SynthesisJournal of neuro-oncology2026
Carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone implants versus titanium implants for spinal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of neuro-oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn the surgical treatment of spinal tumors, titanium has conventionally been the implant material of choice. However, they cause significant imaging artifacts, affecting radiotherapy planning and tumor surveillance. Carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone (CFR-PEEK) implants minimize imaging artifacts, improve radiotherapy dosing, and reduce radiation scattering. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the complications, outcomes, and impact on radiotherapy after surgical fixation with CFR-PEEK implants for spinal tumors, with comparison to titanium implants.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched to March 2025. Primary outcomes were hardware failure, deep surgical infection, and reoperation for hardware-related complications or deep surgical infection. Secondary outcomes were local recurrence, mortality, length of hospital stay, and artifact volume.
results32 studies were included, of which five were included in the comparative meta-analysis. Compared to the titanium group, the CFR-PEEK group had similar rates of hardware failure (OR = 1.73 [0.40–7.60], p = 0.47) and deep surgical infection (OR = 1.62 [0.49–5.38], p = 0.43). Local recurrence (OR = 0.58 [0.29–1.18], p = 0.13) and mortality rates (OR = 0.52 [0.25–1.09], p = 0.08) were non-significantly lower in the CFR-PEEK group. Length of stay (MD = −3.15 [−9.65, −3.34], p = 0.34) was comparable. CFR-PEEK implants generated significantly lower volume of imaging artifacts compared to titanium implants (SMD = −1.36 [−1.83, −0.90], p < 0.001).
conclusionWhilst demonstrating non-inferiority in the rates of implant-related complications compared to titanium implants, CFR-PEEK implants significantly reduce artifact generation and may lead to lower recurrence and mortality due to improved radiotherapy planning and delivery. Prospective and randomized trials will further establish the evidence for CFR-PEEK implants in spine tumor surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41609930What 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.