACDF with the coalition™ (Globus Medical) cage: a multivariable analysis identifying preoperative radiculopathy as the primary risk factor.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Article
- Radiological Factors Affecting Cage Subsidence after Single-level Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with Double Titanium Cylindrical Cages.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2026Article
- Expandable titanium interbody cage with adjustable height and lordosis for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a clinical and radiological study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for the surgical treatment of cervical degenerative disease often includes an intervertebral cage, which restores disc height and lordosis while promoting fusion . Cage materials include titanium (TTN) or polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Controversy in material selection stems from higher fusion rates with TNN, despite a higher subsidence rate, while PEEK cages demonstrate superior preservation of interspace height. Combining the advantages of both materials, TTN-coated PEEK (TCPEEK) cages were developed, featuring a PEEK core with similar stiffness to the bone, enveloped with a TTN coat, improving osteointegration. However, the potential superiority of TCPEEK over TTN cages has not been investigated. This study aimed to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes following single- or double-level ACDF using either TTN or TCPEEK cages.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included patients undergoing single- or double-level ACDF between 2017 and 2019. Clinical outcomes included the Neck Disability Index and revision surgery incidence. Radiographic parameters included cervical and segmental lordosis, C2 to C7 sagittal vertical axis, fusion, subsidence, and adjacent segment degeneration at a minimum 12-month follow-up.
resultsA total of 45 patients (16 TTN; 29 TCPEEK) and 58 cervical levels (21 TTN; 37 TCPEEK) were included. Both cages significantly improved Neck Disability Index scores (TTN -10.0; TCPEEK -14.1) without significant differences. Two single-level TCPEEK patients required revision surgery due to non-union. In the radiological assessments, no significant difference was found for subsidence rates (TTN 52.4%; TCPEEK 56.8%), adjacent segment degeneration, cervical and segmental lordosis, and changes in C2 to C7 sagittal vertical axis. Though not statistically significant, fusion rates trended slightly higher with TTN (90.5%) vs TCPEEK cages (86.5%).
conclusionTTN and TCPEEK cages achieve satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes in single- or double-level ACDF. This finding suggests that the choice between them can be based on other factors, such as surgeon preference or availability, rather than specific material properties. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study found that the selection of ACDF cage material did not affect clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3:
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.