To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

PEEK is superior to titanium cage in treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
October 2013

PEEK is superior to titanium cage in treating multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Vol: 2| Issue: 9| Number:22| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Comparison of titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages in the surgical treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a prospective, randomized, control study with over 7-year follow-up

Eur Spine J. 2013 Jul;22(7):1539-46. doi: 10.1007/s00586-013-2772-y. Epub 2013 Apr 9

Contributing Authors:
Y Chen X Wang X Lu L Yang H Yang W Yuan D Chen

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

Eighty patients with 3-level cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) underwent anterior cervical discectomy with either titanium or polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cages to compare the long term clinical and radiological outcomes of both cages. At an average follow up of 99.7 months, the PEEK group had excellent and good clinical outcomes with better Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scores and Nec...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue