↓ Skip to main content

Clinical and biomechanical researches of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods for semi-rigid lumbar fusion: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Neurosurgical Review, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 634)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical and biomechanical researches of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods for semi-rigid lumbar fusion: a systematic review
Published in
Neurosurgical Review, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10143-016-0763-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chan Li, Lei Liu, Jian-Yong Shi, Kai-Zhong Yan, Wei-Zhong Shen, Zhen-Rong Yang

Abstract

Lumbar spinal fusion using rigid rods is a common surgical technique. However, adjacent segment disease and other adverse effects can occur. Dynamic stabilization devices preserve physiologic motion and reduce painful stress but have a high rate of construct failure and reoperation. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) rods for semi-rigid fusions have a similar stiffness and adequate stabilization power compared with titanium rods, but with improved load sharing and reduced mechanical failure. The purpose of this paper is to review and evaluate the clinical and biomechanical performance of PEEK rods. A systematic review of clinical and biomechanical studies was conducted. A literature search using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases identified studies that met the eligibility criteria. Eight clinical studies and 15 biomechanical studies were included in this systematic review. The visual analog scale and the Oswestry disability index improved significantly in most studies, with satisfactory fusion rates. The occurrence of adjacent segment disease was low. In biomechanical studies, PEEK rods demonstrated a superior load-sharing distribution, a larger adjacent segment range of motion, and reduced stress at the rod-screw/screw-bone interfaces compared with titanium rods. The PEEK rod construct was simple to assemble and had a reliable in vivo performance compared with dynamic devices. The quality of clinical studies was low with confounding results, although results from mechanical studies were encouraging. There is no evidence strong enough to confirm better outcomes with PEEK rods than titanium rods. More studies with better protocols, a larger sample size, and a longer follow-up time are needed.

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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Other 8 14%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 5%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 23 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 24%
Engineering 10 17%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Chemistry 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 27 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 April 2021.
All research outputs
#3,235,947
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Neurosurgical Review
#20
of 634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,524
of 355,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurosurgical Review
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 634 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 355,660 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.