ArticleNeurospine2024
Effect of Cage Material and Size on Fusion Rate and Subsidence Following Biportal Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion.
Article in Neurospine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparing the predictive value of CT-derived hounsfield units and MRI-derived bone quality scores for cage subsidence following spinal fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Pooled it
- Are Ceramic Cages an Option for Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Comparative Biomechanical Numerical Study.JOR spine · 2026Article
- Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Double-Cage Full Endoscopic Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Compared with Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion : A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2026Article
- Titanium-coated PEEK versus 3D-printed porous titanium cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Biomechanical advances in oblique lateral lumbar interbody fusion using different interbody cages.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Review
- Impact of endplate-graft geometric matching on cage subsidence following stand-alone lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a finite element analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Clinical and radiologic outcomes of expandable versus static cages in biportal endoscopic TLIF: focus on endplate injury and subsidence.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- A Review of Synthetic Bone Grafts in Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advancements in unilateral biportal endoscopic lumbar interbody fusion: a narrative review.European journal of medical research · 2026Review
- Clinical outcomes and radiologic parameters of percutaneous endoscopic posterior/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion using rammed-earth technique.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Personalized and precise prediction of cage width and implantation angle in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: an image analysis of combined application of CT and Surgimap.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Development and internal validation of a risk score for subsidence of expandable spacers in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) surgery.Brain & spine · 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
objectiveBiportal endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (BE-TLIF) is an emerging, minimally invasive technique performed under biportal endoscopic guidance. However, concerns regarding cage subsidence and sufficient fusion during BE-TLIF necessitate careful selection of an appropriate interbody cage to improve surgical outcomes. This study compared the fusion rate, subsidence, and other radiographic parameters according to the material and size of the cages used in BE-TLIF.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, patients who underwent single-segment BE-TLIF between April 2019 and February 2023 were divided into 3 groups: group A, regular-sized three-dimensionally (3D)-printed titanium cages; group B, regular-sized polyetheretherketone cages; and group C, large-sized 3D-printed titanium cages. Radiographic parameters, including lumbar lordosis, segmental lordosis, anterior and posterior disc heights, disc angle, and foraminal height, were measured before and after surgery. The fusion rate and severity of cage subsidence were compared between the groups.
resultsNo significant differences were noted in the demographic data or radiographic parameters between the groups. The fusion rate on 1-year postoperative computed tomography was comparable between the groups. The cage subsidence rate was significantly lower in group C than in group A (41.9% vs. 16.7%, p=0.044). The severity of cage subsidence was significantly lower in group C (0.93±0.83) than in groups A (2.20±1.84, p=0.004) and B (1.79±1.47, p=0.048).
conclusionCage materials did not affect the 1-year postoperative outcomes of BE-TLIF; however, subsidence was markedly reduced in large cages. Larger cages may provide more stable postoperative segments.
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.