ArticleCureus2026
Expandable Cage Versus Mesh Cage for the Treatment of Vertebral Osteomyelitis.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Consensus regarding the optimal method for anterior column reconstruction in vertebral osteomyelitis has not been established. Direct comparisons between mesh and expandable cages have not been reported. This study aimed to evaluate differences in clinical outcomes, including revision rates, recurrence rates, complications, and costs, between these two reconstruction methods, as well as to identify independent risk factors for treatment failure in patients undergoing anterior column reconstruction with metal implants. Methods Clinical records of consecutive patients who underwent surgical intervention for vertebral osteomyelitis at a single institution between 2012 and April 2024 were reviewed. Patients who underwent anterior column debridement with either a mesh or an expandable cage, along with posterior fusion involving four or more levels, were included. Clinical outcomes, including nonunion, revisions, recurrence, and costs, were compared between the mesh and expandable cage groups. Results Ninety-two patients were included: 20 (22%) in the expandable cage group and 72 (78%) in the mesh cage group. The expandable cage group had a significantly higher nonunion rate (35% vs. 9.7%, p = 0.014) and revision rate (30% vs. 9.7%, p = 0.032). Costs were also higher in the expandable cage group, with a significant difference in in-hospital costs (Expandable: $77,737 ± 34,586; Mesh: $63,250 ± 27,899; p = 0.028). Multivariable analysis identified the number of fused levels (OR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.05-1.71; p = 0.024) and the use of an expandable cage (OR = 3.27, 95% CI: 1.04-11.02; p = 0.046) as independent risk factors for treatment failure, defined as revision surgery, recurrence, or mortality. Conclusions This study is the first to compare outcomes between expandable cages and mesh cages in patients with vertebral osteomyelitis. The findings suggest that the use of an expandable cage for reconstruction after anterior column debridement is associated with higher costs and increased risks of nonunion and revision surgery compared with mesh cages. Additionally, the use of an expandable cage was identified as an independent risk factor for treatment failure in vertebral osteomyelitis.
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.