SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024
3D-printed porous titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of subsidence.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stand-alone versus supplemented ALIF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of pseudarthrosis and reoperation rates.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Early mechanical outcomes of two expandable interbody cages in minimally invasive TLIF: a comparative single-surgeon study.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Porous Ti-6Al-4V Architectures in Load-Bearing Orthopedic Reconstruction: A Critical Narrative Review of the Translational Gap Across Microstructure, Fatigue, Surface Function, and Clinical Failure Modes.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Two-Stage Allograft-Augmented Fixation Versus Conventional Posterior Segmental Stabilization for Screw Loosening.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing of a Spinal Interbody: Design Principles, Biomaterials, and Translational Considerations.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Preoperative imaging predictors of subsidence of 3D-printed artificial cervical vertebral bodies: a cohort study of 102 patients with nomogram development and validation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Effects of Cage Position in Full-endoscopic Trans-Kambin's Triangle Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Finite Element Analysis.Neurologia medico-chirurgica · 2025Article
- Advancements in biomaterials and bioactive solutions for lumbar spine fusion cages: Current trends and future perspectives.Bioactive materials · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cage subsidence frequently complicates lumbar fusion procedures, including lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF), potentially leading to recurrent pain, impaired fusion, and accelerated degeneration of adjacent segments. A critical factor influencing cage subsidence is the selection of material. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and three-dimensional printed titanium (3D-Ti) cages are commonly used in LLIF procedures, each offering distinct advantages. However, these materials possess inherent property differences that may translate into divergent settling rates. To contribute to this discourse and offer insights, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the rates of cage subsidence between 3D-Ti and PEEK cages in LLIF. Methods: A meticulous systematic search that employs distinct MeSH terms was conducted in major electronic databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane) up to December 20, 2023. The quality of inclusion was measured using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized trials. The primary outcome measure was cage subsidence, while the secondary outcome involved evaluating subsidence within each treatment segment using the Marchi classification. Results: The review included 265 patients (441 segments) from three studies. All with NOS ratings exceeding 5 stars. In the analysis, 189 segments (42.9%) underwent LLIF with 3D-Ti cages, while 252 segments (57.1%) participated in LLIF with PEEK cages. Overall, the cage subsidence rate was significantly lower with 3D-Ti compared to PEEK ( Conclusion: The study concludes that the subsidence rate associated with 3D-Ti cages in LLIF is notably lower than that observed with PEEK cages, underscoring the potential advantages of 3D-Ti cages in mitigating cage subsidence.
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.