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

Glass Ceramic Spacer Increase Fusion Areas Long-Term Compared to Titanium During PLIF Surgery

Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
October 2020

Glass Ceramic Spacer Increase Fusion Areas Long-Term Compared to Titanium During PLIF Surgery

Vol: 9| Issue: 10| Number:19| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

A Long-Term Follow-up, Multicenter, Comparative Study of the Radiologic, and Clinical Results Between a CaO-SiO2-P2O5-B2O3 Bioactive Glass Ceramics (BGS-7) Intervertebral Spacer and Titanium Cage in 1-Level Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

Clin Spine Surg. 2020 Aug;33(7):E322-E329

Contributing Authors:
JH Lee SK Kim SS Kang SJ Han CK Lee BS Chang

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

Synopsis

Sixty patients undergoing 1-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) were randomized to receive a CaO-SiO2-P2O5-B2O3 glass ceramic (BGS-7) intervertebral spacer or a titanium cage filled with autologous local bone. This study used patients from a previous study. The primary outcome of interest included the bone fusion rate by 3D computed tomography (CT). Additional outcomes of interest inclu...

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