ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Three dimensional printed patient-specific PEEK versus titanium mesh cage for anterior column reconstruction after spondylectomy for spinal tumours: a prospective controlled cohort study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe objective of this study was to compare implant subsidence at 12 months following vertebral body replacement (VBR) with 3D-printed patient-specific polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implants versus off-the-shelf titanium mesh cages after spondylectomy for spinal tumours.
methodsProspective non-randomized controlled cohort study. Adult patients with thoracic or lumbar spine tumours requiring VBR were enrolled between April 2022 and February 2025. Patients received either fused filament fabrication PEEK implants (n = 30) or titanium mesh cages (n = 30), with group allocation determined by manufacturing queue availability. The primary endpoint was subsidence exceeding 3 mm at 12 months. Secondary endpoints included osseous integration, segmental height, quality of life (SOSGOQ2.0), neurological status, and complications.
resultsFifty-three patients completed follow-up (PEEK n = 27, Ti Mesh n = 26). Subsidence occurred in one of 27 PEEK patients (3.7%) versus 11 of 26 Ti Mesh patients (42.3%; absolute risk difference - 38.6%, 95% CI - 58.9 to - 18.3; p < 0.001). Endplate mismatch > 10° was absent in the PEEK group versus 46% in the Ti Mesh group (p < 0.001). Brantigan-Steffee grade 4-5 at 12 months was achieved in 96% versus 73% (p = 0.16). SOSGOQ2.0 total scores were higher in the PEEK group at three and six months (p = 0.006 and p = 0.014), with differences non-significant by 12 months. Neurological outcomes and perioperative complication rates were comparable.
conclusion3D-printed patient-specific PEEK VBR achieved significantly lower subsidence rates than titanium mesh cages at 12 months with comparable safety and neurological outcomes. These findings support its use as a technically feasible option in anterior column reconstruction after spondylectomy for spinal tumours. REGISTRY: MinZdrav.gov.ru, TRN: 2023/17-1, Registration date: 28 February 2023.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42687037What 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.