ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2025
Section on innovative spine research and novel technologies: fusion cage design, materials, and coatings: Science versus hype.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 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.
- Three-Dimensional Printing of a Spinal Interbody: Design Principles, Biomaterials, and Translational Considerations.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- A Review of Synthetic Bone Grafts in Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Background: Interbody fusion has been performed for many decades with evolving strategies and approaches to improve safety, fusion rates, and clinical outcomes. There have been ongoing advancements in the understanding of spinal biomechanics driving improved implant designs. The advent of 3D printing has allowed new concepts of cage designs to become a reality. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an overview of current and developing technologies in the area of fusion cage design as well as concerns of the impact of marketing versus science in this area. Methods: A literature search was conducted on PubMed and OVID to identify articles related to interbody fusion cage design. The focus of the review was on current and future interbody fusion cage design. Results: The area of fusion cage design has been rapidly growing. The greatest advancements have been in the area of additive manufacturing which has allowed for much more intricate implant design. Significant advancements have also been made in improving the surfaces of implants to promote osseointegration. Advancements in materials, manufacturing, and sensor technologies are paving the way for developing intelligent interbody fusion cages capable of monitoring fusion progression and potentially stimulating bone growth. Conclusion: There have been many exciting developments in the area of fusion cages, primarily related to materials, design, and surface topology, much of which have been driven by the advent of 3D printing. While many of these technologies may hold promise, there is relatively little data for the particular purported benefits of these implants. Much work is needed to understand the mechanobiological function of these devices, their clinical outcomes, indications, and cost-effectiveness.
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.