↓ Skip to main content

Radiological and clinical outcomes of novel Ti/PEEK combined spinal fusion cages: a systematic review and preclinical evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Radiological and clinical outcomes of novel Ti/PEEK combined spinal fusion cages: a systematic review and preclinical evaluation
Published in
European Spine Journal, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00586-015-4353-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yusuf Assem, Ralph J. Mobbs, Matthew H. Pelletier, Kevin Phan, William R. Walsh

Abstract

The primary objective of this paper was to provide a systematic review of the available clinical studies of Ti/PEEK combined cages in spinal interbody fusion surgeries, focusing on their radiological and clinical outcomes. A secondary aim was to provide a review and evaluation of the in vitro and preclinical studies reported on Ti/PEEK-coated implants. A systematic search of the literature was performed in March 2015 via three databases: Medline, Embase and Cochrane library. The following key search terms were combined with synonyms to identify relevant articles: "spinal fusion," "PEEK," "titanium" and "cage." The novelty of this intervention translates into a paucity of clinical trials, albeit the results of the seven clinical studies that met the criteria for inclusion are promising. All studies reported rate of fusion as a primary outcome. Two studies reported slightly improved fusion in the experimental Ti/PEEK combination cohort, one study identical fusion (91.7 %) and three studies excellent fusion (96, 100 and 94 %) in the Ti/PEEK cohort, although no differences reached statistical significance. Clinical studies at this early stage demonstrate that Ti/PEEK implants are safe and efficacious, exhibiting similar fusion rates and clinical outcomes compared to the current standard PEEK. There is clinical evidence substantiating the improved radiographic fusion of Ti/PEEK, albeit the differences were not significant. This field is promising, gaining substantial popularity, and further clinical trials are needed in the future to establish Ti/PEEK cages as a mainstay of clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Other 6 11%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Engineering 10 18%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Materials Science 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 25 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,298,249
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#3,648
of 4,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,468
of 390,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#40
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,639 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.