ArticleCureus2025
Verification of the Cage Stability and the Superiority of Titanium Coating in the Bone Fusion of Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Using Polyetheretherketone Cages.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Titanium-coated PEEK versus 3D-printed porous titanium cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion: A meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Optimal cage biomaterials for fusion and subsidence outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion: a network meta-analysis of 4881 patients.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 · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to compare the fusion rate of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium-coated PEEK (Ti-PEEK) cages in transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). Methods The patient groups that underwent TLIF using PEEK and Ti-PEEK cages were identified and matched for age, sex, and whether the lumbar spine surgery was performed more than once using propensity scores. The rate of three-month postoperative vertebral endplate cyst sign (VECS), which was reported as a predictor of pseudoarthrosis at one year postoperatively, and the one-year and two-year postoperative fusions between the two groups were statistically compared. Results There were 34 patients (12 men and 22 women) in the PEEK group with a mean age of 69.8 ± 8.2 years and 36 intervertebral discs; there were 30 patients (11 men and 19 women) in the Ti-PEEK group with a mean age of 70.3 ± 9.6 years and 36 intervertebral discs. The operated levels were two discs (5.6%) in L2/3, four (11.1%) in L3/4, 21 (58.3%) in L4/5, and nine (25.0%) in L5/S in the PEEK group and were one (2.8%) in L3/4, 24 (66.7%) in L4/5, and 11 (30.6%) in L5/S in the Ti-PEEK group (P = 0.31). The frequencies of positive VECS at three months postoperatively were four discs (11.1%) in the PEEK group and five (13.9%) in the Ti-PEEK group, with no significant difference (P = 0.72). Bone fusion rates at one year and two years postoperatively were 26 (72.2%) and 28 (77.8%), respectively, in the PEEK group, and 28 (77.8%) and 32 (88.9%), respectively, in the Ti-PEEK group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.59 at one year and P = 0.21 at two years). Among the five cases of positive VECS in the Ti-PEEK group, two cases (40%) had bone fusion at one year postoperatively around the cage but not through the cage. Conclusion There was no significant difference in the rate of bone fusion or VECS after TLIF between the PEEK and Ti-PEEK groups. Positive VECS is more appropriate for a finding of no bone fusion through the cage at one year postoperatively than for a finding that predicts pseudoarthrosis.
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.