Skip to main content


Table 2 The likelihood of achieving complete radiographic fusion, depending on the type of cervical implant: PEEK partially coated with Ti (cases) vs. uncoated PEEK (controls)

From: Does partial coating with titanium improve the radiographic fusion rate of empty PEEK cages in cervical spine surgery? A comparative analysis of clinical data

  6 months 12 months 18 months
Fused in both patients of the matched pair (n) 14 28 33
Fused in neither patient of the matched pair (n) 17 6 4
Fused only in the case of the matched pair (n) 13 9 6
Fused only in the control of the matched pair (n) 5 6 6
Odds Ratio 2.6 1.5 1.0
95% CI of the OR 0.97 – 7.00 0.56 – 4.04 0.34 – 2.94
p-value 0.064 0.454 >0.999
  1. Note that the numbers (n) reported in the first four rows of the table are the number of pairs of matched patients (case + control), not of individual patients. Note also that the first two rows of the table, reporting concordant fusion status results in both patients of the matched pair, although perhaps clinically interesting, have little to no statistical relevance for comparing the two study groups. What is important instead, are the third and fourth rows, reporting discordant results of the fusion status, and the subsequent rows of statistical calculations