SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2024
Clinical performance of implanted devices used in surgical treatment of patients with spinal tumors: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2024. 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.
- Applicability of RECIST1.1, MDACC and SPINO Tumor Response Criteria After Adjuvant Stereotactic Spinal Radiosurgery in Surgically Treated Spinal Metastases.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Vertebral metastatic disease: A paradigm shift.Neuro-oncology advances · 2026Review
- Graphene oxide-modified PEEK composites: Properties and applications in orthopaedic repair - A review.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2026Review
- Anterior Corpectomy and Vertebroplasty With Carbon-Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Cage for Invasive Spinal Meningioma.Cureus · 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
purposeImplanted devices used in metastatic spine tumor surgery (MSTS) include pedicle screws, fixation plates, fixation rods, and interbody devices. A material to be used to fabricate any of these devices should possess an array of properties, which include biocompatibility, no toxicity, bioactivity, low wear rate, low to moderate incidence of artifacts during imaging, tensile strength and modulus that are comparable to those of cortical bone, high fatigue strength/long fatigue life, minimal or no negative impact on radiotherapy (RT) planning and delivery, and high capability for fusion to the contiguous bone. The shortcomings of Ti6Al4V alloy for these applications with respect to these desirable properties are well recognized, opening the field for an investigation about novel biomaterials that could replace the current gold standard. Previously published reviews on this topic have exhibited significant shortcomings in the studies they included, such as a small, heterogenous sample size and the lack of a cost-benefit analysis, extremely useful to understand the practical possibility of applying a novel material on a large scale. Therefore, this review aims to collect information about the clinical performance of these biomaterials from the most recent literature, with the objective of deliberating which could potentially be better than titanium in the future, with particular attention to safety, artifact production and radiotherapy planning interference. The significant promise showed by analyzing the clinical performance of these devices warrants further research through prospective studies with a larger sample size also taking into account each aspect of the production and use of such materials.
methodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to improve the reporting of the review. The search was performed from March 2022 to September 2023.
resultsAt the end of the screening process, 20 articles were considered eligible for this study. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK), Carbon-fibre reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK), long carbon fiber reinforced polymer (LCFRP), Polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), and carbon screw and rods were used in the included studies.
conclusionCFR-PEEK displays a noninferior safety and efficacy profile to titanium implanted devices. However, it also has other advantages. By decreasing artifact production, it is able to increase detection of local tumor recurrence and decrease radiotherapy dose perturbation, ultimately bettering prognosis for patients necessitating adjuvant treatment. Nonetheless, its drawbacks have not been explored fully and still require further investigation in future studies. This does not exclude the fact that CFR-PEEK could be a valid alternative to titanium in the near future.
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.