ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Preclinical evaluation of a 3D-printed porous stand-alone interbody cage for cervical fusion in a sheep model.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the bone ingrowth and in vivo safety of a novel designed 3D-printed porous stand-alone cage (PSAC) for Cervical Fusion in a Sheep Model.
methodsPASC was designed and fabricated by 3D-printing technology. We implanted the PSAC at the C2/C3 level and control cages at the C3/C4 level in 18 sheep. After 4, 12, and 24 weeks, X-ray was used to assess DSH, Micro-CT to evaluate bone volume fraction (BV/TV), biomechanical testing to determine bone-implant interface strength, and toluidine blue staining to assess bone ingrowth depth and new bone formation. Sheep health, blood markers, vital organ pathology and local tissue reaction (HE staining) were monitored to evaluate its safety.
results(1) X-ray results showed that both cages maintained stable DSH. (2) Micro-CT revealed greater bone volume within the porous structure of the PSAC group compared to the control group (BV1/TV1(%): 50.37 ± 4.79 vs. 43.98 ± 6.27, p = 0.076). (3) In terms of bone ingrowth, toluidine blue staining showed that new bone formation in the PSAC group was higher to the control at 4 and 12 weeks (1.64 ± 0.85 mm² vs. 2.86 ± 1.81 mm², p = 0.35) and was not inferior at 24 weeks. The bone ingrowth depth was consistent between the PSAC and control groups (24 weeks: 1116.28 ± 152.28 μm vs. 1161.36 ± 368.45 μm, p = 0.85). (4) The bone-implant interface strength of the PSAC was not inferior to the control group (24 weeks: maximum failure load 309.65 ± 47.13 vs. 302.93 ± 43.33 N, p = 0.88; failure displacement 2.20 ± 0.30 mm vs. 2.05 ± 0.40 mm, p = 0.70). (5) Safety: Blood tests and HE staining showed no significant toxic or inflammatory pathological changes. All animals remained in good health, with no infections or deaths.
conclusionOur findings suggest that the intervertebral PSAC are safe and effective for cervical fixation, showing no adverse effects on the cervical spine or animal bodies, and demonstrating equivalent fixation and healing capabilities compared to control devices.
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.