Radiological and clinical outcomes after cervical spine cage implantation: comparison of uncoated and unfilled PEEK cages vs. titanium-coated and filled PEEK cages.

Status

Recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Observational

Source

DRKS

Registry ID

DRKS00024569

Enrollment

150

Registered

2021-03-02

Start date

2020-07-26

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2025-04-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Osteochondrosis of the spine in adults : Cervical region Spinal (canal) stenosis : Cervical region

Interventions

Group 1: Patients who were surgically fitted with an uncoated and unfilled PEEK cage due to degenerative changes in the spine are asked to complete one-time postal questionnaires. These include questi

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Age

18 Years to No maximum

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: - all patients who have been treated at Annastift Hannover by Prof. Daentzer since 01.01.2005 by means of implantation of a PEEK cage or titanium-coated and filled PEEK cages with corresponding indication - Patients with a fusion at several heights

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: - Application of an additional plate at the same cervical height for further stabilization.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
Acquisition of radiological results regarding the bony consolidation of cervical spine cages in the postoperative course.	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Recording of possible postoperative complications and further operative revisions	—

Countries

Germany

Contacts

Public ContactYvonne Noll

Orthopädische Klinik der Medizinischen Hochschule Hannover im Diakovere Annastift, Leitung Klinisches Studienmanagement

yvonne.noll@diakovere.de0511-5354-649

Outcome results

None listed

Source: DRKS (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026