ArticleCureus2025
Comparing Lumbar Spine Cages and Bone Grafts in Spinal Arthrodesis: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Comparative analysis of autograftJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2026Article
- Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Two-Stage Allograft-Augmented Fixation Versus Conventional Posterior Segmental Stabilization for Screw Loosening.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Letter to the editor concerning "ALIF vs. posterior fusion for lumbar degenerative disease: comparable efficacy but elevated risk of severe complications-a systematic review and meta-analysis" by FJ Onishi, et al. (Eur spine J [2025]; doi: 10.1007/s00586-025-08914-w).European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
aimThe role of interbody cages in lumbar arthrodesis remains debated despite widespread adoption. This meta-analysis aimed to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between synthetic cages and structural bone grafts in lumbar fusion surgery from the latest updated evidence based on subgroup-based analysis and stratification of outcomes.
methodsPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to conduct a literature search across major databases through December 2024. Studies comparing lumbar interbody fusion outcomes between cage and bone graft cohorts were included in this analysis. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for fusion rates, radiographic parameters, clinical outcomes, and complications. Subgroup analyses stratified results by surgical approach, cage material, and graft type.
resultsTwenty studies (1,452 patients) met inclusion criteria. Cage utilization demonstrated significantly higher fusion rates (96.3% versus 90.8%, RR=2.74, p=0.03) and greater disc height maintenance (MD=0.73 mm, 95% CI=0.45-1.01). Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages showed superior fusion rates compared to titanium (RR=1.00 versus 0.94, p=0.042). Back pain improvement was greater in the cage group (MD=0.65, 95% CI=0.08-1.22), while complication and reoperation rates remained comparable. No significant differences were observed in lordosis restoration or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores.
conclusionsSynthetic cage implementation in lumbar arthrodesis is associated with superior fusion rates and disc height maintenance, especially with PEEK devices. These benefits occur without increased complications, supporting cage utilization in appropriate clinical scenarios. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness analyses.
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.